My thoughts after purchasing XP10

[Guest bstolle]

And now we have VegaSS claiming that X-Plane's flight dynamics are "HORRIFIC" (yes, all capitals):

A somewhat strange reply to my post.....running out of arguments? :wink:And yes, it's understandable that if you are a real 172 pilot, don't know x-plane, download this 'ultra-realistic' simulator and jump into the default 172, that one could call that experience not surprisingly HORRIFIC. Edited January 1, 2012 by bstolle

[thepitts 32]

(A somewhat strange reply to my post.....running out of arguments?) Oh dear. oh dear, oh dear... I am sorely tempted with the FSX police out in force . BStolle. LAdamson we just need GSkorma to make it a real party!But no I've made a resolution and I must try and stick to it..Happy New Year.TIM

[Geofa 108]

Fsx police?! How about the message? I haven't seen anyone address mine yet...

[LAdamson 240]

(A somewhat strange reply to my post.....running out of arguments?)Oh dear. oh dear, oh dear... I am sorely tempted with the FSX police out in force . BStolle. LAdamson we just need GSkorma to make it a real party!But no I've made a resolution and I must try and stick to it..Happy New Year.TIM

I'm not the one counting on X-Plane for "spin" dynamics.....I guess you're just getting into it, reading all those books and all. It's been nearly 17 years, since I was into serious spinning; and I suppose I just don't care that much anymore.

And now we have VegaSS claiming that X-Plane's flight dynamics are "HORRIFIC" (yes, all capitals):http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2203619 :(

I read the same about FSX (being horrible and unrealistic) at the org. all the time.

[wb5okj 26]

WHAT IS THE ROADMAP FOR X-PLANE v10 ?What I'd like to know is if Austin, Ben or Laminar or any of their chosen spokesperson, think their product is superior, better, has better this or that and feel that all the criticism is unfair, unjustified or unwarranted, LET THEM DEFEND IT ! AND NO, we don't want some 3rd party, contractor, part-time or full time employee/janitor, retailer, or somebody claiming to be loosely "associated" or "working with" Laminar doing the "xplaning". LET'S MAKE IT PUBLIC AND OFFICIAL ! Surely, that's not unreasonable to expect, is it ?When will Laminar come out and tell us EXACTLY WHAT THE CURRENT AND POTENTIAL USERS CAN EXPECT OVERALL FROM V10 AND WHEN ? We have been sold a bill of goods with no definite promises of what or when, even though they know the product is incomplete, buggy, unpolished, less than meets the eye and appears to be less than v9 in some respects thus far - ofcourse they won't admit this publicly.But, admiission of the problem is but a first step towards recovery. Hopefully, the many current and potential customers know that the product is "not quite ready for prime time". The issue is does Laminar correctly comprehend the problem from the users' standpoint and what they are willing to do about it.SO, HERE'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY, LAMINAR :Tell us what the roadmap and timeline for X-plane v10 is over its roughly 2 year lifespan ? Or is it the same as usual - whack-a-mole - one bug at a time till you get tired or bored of updating and/or are in need of more sales/revenue - time for a new version and the cycle repeats ?When can current and potential users expect a roadmap along with a timeline ?WHEN CAN WE EXPECT TO HEAR FROM YOU ?

How many times have you seen Bill Gates defending MSFS?

[JasonHarris 96]

How many times have you seen Bill Gates defending MSFS?

Never, but you have heard him defend microsoft. In this case it's fair as LR is basically xplane. FSX is a percentage of a percent for microsoft. When you have interviews with a guy who says this feature and that feature and it will be awesome don't you think there is any accountability when said features are not there. At the minimum some roadmap to say the order of priority so you know if they in fact will ever be there? Edit, plus he never said Austin answer all of this, he said LR answer this. I believe it was other people who keep saying write to the president of the company. Edited January 1, 2012 by JasonHarris

[60North 120]

That's another serious xp problem. You can select engine failures at different speeds, so you can experience an engine failure between 0kts and V1 but due to xps bad traction simulation there's no way you can keep a 767,777 etc on the runway if you have an engine failure at rather low speeds e.g. 100kts.That makes a realistic malfunction handling in a few cases impossible.BTW, that might come as a surprise, but the worst speed IRL to have an engine failure on a heavy jet is at around 60kts....Alreayd little nose wheel traction plus still very little rudder authority

Again, this depends on the designer :(http://www.xplanefre...en/MOV/1eng.m4v(1 eng takeoff at Max TO thrust)M Edited January 1, 2012 by MortenM

[wb5okj 26]

Never, but you have heard him defend microsoft. In this case it's fair as LR is basically xplane. FSX is a percentage of a percent for microsoft. When you have interviews with a guy who says this feature and that feature and it will be awesome don't you think there is any accountability when said features are not there. At the minimum some roadmap to say the order of priority so you know if they in fact will ever be there? Edit, plus he never said Austin answer all of this, he said LR answer this. I believe it was other people who keep saying write to the president of the company.

