No. The flight models don't need plug ins. The add on does if it needs an FMC, a custom autopilot function, etc... But the flight models themselves need no such thing. All they need is engineering and physics. If you want to reach that last 3%-5% of accuracy, then some programming MIGHT be needed.

But LR are trying to lure in fsx people and new people to the sim, only for them to find out that their expectations need to be different from any other piece of software they may have paid money for. I completely understand what you are saying and I get it. I have been there on various projects that I have got a lot of fun from but there is no denying that LR are trying to attract new people who will have different expectations so I can blame LR. We have talked about the marketing banter 'as real as it gets', the one upmanship between developers. I don't mind it, it's kind of fun but if you are going to compare yourself you can't take the money and then say we do things differently later. You cant say your marketing is just be a fun poke in the face if it sets any expectation that isn't met. On the developers, I am sure they are there. They are not developing for New Zealand and that's where I like to fly and thats why the sim, for the time being, will be used for specific scenarios only. Just to add. I didnt know about the way LR works when I got the demo so I learned a lot about xplane and what to expect. I bought it anyway, as I have bought in to stuff like this in the past. I can say that if I bought it because it had popped up on fspilotshop and didn't know this I would be really upset, hence why I can really sympathise with others even though I am the kind of guy to buy in to this approach.

And what would happen if Laminar made an exact replica of the FSX UI? FSX users would criticize that Austin isn't original and X Plane users would complain about the drastic change. The UI is VERY easy to get used to. It's not "pretty" and doesn't have colorful pictures, but it has everything you need and it works. I've said it before, if you can work through the registered version of FSUIPC, you can work through the X Plane UI.With regards to taking money and explaining things later, I don't think that's the case at all. A demo is available. Try the demo. If the UI isn't up to snuff and it's a huge deal breaker, then adios and no hard feelings. It just seems people are trying to cause conflict and create problems that don't really exist.With all the comments about OTT hype...I don't see that's the case at all. Austin has made something he is happy with at the moment. He showcased it at FSWeekend. In full view of the public. He held a small "seminar" for those who were interested. He answered questions. I don't really see what was OTT. Perhaps his "hype" is different to what others expect. I've seen posts by people who want immaculately detailed buildings on hi res textures for each building, and that just ain't happening for ANY sim yet. And before anyone says it, don't mention aerofly. It's Switzerland only and has VERY basic controls.

And what would happen if Laminar made an exact replica of the FSX UI? FSX users would criticize that Austin isn't original and X Plane users would complain about the drastic change. The UI is VERY easy to get used to. It's not "pretty" and doesn't have colorful pictures, but it has everything you need and it works. I've said it before, if you can work through the registered version of FSUIPC, you can work through the X Plane UI.With regards to taking money and explaining things later, I don't think that's the case at all. A demo is available. Try the demo. If the UI isn't up to snuff and it's a huge deal breaker, then adios and no hard feelings. It just seems people are trying to cause conflict and create problems that don't really exist.With all the comments about OTT hype...I don't see that's the case at all. Austin has made something he is happy with at the moment. He showcased it at FSWeekend. In full view of the public. He held a small "seminar" for those who were interested. He answered questions. I don't really see what was OTT. Perhaps his "hype" is different to what others expect. I've seen posts by people who want immaculately detailed buildings on hi res textures for each building, and that just ain't happening for ANY sim yet. And before anyone says it, don't mention aerofly. It's Switzerland only and has VERY basic controls.

I never suggested anything so specific as UI's or anything else but it is very apparent the the existing xplane guys expect something different than the new people do. I know a handful of people who would buy this sim based on the advertising, just casual gamers, not too serious who play a variety of games. I am pretty sure they wont download the demo, they would just buy it from it's marketing. Knowing what you know would you say the advertising is accurate? Forgetting the fact it's full retail and doesnt say beta anywhere doesn't it give you the impression that it will use peoples expectations from other sims all the while not saying what the real deal is for the present? Also, as I have said before, the demo is entirely misleading as out of 20,000+ airports all of which are unpopulated the demo has the only one that is. As people complain so much about no airports the demo gives you the feeling that there is. My point being, again, it's not one feature like the UI or whatever else. It's the disconnect between LR and people that have not used the sim before. The customers they are trying to pull and who will feel that honesty has been lacking.

No. The flight models don't need plug ins. The add on does if it needs an FMC, a custom autopilot function, etc...But the flight models themselves need no such thing. All they need is engineering and physics. If you want to reach that last 3%-5% of accuracy, then some programming MIGHT be needed.

