Nope, try again.You see, I said that it's my opinion that default XP10 looks better than default FSX.You come along and say, "But, but, but, X-Plane doesn't have feature X, Y, and Z! :("And I say, so what? It's still my opinion that it looks better. Those features might be important to you, but they're not important to me, hence an opinion that apparently differs from yours. All I can say is get over it.

HelloAirports are not important to you in a flight simulator, how odd

Falwell airport in Lynchburg, VA is rather famous (or infamous) in Central Virginia for its sloped runway. It was disappointingly flat as a pancake in FSX but properly sloped as in real life in XP10. I've said it before, X-Plane 10 might lose some, but it definitely wins some as well.

A couple months ago I was flying with my exflying partner in his new plane and he said let's land at ktew and get some fuel-it's cheap there. I came in-made a landing, and started slamming the brakes on. What are you doing he asked-I said I'm running out of runway-he said don't worry-its sloped in the middle. Sure enough I let off the brakes and had plenty. Sloped runways at least to me are a good thing-even if they may be overdone a little. Ktew only shows a .1% gradient-but once you hit the numbers it looks half as long....

OK. So XPX is better then FSX because it has a few sloped runways? Even though the runways are devoid of all details but the runway itself... Interesting. P.S. The runway at KSEA is way more the. .6% grade in XPX. Its so sloped that when I flew the 172 in the XPX demo, it started to roll backwards! Talk about putting your demo foot in your mouth.

Im sure in 6 years, XP12 will be out, and still fail to beat FSX in scenery, and still cost $ US.

There you go assuming again. To an ex ACES development team member such as yourself, X Plane will NEVER be good enough for you. No matter what it looks like, how it flies, etc... We can just leave it at that.

You keep forgetting Prepar3d IS FSX. All those assets came from FSX except for what LM put in, and thats very little.

WHAT? So for $400, I get a slightly glorified FSX?? Now that's a rip off if I've ever seen one!

Also, in 3 months you equal the cost of FSX Gold, and 4 months pass the cost. Do you only play 2 months? Also P3D is made for professionals and military, hence the high price for the buy.

You just said earlier that P3d was FSX with very little added. Now you say it's developed by LM and made for the military. Which is it?

Overall, it seems you dont deny the fact that XPX is both incomplete and more expensive then similar products that are complete.

Incorrect.I don't deny that X Plane is incomplete. It even tells you its a beta in the splashscreen. Is it more expensive than similar products? XP10=$79.95. P3D=$399. XP9=$30 (And it's complete)You can't compare something that was sold 6 years ago. Even some computer hardware is obsolete after 6 months.

OK. So XPX is better then FSX because it has a few sloped runways? Even though the runways are devoid of all details but the runway itself... Interesting.P.S. The runway at KSEA is way more the. .6% grade in XPX. Its so sloped that when I flew the 172 in the XPX demo, it started to roll backwards! Talk about putting your demo foot in your mouth.

Umm, there's an option to disable the sloped runways. Checkbox. I told you this weeks ago. To expect ANY flight sim to have 100% accurate worldwide terrain data, including the runway slopes at all the airports, is just stupid.

Mv-some of us have patience. Were you one of the ones screaming about the deserts in fsx and performance after it came out? Just curious...I don't remember. I was patient then too.

Airports are not important to you in a flight simulator, how odd

Airports are very important in a flight simulator, and that's why X-Plane is better: you get updated airports:http://data.x-plane.com/

WHAT? So for $400, I get a slightly glorified FSX?? Now that's a rip off if I've ever seen one! or the military. Which is it? XP10=$79.95. P3D=$399. XP9=$30 (And it's complete)

I have already explained that the price of prepar3d is for a commercial license and should only be compared to the $750 price tag of xplane, so why do you keep comparing it to the $79 version? Also, you say p3d is a ripoff at more $$ for only a few features. Read what xplane says about the commerical version. The main difference is what they have removed because it is not needed for commercial use. For for ten times the price they remove a lot of the program.

Nope, try again.You see, I said that it's my opinion that default XP10 looks better than default FSX.You come along and say, "But, but, but, X-Plane doesn't have feature X, Y, and Z! :("And I say, so what? It's still my opinion that it looks better. Those features might be important to you, but they're not important to me, hence an opinion that apparently differs from yours. All I can say is get over it.

