I'd like to see that thread for specifics. Idaho DOES have some of the best backcountry flying areas in the whole USA, which makes it tough to dimiss. It's very popular, rugged, and well worth the view out the windscreen. I'll assume that X-Plane 10 has the terrain............but's missing a barn, fence line, or something....

It's in the Flight forum, Larry. I'm not really going to waste time at 130am when I'm working to go searching for it, but it was Mike (Military guy) that made the mention about flying north for x amount of miles, turning west to follow the whatever stream and then following some road until it gets to the airport. The Idaho reference was not literal. I assumed you would see the context.

I don't think the fact you don't crash when you hit trees and electric poles is a serious problem either.

Seriously? How can XP10 call itself a simulator if crashes are not modeled?

Actually crashes/malfunctions are modelled much better than fs-I even had a gear collapse yesterday thru no fault of my own...I also hit some birds on takeoff and got a flat tire!

Seriously? How can XP10 call itself a simulator if crashes are not modeled?

Try flying too fast. Ailerons come off.High G moves, wings come off.Fly too fast with gear extended. Gear won't retract.Windmilling props are modelled along with their corresponding drag (unless you feather them) in the event of an engine failure.So in that sense, Mark, X Plane is very a realistic simulator.

I am a fan of xplane10 but I sure want to see these short coming addressed rather than rationalize they don't exist.

I appreciate Austin's passion and have found a lot to like about XP10 (for one thing it runs like a thoroughbred compared to FSX's chunkiness even on current hardware), but there are aspects of it that remind me more of an open source community project rather than a polished, commercial product. For example, I noticed that the packaging directs users to download the manual for X-Plane 9 instead of 10. Also, I'm not getting any sense of a clear vision moving forward apart from vague "We're working on it" promises sprinkled throughout various blogs and forums.But putting all of that aside, simply sitting in a virtual cockpit and navigating cross country to a distant airport is a great experience in XP10. It has a different feel than FSX which I really like. In FSX, turbulence would bounce the plane up and down a bit, but you could still fly hands-off for the most part. XP10, on the other hand, will pitch and roll the plane forcing you to keep an eye on the horizon (real and artificial) to maintain straight and level flight. (As an aside, I was playing around with the weather system and accidentally put hurricane force winds blowing across the runway. My poor 172 was picked up and flung a few hundred yards away into a nearby neighborhood.)

Try flying too fast. Ailerons come off.High G moves, wings come off.Fly too fast with gear extended. Gear won't retract.

As far as I know, this stuff isn't enabled by default. You have to go into Settings > Operations & Warnings and turn it on.Although I think it's funny when people complain that a flight simulator doesn't feature high fidelity crash modeling. As the saying goes, "It's a flight simulator, not a crash simulator." I say if you see scenery geometry pass through the plane's front windshield then just be honest with yourself, call it a crash, and reset your plane at the airport.

As far as I know, this stuff isn't enabled by default. You have to go into Settings > Operations & Warnings and turn it on.Although I think it's funny when people complain that a flight simulator doesn't feature high fidelity crash modeling. As the saying goes, "It's a flight simulator, not a crash simulator." I say if you see scenery geometry pass through the plane's front windshield then just be honest with yourself, call it a crash, and reset your plane at the airport.

Yeah but it's pretty cool when you're trying to land with a missing aileron.

I appreciate Austin's passion and have found a lot to like about XP10 (for one thing it runs like a thoroughbred compared to FSX's chunkiness even on current hardware), but there are aspects of it that remind me more of an open source community project rather than a polished, commercial product. For example, I noticed that the packaging directs users to download the manual for X-Plane 9 instead of 10. Also, I'm not getting any sense of a clear vision moving forward apart from vague "We're working on it" promises sprinkled throughout various blogs and forums.

This is quickly becoming my sense of the situation as well. Something tells me that Laminar Research would comment that they only have a handful of people working on the program and that issues such as these are to be expected, but as the $80 which remains in my checking account can attest, one should not advertise a product as one thing and deliver something else. To put it in more comparative terms, Microsoft would be CRUCIFIED if they released a product in this condition and I don't see why Laminar should be given a pass.I would expect feature improvements and bug fixes over time with the point releases, but not releases designed to catch up with critical content and items which were left out of the initial product. From what I am gathering from various posts here and elsewhere, XP10 shipped without the full compliment of models, textures, and objects - thus causing scenery elements to either populate with generic textures or not populate at all. It appears these were not oversights, but that it was planned and accepted. Now, paying customers are left wondering when these things will ever be completed. Potential customers, if they are being vigilant, are left wondering about what else is missing. Brand new customers to XP10 might be left with a bad taste in their mouth if they aren't studying forums and blogs. Laminar Research is left with a black eye because of the state of affairs. A month or two more in the incubator to allow for all the elements to be completed would have been good for all involved.Again - I know and recognize that XP10 has a great many things which are good about it, so it's not a FAILED piece of software by any stretch.... but I have to agree with Mountain Man in that XP10 a significant feeling of not being completed. The apparent approval of this philosophy by Laminar Research/Austin Meyers will be one of the key reasons why XP10 might remain a niche simulator for the small cadre of flight sim enthusiast, and never be something which will be enjoyed by the masses.-Greg

