Hmmm - I did note that there was a hospital (St. Rose Dominican Hospital) a mile or two northeast of KHND at the corner of St. Rose Parkway and South Eastern Ave... it does have a helipad ... I wonder if that is indeed what VegaSS is seeing. Perhaps the logic which created the airport facilities didn't handle the creation of heliports all that well...

If it is, it'll probably show up as such in the X-Plane map - that's how I figured out what I was seeing in and around DC. You may have to zoom in to get them to show up, but they're marked in the map in this area at least.

@Alan,That's Funny,I'm using The TM WartHog Hotas as well and Love it BTW. :)

Oh, I agree completely - it's the best controller I've used, and I think I've used most of them except for the highest-end yokes such as the PFC offerings. It's just that I had to spend some time tuning it for X-Plane to get a decent response. The controller chain is pretty complex - I'm sure the CPU itself makes a difference in how the signals are processed - so my issues and settings may not apply to your setup at all.

I'm trying to figure out why the OP even bothered purchasing X-Plane 10 when everything he ranted about is readily apparent in the demo. And frankly, his "review" had all the marks of someone who wasn't going to give XP10 a fair chance in the first place making his purchase that much more inexplicable. That and his frequent references to FSX make this read more like a hit-piece than an objective critique.

Well Mountain man, if you have to know, I have the extra $$$ on hand, and I thought What the hell. Soo, with that, I'm suppose to not have any further opinion? That's only slightly narrow minded. As for FSX, I'm not a HUGE fan, it's just that I can't mention FLIGHT yet. I like to have options in my sims, I have XP9 also.

+1XPX needs just one quality ADD-ON aircraft. Nothing more, nothing less.

XPX needs help in the cities, very much so. Also still needs alot of help in the ATC/Traffic realm. There is just something that feels "dead" in this sim, even when it looks great. I can't put my finger on it. I've heard some you the term "mars-like", and I can't say that I dissagree with that.

Hmmm - I did note that there was a hospital (St. Rose Dominican Hospital) a mile or two northeast of KHND at the corner of St. Rose Parkway and South Eastern Ave... it does have a helipad ... I wonder if that is indeed what VegaSS is seeing. Perhaps the logic which created the airport facilities didn't handle the creation of heliports all that well...

St. Rose Sienna is the one, but there is no landing strip there. :( My wife is a nurse there, I don't need any excuse to fly her to work. :(

Even though the 3rd party aircraft help tremedously, I always get the feeling that the aircraft are hanging from a string and dangling. I've got the joystick down pact with all the settings good. Also, what's with the tires constantly squealing on the ground? I sound like I'm a teenager in a 500hp Camaro trying to see how much rubber is on my tires.

A little of topic, but Greg, are you also in the Las Vegas area?

Well Mountain man, if you have to know, I have the extra $$$ on hand, and I thought What the hell. Soo, with that, I'm suppose to not have any further opinion.

Let's just put it this way: When it's fairly obvious from your commentary that you didn't put any serious time into discovering everything X-Plane 10 has to offer, I don't have any reason to put much stock in your opinion. Honestly, your critique comes across as someone who had decided to be unimpressed before even starting XP10 up for the first time. Admitting to spending your money indiscriminately also contributes to my general impression that you're someone who is unfamiliar with careful consideration before taking action.

A little of topic, but Greg, are you also in the Las Vegas area?

No sir - I'm on the east coast, but I have family in the Phoenix area.Although there certainly is no airstrip at the hospital, the Google aerial photo shows a heliport. If the mystery airstrip you are seeing is found where the hospital would be, maybe that's how it got there... XP misinterpreting the data and putting down some sort of runway instead of a helipad. (??) I'm not trying to be argumentative at all about it, just trying to find some sort of reason why a stray airfield might appear. If not the heliport, and if it doesn't match up with any on that Abandoned Airports webpage, then it's a complete mystery to me.-Greg

Let's just put it this way: When it's fairly obvious from your commentary that you didn't put any serious time into discovering everything X-Plane 10 has to offer, I don't have any reason to put much stock in your opinion. Honestly, your critique comes across as someone who had decided to be unimpressed before even starting XP10 up for the first time. Admitting to spending your money indiscriminately also contributes to my general impression that you're someone who is unfamiliar with careful consideration before taking action.

Looks like ya got me figured out MM, move on now.

Let's just put it this way: When it's fairly obvious from your commentary that you didn't put any serious time into discovering everything X-Plane 10 has to offer, I don't have any reason to put much stock in your opinion. Honestly, your critique comes across as someone who had decided to be unimpressed before even starting XP10 up for the first time. Admitting to spending your money indiscriminately also contributes to my general impression that you're someone who is unfamiliar with careful consideration before taking action.

No..................what he actually found out, is that X-Plane doesn't have all to offer, that it's advertised as having. And you really should give hime more credit for at least purchasing the program. He is makeing an informed decision, by comparing the nature of real airplanes to the simulated aircraft. As to myself, I'm somewhat middle ground at this point. There are qualities I like about the Carenado F33 model in XP-10, and some that I don't feel that great about. At this point, I'm still not overwhelmed with joy, when comparing to FSX. And yes...................there are lots of X-Plane default models, that just plain suck! The default Stinson, works, though. I've used it quite a bit.I go along with Geofa. on the joystick settings. I've left the default XP-10 settings where they are, and noticed that my 9.60? or whatever version of XP-9 is also at the higher settings. It was version 8 ----- that had to be tamed down, including using artificial stability. With the default XP-10 settings, I find the F33 Bonanza very easy to fly. I do feel that the amount of right rudder on the takeoff roll seems good too. It's a solid feel of required rudder, without a tendency to wander. I'll have to make additional notes, on what happens when it leaves the ground. At this point, I have been using right rudder to maintain runway heading once airborne. I just haven't made mental notes of how long on the climbout, and how the power settings effect trim.As Geofa said previously. We DO need these debates. From what I see on some forums, it's just very PRO X-Plane, and very little is criticized when it comes to X-Plane's faults. Some forums even moderate criticism, to the point of removing it all. At the same time, they leave ALL of the anti-FSX rederick. I think that this particular topic, is right where it should be.L.Adamson