I should have put a smiley in there. :-)

[JasonHarris 96]

Damn, you would have saved me all that typing too lol ;)

[Guest bstolle]

Again, this depends on the designer :(http://www.xplanefre...en/MOV/1eng.m4v(1 eng takeoff at Max TO thrust)

Hey, looks like it would be a good thing to closely monitor x-planes future development progress!

[Xpendable 0]

I had a chance to do some more "performance" testing with the default X10 C172. The more I fly it, the more I realize the flight model is not great (and I think most of us agree with this already). I did powered on and powered off stalls while configured for slow flight (full flaps and high AOA and at the backside of the power curve) at ~7000 MSL with standard atmospheric pressure and zero winds. I've done these hundreds of times in real C172R and C172S models, so I have a basis to compare against. The stall horn came on at about the right time but the actual fully developed stall was not very realistic imho. The nose *always* dropped way too slowly and the aircraft *always* banked sharply to the right, even while in perfect coordination. That roll *could* happen, but it's not every likely. I've never had more than 5 degrees of roll in a full stall while flying coordinated, but with the default X10 C172, I was getting maybe 30-50 degree rolls to the right each and every time. I also purposely did some uncordinated stalls and despite numerous attempts, I was never able to develop a spin. The real C172 has a tendancy to not want to stay in a spin, but you can get it to spin. Now I've not personally ever actually spun a real C172, so keep that in mind. I'm just going by what my various flight instructors and training have taught me over the years. The default C172 in X10 will not spin. At least I couldn't do it.The best simulation for spins (again, imho) is the IL-2 series. If you want a scary spin, stall the P-39 airacobra! Spin recovery in that bird is about as tough as it gets! :)

Edited January 1, 2012 by Xpendable

[GoranM 3,772]

Just tried Gorans updated 172 and she's definitely much more stable and feels less twitchy. Did you make the update with planemaker or a 3rd party program?IF you are using a 3rd partx program, is it only text based?Nevertheless this plane again shows that there are still some very basic problems with x-planes blade element theory.E.g. the roll rate with 120deg/sec is defintely too high and another item shows one obvious problems of x-plane, to correctly calculate the g-load/airflow or AoA interaction.There's no way you can perform a loop in a 172 from straight and level flight with an entry speed of 90-95kts IRL but even the modified 172 can. BTW, as many of you know I designed planes folr x-plane since v3 and my md-80 was the most downloaded plane for quite a few weeks so I do know how to design planes for MS and LR sims.I don't care if it's MS or LR, I always wanted to design for the more realistic sim and over the time I found out that with x-planes blade-element-theory a designer is much more limited in plane design as there are a lot of hard-coded problem that are difficult or even impossible to overcome.I gave up on the Hansajet in v9 because the forward swept wings and flaps for some reason were beyond planemakers capabilities, and the Hansajet wasn't such a radically unusual design.No, FSX is not perfect and there are as well a lot of limitations but after working with both sims for quite some time I think that FSX delivers a more 'complete' simulation and concerning immersion it's still miles ahead.Maybe that changes, but let's wait and see how FLIGHT turns out.A few month ago I wouldn't have believed that the FLIGHT beta would appear already while xp 10 is still in beta.+1

No external programming. No fancy tricks. It was literally a 3 minute job with a coffee in one hand and mouse clicking with the other hand in Planemaker. All just to prove a point. What I changed was four of x planes "gap fillers" that need to be changed in pretty much all add ons. Left at default values will yield an unrealistic, over sensitive flight model. Add in the realistic figures (which mine are not, but they are a good guess) and it gives you a more stable flight model. Garbage in=garbage out.

[JasonHarris 96]

No external programming. No fancy tricks. It was literally a 3 minute job with a coffee in one hand and mouse clicking with the other hand in Planemaker. All just to prove a point. What I changed was four of x planes "gap fillers" that need to be changed in pretty much all add ons. Left at default values will yield an unrealistic, over sensitive flight model. Add in the realistic figures (which mine are not, but they are a good guess) and it gives you a more stable flight model. Garbage in=garbage out.

So what is it about LR that makes them so stubborn to not spend a few minutes to update the planes that most people will fly, e.g. the cessna. I have heard the nostalgia reason but that is even worse, to keep the planes awful as a salute to the past.