It has a different feel than FSX which I really like. In FSX, turbulence would bounce the plane up and down a bit, but you could still fly hands-off for the most part. XP10, on the other hand, will pitch and roll the plane forcing you to keep an eye on the horizon (real and artificial) to maintain straight and level flight.

Since I have not tried any new planes in the 10 demo, from what I've used in X-Plane 9...........I wouldn't know the differences.On the other hand, I still can't fly FSX anymore hands off than a real plane. In fact, while in (real) level flight, and a nice morning or evening without, turbulence, the real plane is "easier" to maintain level flight. And my real plane is aerobatic capable. Not a sedate bus type feel. It's an RV (unlike the X-Plane defaults) and more along the lines of the Falco/X-Plane, or RealAir Marchetti SF260/FSX. Very light on the controls..........but not something you have to pay attention too...every second..........like a marble on an upside down plate. That's reserved for hovering helicopters... :)I have had to turn settings down in X-Plane 8 & 9 .........to get rid of annoying jerking, which is about as fun as constant dutch rolls (tail yaw).L.Adamson

I agree with the original poster to some extend. XP10 is a great leap forwards and I enjoyed the new eye candy in the demo. However, the default planes are still a years behind of what we already saw in FS2004/FSX. The default Cessna, the most popular trainer, seems to be unchanged and doesn't look (or fly) anything like the real deal. The scenery is greatly improved, but apart from that what else is new? Burkhard from MyTraffic wrote a lengthy post about the differences of AI traffic compared to MSFS and XP10 has virtually no advanced in this department. A limit of 10-20 AI planes is not realistic by any means, apart from the fact that there are no AI models available that might make this possible sometime in the future. I cannot comment really about ATC, it seems to be an improvement, but nowhere up to the standards of popular addons, like RC, PFE or VoxATC.Yes, great scenery, great eye-candy - MS Flight will probably shine in those aspects as well. But what about the rest, the "immersion factor" that enables us to fly in a dynamic, living and breathing environment? I am missing this completely in the new release.Thank you,Pat

So your telling us you fly default FSX planes and scenery? The visuals in FSX are horrific.Yes the default planes XPX aren't that great. Carenado has some fantastic planes that you can purchase to try in XPX. They are not 100% compatible as of yet but the two that I have seem to be working pretty good!I fly in and out of Van Nuys and Burbank airport, and I never see more then 3 or 6 planes at any given time. This class D and C airspace. So let's be a little more realistic.

Admittedly I have no real-world flying experience, so there's probably a disconnect between what's realistic and what I like.

This is quickly becoming my sense of the situation as well. Something tells me that Laminar Research would comment that they only have a handful of people working on the program and that issues such as these are to be expected, but as the $80 which remains in my checking account can attest, one should not advertise a product as one thing and deliver something else. To put it in more comparative terms, Microsoft would be CRUCIFIED if they released a product in this condition and I don't see why Laminar should be given a pass.I would expect feature improvements and bug fixes over time with the point releases, but not releases designed to catch up with critical content and items which were left out of the initial product. From what I am gathering from various posts here and elsewhere, XP10 shipped without the full compliment of models, textures, and objects - thus causing scenery elements to either populate with generic textures or not populate at all. It appears these were not oversights, but that it was planned and accepted. Now, paying customers are left wondering when these things will ever be completed. Potential customers, if they are being vigilant, are left wondering about what else is missing. Brand new customers to XP10 might be left with a bad taste in their mouth if they aren't studying forums and blogs. Laminar Research is left with a black eye because of the state of affairs. A month or two more in the incubator to allow for all the elements to be completed would have been good for all involved.Again - I know and recognize that XP10 has a great many things which are good about it, so it's not a FAILED piece of software by any stretch.... but I have to agree with Mountain Man in that XP10 a significant feeling of not being completed. The apparent approval of this philosophy by Laminar Research/Austin Meyers will be one of the key reasons why XP10 might remain a niche simulator for the small cadre of flight sim enthusiast, and never be something which will be enjoyed by the masses.-Greg

Your complaining about 80? How much do pay for one little ORBX airport? 30-40?