Great post Larry. No sim is perfect or ever has been. With that in mind xplane for me captures the feel of the f33, the takeoff and landing, and something at least I've never had in a sim-good trimming qualities. I can takeoff in relatively calm air, give my go flight trim wheel a few pushes, and the plane trims out beautifully (though the right turning problem in level flight requires aileron trim which is a little annoying but workable). I have to say on fsx-never been able to get a real feeling trim especially in the pitch access and hand flying I felt was always way harder than the real bird-the xplane version feels right and the hand flying is a joy.Now with all that praise-I'd love to feel comfortable listing all the things that are not right-and there are lots... all in the spirit of getting something better...

Good post LA.I'm an engineer with real flying experience and have been making flightmodels for X-Plane for over 10 years.Here are the facts;- Most of the default aircraft are way off on performance.- 90% of the other aircraft out there the same.Why?1. Because of lack of knowledge on the designer or lack of information on the aircraft.2. The default Radii of Gyration (inertia) constants which most designers use are way off and need to be custom set.3. Elevator efficiency which is too high and need to be accounted for by the designer.These are the most common mistakes.In adition, the best designers use plugins to adjust the core flightmodel in areas it need slight adjusting.So, in theory there is nothing one can't fix in XP. When our 737 is done, I'll prove it to you B)Apparently there are a few that give the impression of being flightmodel "experts" in here so instead oftalking nonsense about things that are off and cant be fixed, open PlaneMaker and FIX IT!M

As many of you, I purchased previous versions of X-plane with great hope, only to quickly abandon. X-plane 10 has finally won me over. It is far from perfect, but it has so many things I really like.Clouds, night lighting, IFR = AWESOME. Very immersive.One texture size = no blurries.Frame rates 30-50 on a decent rig. Very few stutters. Leverages GPU and cores.Great plugin model and SDK.Very stable.Continuous software updates and fixes.Default airplanes are lacking. Good 3rd party airplanes available. x737 + XHSI + UFMC + Goflight = Great.Daytime, VFR, airports, and scenery are lacking. However, the fundamental approach has so much potential. I am glad they released it now so 3rd parties can start working. I think within a year, it could be very nice.I am pulling for Austin and team. They are passionate and committed... unlike the other guys who are in, then out, then back in.For $80, I am very pleased.RichPP-ASEL-IA

I fly both FSX and XP9/XP10. When I purchased XP10 a few weeks back, it was updated to a beta 3 version, and now we're on beta 6. Each update, I note, includes updated files for the Planemaker and Airfoil maker files, the Baron and 172 default planes, as well as a lot of scenery. I also recall XP stating that 3rd party aircraft designers should hold off on issuing update "fixes" for XP9 aircraft until XP10 is tweaked a bit farther. Since the Planemaker files are constantly being altered, I think this makes perfect sense.If I had a single complaint, it would be that XP10 seemed to be rushed a bit to make the holiday availability list rather than having a more refined initial version. Yes, the default planes are a bit "twitchy" but joystick adjustments enable stable flight and controls. Let's be patient for a more stable Planemaker before passing judgement on porting XP9 aircraft into XP10.

No..................what he actually found out, is that X-Plane doesn't have all to offer, that it's advertised as having.

I can't say I agree because I don't see where Laminar has made any unfulfilled promises. The plausible cities seems to be a major gripe for some, but I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder. I happen to think they look great -- not perfect, of course, but certainly a big step ahead of older auto-gen routines that would indiscriminately plop scenery onto to the terrain. Laminar has said that they recognize the deficiencies of the system, especially in large cities, and will be working on improvements. At the moment, the data is there but the graphics to accurately represent certain urban environments has yet to be implemented, so houses and small office buildings are currently being used as placeholders. As far as the quality of visuals, XP10 blows FSX default out of the water, and it runs better on the same hardware.On the flight model debate, I don't have any real world flying experience so I can only compare it to other simulators, and after tweaking the controller settings in X-Plane 10, my impression is that its default 172 flies at least as good as the one in FSX -- there are no marked differences between the two that I can tell, although I think XP's planes interact with the ground better than FSX ever did (although XP, again, is not perfect). It's gotten to the point that whenever somebody complains that X-Plane is hard to control, I'm forced to assume that they didn't bother tweaking their controller settings to their liking. Yes, X-Plane could make a better out of the box impression, but I'm convinced that it remains the user's fault if they can't get a setting they're happy with.

As Geofa said previously. We DO need these debates. From what I see on some forums, it's just very PRO X-Plane, and very little is criticized when it comes to X-Plane's faults.

The people that get the flak around here are the ones who are decidedly anti-X-Plane and make snarky comments like "if you think this is 'as real as it gets' GET REAL!" and "I understand that Lemar has a limited crew, but maybe they should throw in the towel" along with declarations that Flight (which we know almost nothing about) will offer a more realistic experience. And this from someone who apparently bought X-Plane 10 without even bothering to try the demo first.I have no problem with someone criticizing X-Plane 10 so long as their criticism is reasoned and informed. I have no patience for someone who appears to have played around for a few minutes and then fired off a rant at the nearest message forum.

On the flight model debate,

Well, I get the feeling that there is a big Hardware dependency. On my i7 950 it flies like a charm, but on an i5...Very unstable.