Why do people continually want to compare XP10 with a FSX Default? It would be fair to compare XP9 with FSX default, but XP10 is a new gen sim, which should atleast come close to, equal or exceed the capabilities of what's currently available, not against the state it was 6 years earlier. (Why would anyone want to go backwards?) This is the standard I use for each FS version I purchased, and the standard I'll use for both XP10 and Flight. Right now I'm comparing XP10 with XP9 and at high settings, XP10 surpasses XP9. It eliminates the visibility barrier, although it doesnt show the detail behind it, which is a big let down, and explains why the visibility was limited in the first place. At the default settings though, XP10 just looks bad. It looks like I'm flying over Florida during the land scandal in the 70's, where developers were building houses in the middle of nowhere, with no way to get to them. Up until yesterday my system couldn't handle anything higher then default, but with the discovered Cloud puff tweak, and Goran's help with the stability with increasing the flight model setting, that is no longer a problem. The only thing that holds me back now from the full version is available disk space. (My system's internal drive slots are full, So I'll have to clear space off one, or replace and reload an existing one with a larger drive.) Overall though compared to my current setup with FSX, there just isn't a comparison. Maybe in the future it may catch up, but X-Plane just isn't there yet.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by tf51d

Im sure in 6 years, XP12 will be out, and still fail to beat FSX in scenery, and still cost $ US.There you go assuming again. To an ex ACES development team member such as yourself, X Plane will NEVER be good enough for you. No matter what it looks like, how it flies, etc... We can just leave it at that.

What? this guy was an ex Aces member? You're kidding right?

Nope. Not kidding.

There you go assuming again. To an ex ACES development team member such as yourself, X Plane will NEVER be good enough for you. No matter what it looks like, how it flies, etc... We can just leave it at that.

Your taking this a bit personal. You cant say at all that I didnt give it a good try. I spend about 3 hours OVER SKYPE WITH YOU trying to figure XPX out. If I wasent giving it a fair chance, why would I of bothered?

WHAT? So for $400, I get a slightly glorified FSX?? Now that's a rip off if I've ever seen one!

I think that $400 gives you publishing rights to offer your 3rd party add-on's to LM's customers. I havent read the license, and I dont plan on doing so. I agree that for you and me, $400 is a ripoff. But when your Boeing looking for an engine for there full motion sims, its the biggest value of the centrury!

You just said earlier that P3d was FSX with very little added. Now you say it's developed by LM and made for the military. Which is it?

Do you really need a history lesson? P3D is Microsfot ESP. ESP was a professional level LICENSE of the FSX engine and assets. Lockheed purchased ESP when ACES closed and rebranded it P3D for distribution.http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lockheed_Martin_Prepar3D_Set_To_Launch_999.htmlQUOTE "The Prepar3D software lets individuals and organizations conduct realistic training by engaging users in immersive environments. It can also be used for evaluating and preparing people for real world assignments and tasks."P3D is not a end-user flight sim. End of story.

Incorrect.I don't deny that X Plane is incomplete. It even tells you its a beta in the splashscreen. Is it more expensive than similar products? XP10=$79.95. P3D=$399. XP9=$30 (And it's complete)You can't compare something that was sold 6 years ago. Even some computer hardware is obsolete after 6 months.

OK. How does XP9 default stack up against FSX Gold default then? If XP10 cant, and XP9 can, then there is a problem.

What? this guy was an ex Aces member? You're kidding right?

I havent made this a secret, but I dont brag about it. Sadly my tenyear on the team only lasted for 3 months before ACES closed. I currently do 3rd party work for FSX and was looking into doing work for XPX.

Airports are very important in a flight simulator, and that's why X-Plane is better: you get updated airports:http://data.x-plane.com/

Oh yes, empty airports with buildings not in sight, where the community has to do all the work.But then it's not XPX default anymore. And at that point I can ask to see real world AI, following real time schedules. Any chance of that?

Seems to me the community had to do a lot of work for fs too-Active sky, gex, ftx, utx, rex-all the aircraft add on companies among the commercial help, and of course lots of freeware help too. It would be nice if xplane could get such help too.I said it a couple weeks ago but if you want to enjoy presently real world ai traffic running on schedules, airport buildings, very good default atc, and four seasons-fs will probably be where you will want to be for now.Thank god there are sims that address the other aspects of flying though. I'll even be buying the new aerosoft sim because despite already being called simplistic by some, it addresses a whole other aspect of aviation better than both fsx and xpx.Still not sure after so many years around here why 1) 1 sim has to "win" 2) that it hard to accept that some people sim in different ways and find just as much enjoyment 3) "serious simmer" is relative...It isn't a negative thing to have many sims...vs 1 or none- Ithink it is pretty nice !

And at that point I can ask to see real world AI, following real time schedules.

In France this would be very unrealistic. :( Real time schedules, in France ? :(

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by MdMax

Having a community to help enhance a game is really nice. Both FS and XP have enjoyed that quite a lot with a lot of great 3rd party add-on's, but it seems to me that XP relies on the community to "finish" there product, yet it charges more then MSFS ever has (In USD). Thats what I dont get.