Since I have not tried any new planes in the 10 demo, from what I've used in X-Plane 9...........I wouldn't know the differences.On the other hand, I still can't fly FSX anymore hands off than a real plane. In fact, while in (real) level flight, and a nice morning or evening without, turbulence, the real plane is "easier" to maintain level flight. And my real plane is aerobatic capable. Not a sedate bus type feel. It's an RV (unlike the X-Plane defaults) and more along the lines of the Falco/X-Plane, or RealAir Marchetti SF260/FSX. Very light on the controls..........but not something you have to pay attention too...every second..........like a marble on an upside down plate. That's reserved for hovering helicopters... :)I have had to turn settings down in X-Plane 8 & 9 .........to get rid of annoying jerking, which is about as fun as constant dutch rolls (tail yaw).L.Adamson

Larry-xplane10 and the Carenado f33 has finally done it for me. I might even proclaim xplane's fm superior if I see future planes with this type of handling! It is this fact that is keeping me from using fsx much. I finally feel like I am landing and taking off in a real plane!

Your complaining about 80? How much do pay for one little ORBX airport? 30-40?

I am not complaining about the $80 I spent (perhaps I should now that I am retired and on a fixed income) because I am a flight sim nut and I buy all flight sims, and the enjoyment xplane 10 has already brought me for the things it does well has already justified the cost.However I think Greg's post is valid. I feel a little like I am running flightgear rather than a professional product that I paid money for.The latest upgrade/beta-whatever you call it-has pretty much broken the sim for me right now. I downloaded scenery recommended by some of the xplaner's here (mariposa/yosemite) and was given the message that xplane 10 didn't like it followed by a crash. My Carenado aircraft I bought two weeks ago which is supposed to be compatible (9.6 and above) has errors-which I read a few days ago should be addressed by an upgrade but still is not.I am patient-and I see so much potential I am willing to continue to be patient. I also like the continued updates-but it is a double edged sword. What I worry about is a typical person who will buy the program, start up in the urban area they live in (how many copies will be sold in New York, Los Angeles alone?)-and will be very disapointed. That is a real shame-especially when this can overshadow completely all the innovations that frankly are keeping me away from fsx now.Again, denying these weaknesses I don't think are a solution. Let's admit them, and hopefully help to alleviate them.This board is filled with flight sim enthusiasts, and I think a population that is probably more forgiving and generous than the general public...I'd treat their negative comments and first responses very seriously-that is if a huge success is the goal. I don't think there is anyone here that hasn't been waiting for a succesor to fsx/fs9 which now are very old...

I am not complaining about the $80 I spent (perhaps I should now that I am retired and on a fixed income) because I am a flight sim nut and I buy all flight sims, and the enjoyment xplane 10 has already brought me for the things it does well has already justified the cost.However I think Greg's post is valid. I feel a little like I am running flightgear rather than a professional product that I paid money for.The latest upgrade/beta-whatever you call it-has pretty much broken the sim for me right now. I downloaded scenery recommended by some of the xplaner's here (mariposa/yosemite) and was given the message that xplane 10 didn't like it followed by a crash. My Carenado aircraft I bought two weeks ago which is supposed to be compatible (9.6 and above) has errors-which I read a few days ago should be addressed by an upgrade but still is not.I am patient-and I see so much potential I am willing to continue to be patient. I also like the continued updates-but it is a double edged sword.What I worry about is a typical person who will buy the program, start up in the urban area they live in (how many copies will be sold in New York, Los Angeles alone?)-and will be very disapointed. That is a real shame-especially when this can overshadow completely all the innovations that frankly are keeping me away from fsx now.Again, denying these weaknesses I don't think are a solution. Let's admit them, and hopefully help to alleviate them.This board is filled with flight sim enthusiasts, and I think a population that is probably more forgiving and generous than the general public...I'd treat their negative comments and first responses very seriously-that is if a huge success is the goal. I don't think there is anyone here that hasn't been waiting for a succesor to fsx/fs9 which now are very old...

Valid points, however, developers have been recommended to halt updating XP9 products for XP10 until we have a stable version of X Plane that is out of beta. I don't think most people are trying to rationalize the flaws in the product. We're just saying maybe we should wait and see what gets addressed and what doesn't before voicing the issues and concerns.In all fairness, it is a downloadable, free demo and people are encouraged to try before they buy.