I can't agree here. I've been using X-Plane models for many years. I've went through a lot of demo's before purchasing versions 8 & 9. IMO------------until version 9..............I never ran across a flight model that could even compete with many defaults that were included with MSFS, let alone 3rd party additions.The models were twitchy. They had no sense of feel. A small GA would seem the same as a heavy............as if it was a directly connected to the joystick like a puppet. They couldn't slip, went entirely out of control when inverted, buried their hind end in the runway on a short field takeoff.................and generally had no appeal, at least to me. The sense of flight reminded me of FS98, which I also scrapped. All X-Plane had, was a fluidness, which seems to appeal to many new users. That fluidness reminded me of a magic carpet ride across the country side.....................assuming I can imagine what a magical carpet would feel like.That's not what real flight, even in a GA feels like most of the time. It's more like a sense of hardly moving at all, even at 200 mph.............unless you're playing cat and mouse across a few hills at low level, or in engaging in combat (with or without weapons), and aerobatics.But..........alas.............the X-model seems to have changed. They now have feel. They can now do manuvers that weren't possible before. They no longer move exactly as a puppet on a string..........with exact movements to the joystick (pitch and roll).So what changed? Is it the "blade element theory", that's been touted as being superior all these years? Or is it a new blade theory, modifications to blade theory................or just modifications to adjust what blade theory is not capable of. An example that I'm familiar with...........is defining how the plane pitches with flap deployment. When I mentioned that the included RV's should be pitching down with flaps, instead of up, like a Cessna...........I was told that it was just a simple command change in airplane maker. Therefor, I can assume that blade element theory is not doing the job on it's own.Regardless.............I like the new, much better than the old. The "old" would annoy me after about 5 mins of flight time. But I've heard through various sources, that it does take some programming genius.........to get good models past the point of what blade element theory can provide. And I'd say it's much more than just 3-5%.L.Adamson

I have one statement on the fm's -part 23 of the fars-they are closer now but still would not pass the standards spelled out there...and I agree with Larry -something has changed as of late..which I am very glad for!

VegaSS, putting it simply, you do not have all the facts about x plane. The entire x plane community is vastly different to the MSFS community. Different in what we expect, what kind of support is offered, the complete lack of exaggerated criticisms against developers or the sim itself. To assume that Laminar will change everything about x plane just to accommodate the new people who are willing to expand to x plane is completely unreasonable. Yet Laminar are being faulted for it. And in a lot of cases, it's a huge deal breaker. "I'm not getting X Plane 10 because the UI sux!". Come on. The UI is different so they're not getting X Plane. It just seems like an excuse to criticize it some more. And the other one is because the urban areas are lacking, so that's another dealbreaker. No one is saying the cities don't need big improvement. But in the larger scheme of things, is it really THAT bad that it drags everything else about the sim down. Cities make up a very small percentage of the world. The terrain in the rural areas is outstanding. The night lighting, cloud and fog effects, HDR, all outstanding. The flight model, regardless what other back seat pilots think, is outstanding. I've even gone and modified the default C172 flight model and offered it up for download to those who wish to see what x plane is capable of. Over 150 downloads in about 4 days and NO ONE came forward to criticize it. And that was just a 3 minute mod I made. Imagine what I could do in a few weeks.One thing I've noticed is when someone throws up some outstanding type of screenshot, no one says a thing. But when someone makes a post about how empty the cities look, it blows up to a 7 page thread about how bad x plane is.What I find hilarious and motivating at the same time is that most x plane developers who read these criticisms work a lot harder to make some much better quality add ons. I remember "colts" posting something about x plane having low polygon aircraft with minimal textures. Hmm, my DC-3, with all of it's 1.3 million polygons, just MIGHT prove him wrong.If you knew X Plane, you would know who Morten M is. He has definitely paid his dues and if anyone in x plane think they know more than him about flight models, they would be kidding themselves. So yes, it does ###### us off when we read things like "the flight model will NEVER be like FSX" and "Why can't we get PMDG, Captain Sim, OrbX, etc... over to X Plane, then I would get it."What makes you think the equivalent of those developers isn't over at x plane now?

"One thing I've noticed is when someone throws up some outstanding type of screenshot, no one says a thing"Simply not true-I have posted a ton a screenshots of xplane in the screenshots forum here and several videos and they have all gotten nice comments.Also I will say again-the negative comments against xplane pale against what happened to fsx and I'll make a prediction-you haven't seen anything compared to what Flight will get when it is released.

I never suggested anything so specific as UI's or anything else but it is very apparent the the existing xplane guys expect something different than the new people do. I know a handful of people who would buy this sim based on the advertising, just casual gamers, not too serious who play a variety of games. I am pretty sure they wont download the demo, they would just buy it from it's marketing. Knowing what you know would you say the advertising is accurate? Forgetting the fact it's full retail and doesnt say beta anywhere doesn't it give you the impression that it will use peoples expectations from other sims all the while not saying what the real deal is for the present? Also, as I have said before, the demo is entirely misleading as out of 20,000+ airports all of which are unpopulated the demo has the only one that is. As people complain so much about no airports the demo gives you the feeling that there is. My point being, again, it's not one feature like the UI or whatever else. It's the disconnect between LR and people that have not used the sim before. The customers they are trying to pull and who will feel that honesty has been lacking.

