Not repeating the messageWhat's with the unrealistic night sky? I've flown into the mountains in FSX numerous times, because I couldn't see a darn thing, and wasn't backing it up with charts, GPS, etc. Just checking to see if I was lucky. Seemed pretty realistic to me.CTD's-------------didn't ever have one. And if there was, I've forgotten. Had a bad motherboard once. Thought it was FSX, but nope, it wasn't.You claim that 200+ people were working on FSX. Who would we E-mail? There was an Microsoft FSX developer, who was on the AVSIM forums quite regularly. And I think he got a bit tired of endless complaining............as is happening here. Since FSX has so many 3rd party developers, it's been easy to get in touch with most of them.Comparing constant X-Plane updates...........to just two service paks for FSX.............isn't really the same thing, unless you're trying to make a point with numbers. The real point, is that FSX was much more of a completed product at release. Personally, I'm fine with updates for X-Plane. It doesn't bother me. Just refrain from trying to use is as a statistical example against Microsoft's FSX.

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

+1yes! why not the "expert" help the community by spending 1 hour adjusting 20 planes flight dynamic?

Because sometimes it's not as cut and dry as that.Like I said, it took me a year to finish the flight model for my Saab. Where 1 thing in the FM was made accurate, 3 other things were made worse. If I made a default flight model, it would take me much less time, but it all depends on what a developer was willing to do in his free time.

Comparing constant X-Plane updates...........to just two service paks for FSX.............isn't really the same thing, unless you're trying to make a point with numbers. The real point, is that FSX was much more of a completed product at release. Personally, I'm fine with updates for X-Plane. It doesn't bother me. Just refrain from trying to use is as a statistical example against Microsoft's FSX.

Just to extend, users of FSX knew what they were getting when the bought it. The sim 6 years later is nearly the same as it was at release, excepting the service pack stability bug fixes and improvement of FPS. XPlane is exactly the opposite. What we have today may be vastly improved or different (depending on view of changes positively or negatively) and we have no idea what will be in the final product when Austin determines it is finished. That is the biggest point of contention for most is the unknown direction of development and what features will be at what stage when development is considered done.

Because sometimes it's not as cut and dry as that.Like I said, it took me a year to finish the flight model for my Saab. Where 1 thing in the FM was made accurate, 3 other things were made worse. If I made a default flight model, it would take me much less time, but it all depends on what a developer was willing to do in his free time.

I understand the time you are saying to make it really good but it seems that pretty much no effort was taken to make it much better, so without making them all payware quality it seems that there is room to move to make much better planes with little effort. It seems that they must not be interested in doing something that one could do in their lunchbreak.

Not repeating the messageWhat's with the unrealistic night sky? I've flown into the mountains in FSX numerous times, because I couldn't see a darn thing, and wasn't backing it up with charts, GPS, etc. Just checking to see if I was lucky. Seemed pretty realistic to me.

For you? Fair enough. For me, and many others, it's far from realistic. It's dark, but I can still see absolutely everything when flying around mountains.

CTD's-------------didn't ever have one. And if there was, I've forgotten. Had a bad motherboard once. Thought it was FSX, but nope, it wasn't.

Again, for you, maybe you never had them. I did and many others did. There is also an FSX CTD subforum. New buyers of PMDG's 737 were having them as well as OOM's.

You claim that 200+ people were working on FSX. Who would we E-mail? There was an Microsoft FSX developer, who was on the AVSIM forums quite regularly. And I think he got a bit tired of endless complaining............as is happening here. Since FSX has so many 3rd party developers, it's been easy to get in touch with most of them.

Exactly! Who WOULD you email? Thank you for pointing out that there isn't even a known customer service contact point if there are ever any problems. And it was 283 developers.

Comparing constant X-Plane updates...........to just two service paks for FSX.............isn't really the same thing, unless you're trying to make a point with numbers. The real point, is that FSX was much more of a completed product at release. Personally, I'm fine with updates for X-Plane. It doesn't bother me. Just refrain from trying to use is as a statistical example against Microsoft's FSX.

