I've been running a bit behind in my forum reading and so just came across this excellent post (more than a week old) by Guy Montagu-Pollock, developer of the well regarded work-in-progress De Havilland Comet for X-Plane. It's in Robert Randazzo's "Some Thoughts on Flight" thread over in the PMDG General forum.It's worth reading in full. It offers a model for a better, more productive conversation between X-Plane users and FSX users that we've often had hereabouts.Money quote:

This is the nub of the argument: X-Plane is like a force that has yet to reach critical mass. Already, since the closure of the ACES studio, sales of X-Plane have soared, membership of forums have doubled, and the demands of FS9/FSX users, used to a more "polished" virtual world, is having a hugely beneficial effect. We need developers like PMDG to show how it can be done, to encourage more developers to form effective teams and finish new projects in good time. We need FSX users to bring a new point of view, or a new sense of priorities, to make XP10, XP11, XP12 even better than they could be without them.

Read the whole thing and let me know what you think.

Edited January 25, 201214 yr by Alan_A

Mr. or Ms. Eruption (apt name)...What exactly do you think you're accomplishing by plastering the same set of mediocre Flight screenshots all over Avsim? Spam isn't an argument - and your argument (if you have one) has nothing to do with this thread. Go away.Mods - any chance Eruption's post can be deleted? He or she is just chewing up bandwidth.Thanks.

Mr. or Ms. Eruption (apt name)...What exactly do you think you're accomplishing by plastering the same set of mediocre Flight screenshots all over Avsim? Spam isn't an argument - and your argument (if you have one) has nothing to do with this thread. Go away.Mods - any chance Eruption's post can be deleted? He or she is just chewing up bandwidth.Thanks.

:( :(

Eruption -I've already reported both your posts and maybe the mods will give you a quick and merciful end. In the meantime, you might want to read my original post, and the post that it links to, and think about why, just maybe, your post might be about 180 degrees off course from what I'm trying to get across here.Over and out.

Ah - well, there's my lack of X-Plane experience showing.

(quote from your other thread, where this would have been totally off-topic)As no one of the "old" x-plane users will write a book called "The X-Plane Guide: The sim's Culture, the best Plugins, nicest sceneries and must have aircraft" anytime soon, I wonder: How can "we" really be of help?It is my understanding that a lot of the X vs. F troubles comes from misunderstandings.Example: New people to x-plane are shocked to find no buildings at the aiports. Where would I start to point them? Here? http://lszh.aviation-art.ch/ Or here? http://www.xpih.net/xpih/XPIH_Home/Entries/2010/10/19_Cork_Airport_-_Release_1.0_now_available.html ? As a matter of fact, great scenery indeed is available.But with the lack of such a comprehensive guide and the questions beeing more of a generalization than specific (like "anybody knows a great Zurich scenery for X-plane"?), the discussions go south and turn into completely useless XPX vs. FSX flames.I'm really not sure what to do in order to gain a "more productive conversation" as you call it. I just hope that this will come with time and improvements that adress what X-Plane is still lacking.

As simple as I can put it regarding this argument:Flight Simulator X Deluxe = $50 = A great deal of the 24,000+ airports have buildings in place. The vast majority of the 'world' is well defined out-of-the-box and fairly close to what the real world is like (yes, there are problem areas).X-Plane X = $ = If you want airport buildings, go find them on the internet. The vast majority of the 'world' is 'plausible' in appearance.Higher price, less product.If they're not going to include all of that in the base product, the least they can do (Laminar Research) is live up to their name (light-hearted joke) and research how people can obtain what they're looking for and provide the information. The extra $30 for the product should cover the cost nicely.

FSX at release (6 years ago) = $AUD99Acceleration at release (6 years ago) = $AUD49.95X Plane 10 at release (today) = $AUD74.90+$US5.00 shippingX-Plane 10 in 6 years = Around $AUD30Here's an idea! If you don't like it, don't buy it.No-brainer and even SIMPLER than your explanation, Ed.

Deliver the product that was hyped and promised - relatively BUG-FREE AND COMPLETE.$crew the updates ! Just deliver the product - TODAY, NOT TWO OR SIX MONTHS FROM NOW. TODAY !The customers lived up to their end of the bargain AND PAID IN FULL - NOT TWO OR SIX MONTHS FROM NOW.When will Laminar live upto it's end of the bargain ?OR ATLEAST, give customers the option of getting a FULL REFUND, INCLUDING SHIPPING CHARGES AND TAXES AS APPLICABLE.This problem was ENTIRELY Laminar's creation. They should bear COMPLETE responsiblity to fully address it and fix it as necessary - ASAP !