I never said you quoted anything specific like the UI. I'm simply making a point. Is the advertising misleading? TBH, I don't know. I haven't had a good read of the x-plane web site. But, speaking for myself, I will always read reviews (proper reviews made by reviewers), I'll download the demo, I'll google "X-Plane forums", I'll search for videos, screenshots, ask questions in the forums, whatever it takes to get a clearer picture if the website does not answer my questions. I can't have a neutral opinion on it because I have been sitting at my desk for 3 years working on this stuff, so I know what to expect as if it's almost a kind of accurate forethought. It's the same as if someone who is a huge PMDG fan and they KNOW that whatever they make next will be money well spent. No matter what it is. I'm not saying I'm a huge X Plane fan, but I am in touch with some people who are allowed to share privelaged information to SOME developers. I'm not sure about the 20 000+ airports but I do remember a statement from either Tom Kyler (Who made Seattle) or Austin himself saying that only Seattle will be a detailed airport. If they didn't, then perhaps they are carrying over the x plane "tradition" of not having airports with multiple detailed buildings and towers. Again, I really don't know. Maybe they plan on adding them somewhere down the line. The forums are there to get information. I was a very big MSFS ######, yes, ######. I did Vatsim, PMDG, Captain Sim, Flight 1, Just Flight, you name it, I did it. Then I saw the CRJ-200 for X Plane and I decided to do some rooting around to see how far X Plane had come. Looked for forums, asked questions (in a respectful manner) and all my questions were answered. When people come to a forum and start mouthing off to x plane users and developers, how many answers does that person expect to get? If they expect anything more than 0, they're asking for too much.

I can't agree here. I've been using X-Plane models for many years. I've went through a lot of demo's before purchasing versions 8 & 9. IMO------------until version 9..............I never ran across a flight model that could even compete with many defaults that were included with MSFS, let alone 3rd party additions.The models were twitchy. They had no sense of feel. A small GA would seem the same as a heavy............as if it was a directly connected to the joystick like a puppet. They couldn't slip, went entirely out of control when inverted, buried their hind end in the runway on a short field takeoff.................and generally had no appeal, at least to me. The sense of flight reminded me of FS98, which I also scrapped. All X-Plane had, was a fluidness, which seems to appeal to many new users. That fluidness reminded me of a magic carpet ride across the country side.....................assuming I can imagine what a magical carpet would feel like.That's not what real flight, even in a GA feels like most of the time. It's more like a sense of hardly moving at all, even at 200 mph.............unless you're playing cat and mouse across a few hills at low level, or in engaging in combat (with or without weapons), and aerobatics.But..........alas.............the X-model seems to have changed. They now have feel. They can now do manuvers that weren't possible before. They no longer move exactly as a puppet on a string..........with exact movements to the joystick (pitch and roll).So what changed? Is it the "blade element theory", that's been touted as being superior all these years? Or is it a new blade theory, modifications to blade theory................or just modifications to adjust what blade theory is not capable of. An example that I'm familiar with...........is defining how the plane pitches with flap deployment. When I mentioned that the included RV's should be pitching down with flaps, instead of up, like a Cessna...........I was told that it was just a simple command change in airplane maker. Therefor, I can assume that blade element theory is not doing the job on it's own.Regardless.............I like the new, much better than the old. The "old" would annoy me after about 5 mins of flight time. But I've heard through various sources, that it does take some programming genius.........to get good models past the point of what blade element theory can provide. And I'd say it's much more than just 3-5%.L.Adamson

The BET is the same as it has always been...as far as I'm aware. What's changed is possibly the wind effects. TBH, I have no idea. I came into this in V9 and I have yet to thoroughly test what I have made in XP10. But I will re-iterate, I "fixed" the C172 flight model in 3 minutes while I was having a cup of coffee. It was freely made available to download. I got absolutely no criticisms after a week and downloads slowed down so I deleted the file. Larry, I know you've been around for a while, but you don't know what goes into making flight models. I do. And I can safely say that only the finest of fine tuning will bump the flight model realism up to that near 100% accuracy. And that's only in some heavies and/or experimental aircraft. You've never run across a flight model that was accurate because, quite simply, the accuracy didn't exist. X Plane was not a majority payware community and the market was not there for people to make a living from it. So people made aircraft in their spare time and they rushed it. Now there is a market for payware and there are many more people getting into add ons. You said you have Tom Kylers Falco and, as far as you're concerned, it is fantastic. And yet, it has no plug ins for the flight model. The MU-2 as well, no flight model plug ins. And the figures I quoted, 3-5% are actually pretty much on the money. The Duchess I made can match the official Duchess charted figures to approximately 98% accuracy. All that without plug ins. I know what goes into flight models, Larry. I've been researching it and reading up on it and making them for just over 3 years full time. And when I look at most freeware, I can say they are good efforts, but the time it takes to make something with respectable accuracy can run into months.

