You don't have to buy it, you know?

I guess you you didn't get to try the beta?

Been a beta tester since Jan 5th. You guys are in for a BIG surprise with this.As are the Whole flight sim community.Being a retired 737NG pilot who was used to 20 million euro level-d sims. I am not easily impressed.I am very impressed with Flight so far.Fred.

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by RYR738

> The FXS forums were full of ppl complaining about it which was why I passed it up. These people were all ones who had bought it. Even now if you look thru the FSX forums there are still complaints surfacing.PS Why would anyone who doesn't have FSX complain about it's issues? Sorry I don't get that.

Bull.......edit: I'll expand on that comment a bit...There were quite a number of us PPL who were involved with beta testing. And many of the same tested FS2002, FS2004, & FSX. There was never a mass of complainers compared to those who throught FSX was an improvement. And this also applys to many pilots who were never involved with the beta-tests. So no, there were not FSX fourms "full" of ppl complaining. I should know, as I've been around this for so many years. It usually came down to two issues, either the preference of using airliners with complex airport scenery that could drag down the fps in FSX (remain with FS9), or machines that just couldn't handle FSX. My personal ppl opinion was highly in favor of FSX over FS9.........due to the graphic capability. Most of my real life flying is over the mountain/desert regions of the western US. FSX produced a much more life like view, as well as what appears to... added depth over mountainous regions.

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by LAdamson

Been a beta tester since Jan5th. You guys are in for a BIG surprise with this.

Good or bad surprise?Can I fly from Helsinki, Finland to Bangkok, Thailand and see beautiful Afghan mountains below? I dont want to fly with small plane around Hawaii, its boring.

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by FScamp

With the initial FREE base pack no. With future added geography yes,Fred.

With the initial FREE base pack no. With future added geography yes,Fred.

Ok. Also can I have at least Feelthere/Wilco quality A330-300 with Finnair textures so I can recreate my old (and soon again coming) flight from Helsinki to Krabi, Thailand. Also I demand high quality Krabi airport that is at least as good as one I bought for FSX.

HowardHughes & JSkorna noted...

- Complete lack of buildings at 99.999% of airports- A failure of the 'plausible world' in 99% os urban areas- Awful ATC implementation- Awful AI implementation- Seasonal textures.

Have you noticed that XPX is still in beta?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of two weeks ago, X-Plane 10.03 is considered a finalized, production release, and there's no sign of the above items or many other situations which could be remedied or improved.The continuous development process that X-Plane finds itself in version after version is going to cause problems. It already is with people thinking of transitioning from the Microsoft world to X-Plane. It is a massive culture shift, and while there is merit to the thought that MSFS converts should make adjustments, but Laminar should as well... especially considering there are perfectly functional (*dare I say superior?) alternatives from the older MSFS series already installed on their potential customer's computers.

You don't want to be a beta tester for XPX, don't buy it and wait. I chose to be one. What is the big deal?

Over the past two months, there is no mention whatsoever that what you were buying from Laminar Research for $80 was a beta package. Even now with the finalization of 10.03, there's no mention about the "ongoing development process" which delivers to the purchaser an arguably incomplete simulator as of today, and spawns of beta after beta going forward. I'm familiar with several individuals who feel they were sold a bill of goods and got something in return which paled in comparison to what they expected.In a way, X-Plane 10 is no better than MS Flight - you'll have to wait and see to find out what missing features will make their way into the program. I can't believe I'm about to "defend" MS Flight, but at least with Flight you aren't paying ahead of time for the privilege of waiting for missing items to get created and included.-Greg

Being a retired 737NG pilot who was used to 20 million euro level-d sims. I am not easily impressed.

Actually as an individual formerly responsible for the design and commissioning of Level-D full motion simulator visuals (in collimated WAC/Domes and non-collimated domes) I am quite comfortable stating that outside of being fluid (no stutters etc depending on the IG used) the graphics are generally fairly basic.....perhaps edging towards unmodified FS2004 in the best of cases.The 20 million (or whatever) is spent primarily on the cockpit and control station build (with associated software) and the hydraulic (or electric) FM platform. A large chunk of the display cost is gobbled up by the dome structure and visual housings. The cost of 3-5 Barco (or whoever's) projectors or other visual display unit is chump change....relatively speaking.Honestly out of the systems I worked on perhaps 2 highly specialized helicopter mission simulators came remotely close to a default FSX-level of "eye-candy"....and thats down to the nature of rotary wind standard low altitude operations.Don't get me wrong....having the opportunity to test fly every one of my systems was a great unforgettable experience for a non-pilot....but comparing that sort of sim to the eye candy you get from X-Plane/FSX is not even close from a visual standpoint!Just saying.