[GoranM 3,772]

It is equally unreasonable to expect new and potential customers who are accustomed to a certain level of completeness in the software they purchase to not be frustrated and upset at the current quality of the product they received in the mail in December. At least CaptainSim (*an FSX 3rd party dev) lets you know up front about their type of "trust us, we'll finish it later" approach.

I know who Captain Sim are. I have quite a few of their add ons. Again, I say check the forums. Austin has done demo/betas of new versions of x plane for years and is always willing to listen to complaints and implement fixes. But as long as they are not from people who email him and say "you're an a$$hole, you promised me AT LEAST generic airports and I got nuthin'!!!!". Doing that will not get many people far. Send an email, point out what was mentioned on the website, what you expected, and what you actually got, in a respectful manner, and a resolution will come around. No one likes to be spoken to in a disrespectful manner. Especially when a resolution can come quicker if it's all handled in a mature manner by BOTH parties. Like I said in earlier posts, being disrespectful doesn't get anyone anywhere. Be nice, constructive, voice your complaints and why you feel you were short changed. It's not often you can email the actual author of the software and ask questions.

When you look at the newly refreshed X-Plane website, do you get the impression that you are purchasing the quality of product they shipped to you this month? Is a flight sim enthusiast going to even notice that the screenshots on the website in the "Airports" category are ALL from Seattle? It would take a very clever person to "see" the omissions in all the information presented and glean from that the current state of affairs.From the website, "This is the flight model, flexability, realism, and detail we believe a flight simulator should have."They failed to finish their thought by sayng... "...but we didn't have time to finish it, so bear with us while we work for 2, 4, 8, 12 more months to get it all buttoned up. And while we're at it, could you add buildings to the airports for us? Thanx."

Again, this is the way it has been done for years. As far as YOU'RE concerned, it's wrong. As far as many others are concerned, it's wrong. But equally, as far as many others, it's fine. When is a flight sim actually finished? I could think of a ton of stuff to add/fix to FSX. If I email Microsoft, you think they would listen?

From the AVSIM X-Plane 10 preview interview with Austin himself...

2. What about the simulation of small, medium and international airports (gates, buildings, aprons, cargo area, etc.)?

These will be

generic

, but there will be content there. In addition our scenery tools will allow 3rd party developers to build out custom airports, with gates, vehicles, and buildings.

Although this interview was from April 2011, we all know how this scenario wound up. At least we can now say that Laminar had at least planned to outfit airports with generic content but then decided against it or decided to not give it enough time.

It has been said that airport buildings will be added somewhere down the line. But in all fairness, I've seen many developers promise things and those promises have not been fulfilled at all.

For those with specific and/or vested interests, X-Plane 10 may be a great tool for their flight sim entertainment needs.For a great many others with more general interests and honestly modest expectations, X-Plane 10 is going to prove to be a disappointment at this time.For those of us flight sim addicts with concerns about X-Plane and the willpower to not have purchased it yet, its going to be a long winter as we wait for things to change and improve. Here's to the new year!

Modest expectations? I have seen only three major things that people have been genuinely upset about. Cities, default flight models and lack of airport buildings. Clouds are unmatched. Night lighting is unmatched. Rural areas are excellent. Yet these three things, which will get addressed in the coming weeks/months, are huge deal breakers for some people. It's hard not to draw a comparison with FSX, but I feel I have to. The CTD's, OOM's, completely unrealistic night sky (I just came back from a vacation and we flew at night. Except for the flashing strobes and wing lights, you couldn't see a thing out the window), unrealistic weather (as evidenced by the need for programs like Activesky) are enough to break a deal for me. And none of these were addressed by the ACES team. They made a free service pack OR you would go out and buy Acceleration for a further $50 and that would fix a few small glitches and add some new aircraft and missions. Would you be happy to pay a further $50 for a bunch of newly made aircraft for X Plane? If so, I'll get to work on making some new ones and start charging for it. If you're going to point things out that are lacking, then let's do it for BOTH sims. But at the same time, point out what is included as well.

So what is it about LR that makes them so stubborn to not spend a few minutes to update the planes that most people will fly, e.g. the cessna. I have heard the nostalgia reason but that is even worse, to keep the planes awful as a salute to the past.

lol, I have no idea. It is how it is.You could always try and ask Austin himself.

[VegaSS 2]

And now we have VegaSS claiming that X-Plane's flight dynamics are "HORRIFIC" (yes, all capitals):http://forum.avsim.n...ost__p__2203619 :(

Yes, but many XP fans have also admitted this at times, stating that the defaults are bad, and that 3rd party add-on aircraft are quite necessary. It's just my opinion, I don't care much for the flight dynamics in XPX and I'll stand by that.