"One thing I've noticed is when someone throws up some outstanding type of screenshot, no one says a thing"Simply not true-I have posted a ton a screenshots of xplane in the screenshots forum here and several videos and they have all gotten nice comments.Also I will say again-the negative comments against xplane pale against what happened to fsx and I'll make a prediction-you haven't seen anything compared to what Flight will get when it is released.

I've seen those. In all fairness, compare the compliments to a post with a couple of screenshots to a post about how bad the urban areas are. Yes, you get compliments. But they pale in number to the pages of a single criticism about x plane.

But the urban areas are bad...as of now...

lol, I know they are. No one is disputing that. Yet people continue to come here and keep emphasizing it. And that breeds more criticisms about other things that just don't exist. Like joystick calibration. And whatever else they can find.

People emphasize that because most are from urban areas. So happens that Detroit Michigan where I am from looks pretty good. If I was from Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, New York etc. and I took off and looked at my area of the world I would be very disapointed. Seems understandable to me.I was just in San Diego last week house hunting. When home I tried flying over the areas I explored along with PlanG and xplane going so I could compare reality to the sim.I have to say I was let down-roads, landclass, and of course the city just didn't even come close to reality( though a few of the highways and their interchanges were amazing!).Just being honest-I still am using xplane only at this point for the things I love about it-but I'd sure put a priority on doing something about this.I don't think people who are reporting this are anti xplane-just honest...Go to the Rocky mountains-or western Washington state-and your breath will be taken away...even Argentina :) the Los Angeles basin-another story.

No one has any problem with well thought out, lucid, constructive criticisms. It's the posts that start saying "X Plane is a joke because it doesn't have my airport" and "the flight model is like a tea bag getting dunked into a glass of water" that, for want of a better term, start pi$$ing us (X Plane developers) off. The people who post those are just trolling. Their opinion...sure, but they're still trolling. And it's MY opinion that those people wouldn't know an aircraft wing from a chicken wing.I'm even disappointed that Sydney Airport doesn't look like it should. But I'm patiently waiting for a fix. This isn't a "Let's make something dodgy and let them deal with it after we get our money and sit back in the bahamas!". Laminar are constantly trying to make everyone happy with regards to functionality and enhancements. But guess what? No one from the FSX crowd sees that.

I'll agree with everything except the "constant fsx crowd"-that is frankly bunk.a) most hated and rejected fsx till recently and the angst against it was in a logarithmic way hugely larger than anything xplane 10 has faced-trust me-you haven't seen anything and it has been like a babies bottom here. :( Many of the crowd like me is fs1,jet, atp,Yeager, fs2, fs3, fs4, ift pro, fs5, ms5, pro pilot, fly, flight unlimited, pro pilot 99, flight unlimited II, fly II , fuIII, fs2000,fs2002, fs2004,fsx, wings of prey,rof, a few of the jet fighter flight sims that elude me now, and all the xplane's, and a dozen or more others I have forgotten-since 1981.I'd rather call it simming experience on a wide variety of platforms-saying it is the fsx crowd is innacurate-period...at least call us what we are...:-) even though it will take a long time to quote all the sims...

lol, I know they are. No one is disputing that. Yet people continue to come here and keep emphasizing it. And that breeds more criticisms about other things that just don't exist. Like joystick calibration. And whatever else they can find.

To be fair, the joystick thing always follows the plane flies like crap thing because no aircraft seems to be able to fly with any joystick on default. That does point to something LR could look at ;)

Many of the crowd like me is fs1,jet, atp,Yeager, fs2, fs3, fs4, ift pro, fs5, ms5, pro pilot, fly, flight unlimited, pro pilot 99, flight unlimited II, fly II , fuIII, fs2000,fs2002, fs2004,fsx, wings of prey,all the xplane's, and a dozen or more others I have forgotten-since 1981.

What, no falcon, no a10, no il2? Please, you are not a simmer yet ;)

yep had those too. Even one by Disney called something island that was the first sim to have a Bonanza-and of course I had to have that one...have had so many I can't remember-I am over 50 so give me a break...-) though if you don't I won't remember tomorrow...lol.Had a jet one too that had the first multiplayer-and if you got desperate you could just drop a nuke-it was pretty scary...

When I say "FSX crowd", I mean those that think FSX is the holy grail of flight sim, nothing will touch it, and, in their opinion, only God can make a better flight sim.

To be fair, the joystick thing always follows the plane flies like crap thing because no aircraft seems to be able to fly with any joystick on default. That does point to something LR could look at ;)

Have you tried the modified C172 flight model I made available. Joystick settings on default. Not one criticism about it.