A service pack is not an update. A service pack is a collection of updates bundled into one file. Laminar don't do that. They fix-as-they-go. Got a complaint or a problem, email them, they make an update. Crisis over. Sometimes the update comes much later according to priority. XP10 has a few code issues to resolve, so they take precedence over scenery atm.

I understand the time you are saying to make it really good but it seems that pretty much no effort was taken to make it much better, so without making them all payware quality it seems that there is room to move to make much better planes with little effort. It seems that they must not be interested in doing something that one could do in their lunchbreak.

TBH, I wouldn't have a clue if they were or were not interested or how much importance they place on that kind of thing. I certainly wouldn't mind doing it, but I have no idea how all the default aircraft fly and I wouldn't want my own payware judged based on what I did for the default stuff. Comments like "Oh yeah, Goran, he modified the default C172 and it's OK, but it's not THAT accurate. I wouldn't put too much faith in his payware being close to 100% if he can't make a default Cessna close to 100% accurate" would be a little worrying for me and my small boutique of a dev team.I'm not saying it's happened or is going to happen, but it is definitely something to be concerned about as a developer who does this kind of thing for a living.

TBH, I wouldn't have a clue if they were or were not interested or how much importance they place on that kind of thing. I certainly wouldn't mind doing it, but I have no idea how all the default aircraft fly and I wouldn't want my own payware judged based on what I did for the default stuff. Comments like "Oh yeah, Goran, he modified the default C172 and it's OK, but it's not THAT accurate. I wouldn't put too much faith in his payware being close to 100% if he can't make a default Cessna close to 100% accurate" would be a little worrying for me and my small boutique of a dev team.I'm not saying it's happened or is going to happen, but it is definitely something to be concerned about as a developer who does this kind of thing for a living.

I wouldn't do it for those reasons you outlined if I was a developer either, but LR should put some more effort in to it given it generates so many complaints which people attribute to a flight model and time wise it looks like a developer could spend a day to make a real difference across a few planes.

For you? Fair enough. For me, and many others, it's far from realistic. It's dark, but I can still see absolutely everything when flying around mountains.

NO.....................when I say dark, I mean black as coal. No mountains show whatsover, unless they're snow covered, which of course, X-Plane can't do. Switch to a season besides winter, on a moonless night, and any form of horizon is gone. Of course, since you probably have your gamma settings set to a brightness to liven up the normally dark X-Plane, then I suppose it can effect the realism of FSX too..

Again, for you, maybe you never had them. I did and many others did. There is also an FSX CTD subforum. New buyers of PMDG's 737 were having them as well as OOM's.

Bound to happen, when you get such a diverse amount of addons.........isn't it?

Exactly! Who WOULD you email? Thank you for pointing out that there isn't even a known customer service contact point if there are ever any problems. And it was 283 developers.

And all this time, I always hear that the excuses for X-Plane, is that the development team is much to small. Looks like they're right...

TBH, I wouldn't have a clue if they were or were not interested or how much importance they place on that kind of thing. I certainly wouldn't mind doing it, but I have no idea how all the default aircraft fly and I wouldn't want my own payware judged based on what I did for the default stuff. Comments like "Oh yeah, Goran, he modified the default C172 and it's OK, but it's not THAT accurate. I wouldn't put too much faith in his payware being close to 100% if he can't make a default Cessna close to 100% accurate" would be a little worrying for me and my small boutique of a dev team.I'm not saying it's happened or is going to happen, but it is definitely something to be concerned about as a developer who does this kind of thing for a living.

Quite frankly................If you don't have a set of rudder pedals (as I believe you said), then I'm surprised how you figure if they fly correctly or not. A twist grip or rocker switch for rudder, just won't do the job.

Edited January 2, 201214 yr by LAdamson

@LAdamson,Talk about being pointless. You never had CTDs in FSX? Well excuse me for not believing you. As you say, bound to happen, right? So which is it? You did or didn't?

