For all the X-Plane 10 lovers

[Mike T 208]

Yes, there can be a score, because one product can already be evaluated on its actual merits, while the other exists only in your mind and your expectations of what it *should* be.I don't know about your real-world flying, but personally I'm not flying VFR down the Las Vegas strip, or buzzing the Empire State Building. I'm flying in a suburban area with mostly countryside and non-descript towns below me. If I want to go sightseeing, I take a bus. If I want the sensation of flight, I go with the product that delivers that experience.Again, what's most important to you is not what's important to everyone else.

Right. I guess the FAA disagrees with your synopsis of what flight is. Go into your flight bag and pull out your sectional chart. Notice that the FAA bothered to put in the shapes of towns on the chart for navigational reference? I assume that your flight instructor has pointed at something outside the aircraft and asked you to find yourself on the sectional? Flying is NOT just about accurate aircraft modeling. And you as a pre-solo pilot would have your head out of the window so it may not matter to you if what is see in XP10 simulates the real world or not and that's fine. But then that cripples the simulation now doesn't it? No it doesn't you say? Okay, fire up XP10 and do a VFR flight from Linden airport, NJ, fly up the Hudson river and turn west, 5 miles north of the George Washington Bridge then proceed 10 miles west of the river where you'll practice lazy 8's and head back to Linden airport the way you came. You can't. SO it's hard to argue that the purposefully built in lack of accurate scenery is unimportant when indeed it does hand in hand with flight modeling.But yep, to each his own. It's all good.

[greengriffon 51]

Right. I guess the FAA disagrees with your synopsis of what flight is. Go into your flight bag and pull out your sectional chart. Notice that the FAA bothered to put in the shapes of towns on the chart for navigational reference? I assume that your flight instructor has pointed at something outside the aircraft and asked you to find yourself on the sectional? Flying is NOT just about accurate aircraft modeling. And you as a pre-solo pilot would have your head out of the window so it may not matter to you if what is see in XP10 simulates the real world or not and that's fine. But then that cripples the simulation now doesn't it? No it doesn't you say? Okay, fire up XP10 and do a VFR flight from Linden airport, NJ, fly up the Hudson river and turn west, 5 miles north of the George Washington Bridge then proceed 10 miles west of the river where you'll practice lazy 8's and head back to Linden airport the way you came. You can't. SO it's hard to argue that the purposefully built in lack of accurate scenery is unimportant when indeed it does hand in hand with flight modeling.But yep, to each his own. It's all good.

Now you're talking about navigational fidelity, another point I never disputed, nor even mentioned. Better yet, you even managed to do it with a condescending, arrogant tone.You know what's also important to real world flying? Being able to read information that people write, and attention to detail.

[Tierborn 188]

Uhhh, where have you been all week? XP10 is out, and many of us already have it in our grubby little hands.

Again,... no payware yet

[GoranM 3,771]

Again,... no payware yet

CRJ-200Beech DuchessCarenado F33so far, from what I have seen.

[greengriffon 51]

Again,... no payware yet

Are you referring to A: payware addons, or B: the payware XP10 product?If A: then correct, no post-release addons as far as I know, but you can use version 9.xx products from what I've heard.If B:, then YES, I repeat, the full version of XP10 is available and has already arrived for many people.

[bonchie 2,305]

Are you referring to A: payware addons, or B: the payware XP10 product?If A: then correct, no post-release addons as far as I know, but you can use version 9.xx products from what I've heard.If B:, then YES, I repeat, the full version of XP10 is available and has already arrived for many people.

He's referring to the fact that default XP10 FM's are garbage and are admitted as such by even the most hardcore supporters. So he's saying how can you know if the FM is great if there aren't aircraft to take advantage of it yet on the payware market.In that sense, he's wrong because there are some payware aircraft for XP10 out that make use of the FM well.

[greengriffon 51]

He's referring to the fact that default XP10 FM's are garbage and are admitted as such by even the most hardcore supporters.So he's saying how can you know if the FM is great if there aren't aircraft to take advantage of it yet on the payware market.In that sense, he's wrong because there are some payware aircraft for XP10 out that make use of the FM well.

That's what I thought. The Carenado F33 flies beautifully, from what I've heard from several people. I don't own it, so I can't personally say for sure.

[rodger 0]

Yes, there can be a score, because one product can already be evaluated on its actual merits, while the other exists only in your mind and your expectations of what it *should* be.I don't know about your real-world flying, but personally I'm not flying VFR down the Las Vegas strip, or buzzing the Empire State Building. I'm flying in a suburban area with mostly countryside and non-descript towns below me. If I want to go sightseeing, I take a bus. If I want the sensation of flight, I go with the product that delivers that experience.Again, what's most important to you is not what's important to everyone else.By the way, I never said a word about the scenery in XP10, I specifically said the flight model. You're making an argument about a topic I never raised in the first place.

Seriously, you must be living in another (XPlane) world! I never heard of a new car gettin' a better score just because another one hasn't been released yet.........