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by m_av

As simple as I can put it regarding this argument:Flight Simulator X Deluxe = $50 = A great deal of the 24,000+ airports have buildings in place. The vast majority of the 'world' is well defined out-of-the-box and fairly close to what the real world is like (yes, there are problem areas).X-Plane X = $ = If you want airport buildings, go find them on the internet. The vast majority of the 'world' is 'plausible' in appearance.Higher price, less product.If they're not going to include all of that in the base product, the least they can do (Laminar Research) is live up to their name (light-hearted joke) and research how people can obtain what they're looking for and provide the information. The extra $30 for the product should cover the cost nicely.

Let me offer a contrast:FSX: Buggy ancient product still costing 50 bucks. Airports are not accurate with respect to signage, buildings etc. Default buildings are used to represent airports, and are generally wrong. Same brown terminal building in Capetown is in Toronto, etc. Weather effects aren't nearly as polished, wind and turbulence effect highly suspect. Slow. Low res terrain. Abandonware (not being actively developed)XplaneX: Optimized independant Flight Sim with over 50 GIGS of scenery and terrain relief. High Res terrain. No buildings at airports, but accurate taxiways and ramps. Far superior lighting system. Very detailed weather engine (although lack of high alt downloadable winds is annoying.) For only 70 bucks. Currently being actively Supported.

Let me offer a contrast:FSX: Buggy ancient product still costing 50 bucks. Airports are not accurate with respect to signage, buildings etc. Default buildings are used to represent airports, and are generally wrong. Same brown terminal building in Capetown is in Toronto, etc. Weather effects aren't nearly as polished, wind and turbulence effect highly suspect. Slow. Low res terrain. Abandonware (not being actively developed)XplaneX: Optimized independant Flight Sim with over 50 GIGS of scenery and terrain relief. High Res terrain. No buildings at airports, but accurate taxiways and ramps. Far superior lighting system. Very detailed weather engine (although lack of high alt downloadable winds is annoying.) For only 70 bucks. Currently being actively Supported.

People wonder why FSX users take issue with X-Plane... I stated a few simple reasons why. What was the purpose of your post again?? To argue against the reasons why?? To invalidate the reasons why? Seriously... I see no point to your post other than to attempt to argue something that's not meant to be an argument.

Let me offer a contrast:FSX: Buggy ancient product still costing 50 bucks. Airports are not accurate with respect to signage, buildings etc. Default buildings are used to represent airports, and are generally wrong. Same brown terminal building in Capetown is in Toronto, etc. Weather effects aren't nearly as polished, wind and turbulence effect highly suspect. Slow. Low res terrain. Abandonware (not being actively developed)XplaneX: Optimized independant Flight Sim with over 50 GIGS of scenery and terrain relief. High Res terrain. No buildings at airports, but accurate taxiways and ramps. Far superior lighting system. Very detailed weather engine (although lack of high alt downloadable winds is annoying.) For only 70 bucks. Currently being actively Supported.

Quite frankly you don't know what you are talking about!!!

FSX at release (6 years ago) = $AUD99Acceleration at release (6 years ago) = $AUD49.95X Plane 10 at release (today) = $AUD74.90+$US5.00 shippingX-Plane 10 in 6 years = Around $AUD30Here's an idea! If you don't like it, don't buy it.No-brainer and even SIMPLER than your explanation, Ed.

I'll repeat my reply to 'cmdrnmartin':People wonder why FSX users take issue with X-Plane... I stated a few simple reasons why. What was the purpose of your post again?? To argue against the reasons why?? To invalidate the reasons why? Seriously... I see no point to your post other than to attempt to argue something that's not meant to be an argument.It's wrong for you to be so dismissive.

I have yet to see either of you contribute anything constructive here.

Is it not possible for both of them to exist side by side?!I've been a user of Microsoft Flight Sim for many years, and I'm just getting into X-Plane. I like them both, and see the advantages and disadvantages of both.These sorts of threads always end in tears, because it always boils down to a matter of opinion as to what people prefer using. It's like the Windows brigade and the Mac brigade!The solid facts are: FSX is old, and is no longer being supported. Whether you have issues with it or not, it is what it is today and mechanically nothing will change about it. X-Plane 10 is new, and is being updated continuously, each update being free-of-charge.

**edit**Please be more constructive and actually read the OP. Ta much.