NO.....................when I say dark, I mean black as coal. No mountains show whatsover, unless they're snow covered, which of course, X-Plane can't do. Switch to a season besides winter, on a moonless night, and any form of horizon is gone. Of course, since you probably have your gamma settings set to a brightness to liven up the normally dark X-Plane, then I suppose it can effect the realism of FSX too..

I knew you would "assume" something. No, I have my gamma settings at the default 2.5 in x plane. SOMETIMES I have it at 2.2 or as low as 2.0 for testing textures in my add ons. And no matter how hard I look at the horizon in FSX at night, in summer (anything other specific conditions you want to add?), I can still see the horizon.

Bound to happen, when you get such a diverse amount of addons.........isn't it?

The amount of add ons doesn't mean a thing. Since when is the amount of add ons a key factor in causing CTD's and OOM's??It's either the way the add on was made (inefficiently) or the way FSX is made (inefficiently).I hate to be so blunt about it, but that's really what it boils down to. I could definitely be wrong, so please feel free to correct me. But the amount of add ons causes OOM's and CTD's? Come on, Larry. Give me a little more credit than that.

And all this time, I always hear that the excuses for X-Plane, is that the development team is much to small. Looks like they're right...

And they're still in business and still turning a profit. Yet ACES was fired. :(

TBH, I wouldn't have a clue if they were or were not interested or how much importance they place on that kind of thing. I certainly wouldn't mind doing it, but I have no idea how all the default aircraft fly and I wouldn't want my own payware judged based on what I did for the default stuff. Comments like "Oh yeah, Goran, he modified the default C172 and it's OK, but it's not THAT accurate. I wouldn't put too much faith in his payware being close to 100% if he can't make a default Cessna close to 100% accurate" would be a little worrying for me and my small boutique of a dev team.I'm not saying it's happened or is going to happen, but it is definitely something to be concerned about as a developer who does this kind of thing for a living.

When your sentence doesnt start with TBH .. are you not being honest? :(

@LAdamson,Talk about being pointless. You never had CTDs in FSX? Well excuse me for not believing you. As you say, bound to happen, right? So which is it? You did or didn't?

Most likely not. Afterall, it's been six years since it was issued. I really don't remember a time, but possibly it happened, If it did, then I wouldn't want to be a liar...........would I?As I said, I did once blame FSX for computer woes while running the "sim". Turned out to be a defective motherboard. Replaced, and all has been well.

And they're still in business and still turning a profit. Yet ACES was fired. :(

But.. (I know you shouldn't start a sentence like that) aces were a team in microsoft, a huge company with many fingers in many pies. You dont always get fired because you are not making a profit. Projects often get canned because they dont make as much profit. They could have been making more money per headcount than LR, who knows but they were also competing in a large company that makes a lot of money in other areas.

I knew you would "assume" something. No, I have my gamma settings at the default 2.5 in x plane. SOMETIMES I have it at 2.2 or as low as 2.0 for testing textures in my add ons. And no matter how hard I look at the horizon in FSX at night, in summer (anything other specific conditions you want to add?), I can still see the horizon. The amount of add ons doesn't mean a thing. Since when is the amount of add ons a key factor in causing CTD's and OOM's??It's either the way the add on was made (inefficiently) or the way FSX is made (inefficiently).I hate to be so blunt about it, but that's really what it boils down to. I could definitely be wrong, so please feel free to correct me. But the amount of add ons causes OOM's and CTD's? Come on, Larry. Give me a little more credit than that.And they're still in business and still turning a profit. Yet ACES was fired. :(

I believe the base program of fsx is inherently stable and it is the add on's which cause CTD's and crashes-I even know in particular on my system which one's will cause them to occur over and over...and unfortunately they are my favorite add ons. :Rolling Eyes:I agree they can become annoying. Xplane does seem very stable except I get the NW Win32 Runtime error "could not allocate thread local data" every time I exit the program.