[Tierborn 188]

He's referring to the fact that default XP10 FM's are garbage and are admitted as such by even the most hardcore supporters.So he's saying how can you know if the FM is great if there aren't aircraft to take advantage of it yet on the payware market.In that sense, he's wrong because there are some payware aircraft for XP10 out that make use of the FM well.

yep . thats what I might

[gtrbarbarian 1]

From what I see on the videos posted, xp10 is a [xxxxx], at least from a graphics standpoint. I was hoping it would be something that blew the fs community's socks off just as much as the rest of you....but no. Flight dynamics aside, in 2011 there is no way people are going to sink money into a new fs title unless it gives a _more realistic_ world view than fsx/fs9 + rex/utx/gex/orbx/aerosoft airports and planes that are on par with PMDG/Captain Sim/CLS/Wilco. Hopefully MS flight blows me away... the graphics look promising...yes graphics are important as Mike T rightly pointed out... modern cities should look similar to real life...even FSX gets that 70% correct...and with addons like UTX/GEX very close. That's without purchasing add-ons for specific cities. On the flight dynamic argument: http://www.simpilotnet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=9FSX flight dynamic seem great to me, and also to my father who flies all of the boeing series by cap sim,cls, and pmdg. Oh yeah he flew B52s in the AF for 14 years and had a 30 year career with TWA flying the Constellation, 707,727,L1011,747 and 767. He also flew the Lear Jet and taught flight simulator for about 8 years after retiring, on one the those multi-million dollar setups. Hopefully flight will be great, but if not, owell, I'll fly FSX happily for the next couple of decades....-Jonathan

[greengriffon 51]

Seriously, you must be living in another (XPlane) world! I never heard of a new car gettin' a better score just because another one hasn't been released yet.........

Yes, and in my world, we also believe strongly in reading comprehension. Did I say I was rating anything whatsoever? I wasn't referring to an overrall scoring of one product over another. I stated simply that knowing that the XP10 engine is capable of decent flight dynamics puts ONE POINT on the side of XP10, versus Flight which, for all we know at this point, could fly like an on-rails arcade game.Hence, one point for XP10, and zero for Flight until we know more. Did I make it clear enough that time?

Flight dynamics aside, in 2011 there is no way people are going to sink money into a new fs title unless it gives a _more realistic_ world view than fsx/fs9 + rex/utx/gex/orbx/aerosoft airports and planes that are on par with PMDG/Captain Sim/CLS/Wilco.

I beg to differ. How then do you explain each and every sale of XP10? I don't think anyone in their right mind would say the XP10 scenery rivals a fully addon-loaded FSX install, much less surpasses it. However, copies are flying out the door here in almost 2012!AeroflyFS also looks like it has generic, limited scenery, and people are already salivating because for one thing, it looks like it has realistic physics and flight dynamics.

On the flight dynamic argument: http://www.simpilotn...&id=20&Itemid=9

That may have been a valid argument three years ago when that article was written, and it refers to X-Plane 8.5.I think the X-Plane platform has seen a couple of improvements since then.

[cmpbellsjc 2,963]

Lets be clear. The debate by thousands of non-pilots on what does and doesn't "feel" right in a computer flight simulator is moot. What percentage of the 60+ thousand Avsim users are training to be pilots? 1%? And What percentatge of 60+ thousand Avsim users are assessing Flight or XP10 to test out their proposed newly built aircraft aerodyanics before submitting the design for production.

Just curious Mike, are you a trained pilot with a license or an observer/spotter in the CAP? Only asking because I agree with what you say, but wondered what side your speaking from since there is no record of you in the FAA Airman data base.

[greengriffon 51]

Just curious Mike, are you a trained pilot with a license or an observer/spotter in the CAP? Only asking because I agree with what you say, but wondered what side your speaking from since there is no record of you in the FAA Airman data base.

That is indeed very curious, nice work Jim. I couldn't find any record of him in Illinois, or any of the surrounding states for that matter.This is of particular interest to me considering the rather condescending lecture Mike T just gave me, a mere "pre-solo pilot" (my sig clearly says solo pilot...again, attention to detail), about navigation by sectionals and what flying is all about.So Mike....are you a pilot or not?

[VegaSS 2]

AeroflyFS also looks like it has generic, limited scenery, and people are already salivating because for one thing, it looks like it has realistic physics and flight dynamics.

Than, all I can say is, you must REALLY be floored with how bad XP10 looks. Look, like mentioned above, for $80, and how far we have come in simming, It's not unimaginable for people to not just want, but EXPECT the best out of their sim of choice. XP10 did a great disservice to it's fans, by selling it short of a TOTAL sim, not just a flight dynamic engine. The dynamics of Microsoft and XP are not all that different that we should compare, as a real pilot, I think both are far from great. What we should expect is only the best out of the sims we put our hard earned money into, nothing less. Flight may be a bomb, who knows, but one has allready come out, and it's unimpressive (visually). The least a big sim company could do is get the visual areas correct, not being perfect. People, I don't think, didn't purchase XP10 because it's the best ever, but probably more because it's just new. That's fine, but I think XP10 let their sim fans down. Shame on them.

[greengriffon 51]

Than, all I can say is, you must REALLY be floored with how bad XP10 looks. Look, like mentioned above, for $80, and how far we have come in simming, It's not unimaginable for people to not just want, but EXPECT the best out of their sim of choice. XP10 did a great disservice to it's fans, by selling it short of a TOTAL sim, not just a flight dynamic engine. The dynamics of Microsoft and XP are not all that different that we should compare, as a real pilot, I think both are far from great. What we should expect is only the best out of the sims we put our hard earned money into, nothing less. Flight may be a bomb, who knows, but one has allready come out, and it's unimpressive (visually). The least a big sim company could do is get the visual areas correct, not being perfect. People, I don't think, didn't purchase XP10 because it's the best ever, but probably more because it's just new. That's fine, but I think XP10 let their sim fans down. Shame on them.

While I agree that we have come to expect more (and in general, aren't getting it), I don't think it's at all fair to say that XP10 is a total letdown in terms of graphics. Again though, to each their own.However I will say, just watch this video.

Sorry, I don't care how many addons you toss at it, FSX will never look this good at night. And this is the demo at launch, not even a mature product.[by the way, still trying to figure out why the flight computer calls you a "retard" at 20 feet ]