I dont mind lack of airport buildings and stuff in X plane as thanks to public SDK which Flight lacks it can all be added easily. Also default scenery cant be any worse than in FSX at least...

If it's so easy then why can't buildings be present by default?

I dont mind lack of airport buildings and stuff in X plane as thanks to public SDK which Flight lacks it can all be added easily. Also default scenery cant be any worse than in FSX at least...

It can, and very often is.

I dont mind lack of airport buildings and stuff in X plane as thanks to public SDK which Flight lacks it can all be added easily.

Have v10 related tools been released by Ben?With the ease of populating 20,000+ airports, might I ask how many you've gotten done since XP9 or XPX were released?There is this notion that "the community" is going to develop and populate airports all around the XPX world and then share them with everyone else, for FREE! Please, in all seriousness, let me know when 10% have been finished. The "it's going to get done" talk is cheap, my sense is the reality and enormity of doing more than a smallish percentage of airport work is wishful thinking.

Enjoy !!! http://www.microsoft.com/games/flight/#news-flight_launch

Mmmm.... Mmmmm.... mmmmmmMMMMMMM.... BBBBBBBBBAAAAARRRRRRFFFF! :Hypnotized:I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.

Have v10 related tools been released by Ben?With the ease of populating 20,000+ airports, might I ask how many you've gotten done since XP9 or XPX were released?There is this notion that "the community" is going to develop and populate airports all around the XPX world and then share them with everyone else, for FREE! Please, in all seriousness, let me know when 10% have been finished. The "it's going to get done" talk is cheap, my sense is the reality and enormity of doing more than a smallish percentage of airport work is wishful thinking.

99% of FSX airports are not populated with real buildings but just generated ones, which is not much better than having no buildings at all.

10.4.x BETA - Enough said on that topic!

HowardHughes & JSkorna noted...

- Complete lack of buildings at 99.999% of airports- A failure of the 'plausible world' in 99% os urban areas- Awful ATC implementation- Awful AI implementation- Seasonal textures.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of two weeks ago, X-Plane 10.03 is considered a finalized, production release, and there's no sign of the above items or many other situations which could be remedied or improved.The continuous development process that X-Plane finds itself in version after version is going to cause problems. It already is with people thinking of transitioning from the Microsoft world to X-Plane. It is a massive culture shift, and while there is merit to the thought that MSFS converts should make adjustments, but Laminar should as well... especially considering there are perfectly functional (*dare I say superior?) alternatives from the older MSFS series already installed on their potential customer's computers.Over the past two months, there is no mention whatsoever that what you were buying from Laminar Research for $ was a beta package. Even now with the finalization of 10.03, there's no mention about the "ongoing development process" which delivers to the purchaser an arguably incomplete simulator as of today, and spawns of beta after beta going forward. I'm familiar with several individuals who feel they were sold a bill of goods and got something in return which paled in comparison to what they expected.In a way, X-Plane 10 is no better than MS Flight - you'll have to wait and see to find out what missing features will make their way into the program. I can't believe I'm about to "defend" MS Flight, but at least with Flight you aren't paying ahead of time for the privilege of waiting for missing items to get created and included.-Greg

It's 10.04 beta. Not 10.4By comparison, XP9 was considered stable at 9.20 or 9.22. I actually find it confusing how X Plane users are being patient about this, submitting bug reports, etc... but FSX users who, apparently are willing to make the move, are literally "pushing" X Plane to be a final product with missing features and missing fixes and posting about them in forums. It's like they're trying to discredit X Plane. Presumptuous on my part? possibly. LR make no secret that X Plane is in beta. But if you cannot accept it, then simply don't buy it. No one forced anyone to buy it. I know that if I saw a new piece of software, I would not go near it until I saw reviews and feedback from other people. No way would I blindly shell out $eighty for something I know nothing about. And just to show X Plane 10 is still in beta...X Plane 10.03 was a RC. Not a finalized product. 10.04 was a new beta version.Edit: I remember seeing someone said Austin slaps a beta label on x plane as an excuse for it's bugs. I'm still scratching my head over this one. If a product is buggy, it's the developers responsibility to label it a beta until the bugs are out. At least that's how I see it. Even the biggest dev's in FSX cannot release a bug free product. They need at least 1 or 2 service packs...up to and exceeding 6 months after the initial release. X Plane has been out about 2 months. Show some patience...like you show patience for FSX products.And correct me if I'm wrong, even PMDG have a support ticket system for bug reporting so they can fix their products. And that's just for an addon. X Plane is an entire flight simulator! I continually find it confusing that FSX users give Austin and the Laminar team very little slack but they extend all the slack in the world to revered FSX developers. Just seems like an incredible double standard.