I like the video. And the short just as much.

I like what I hear... A LOT !!!Especially the time frame.

Good move for them. I understand the UI was one of the important issues at the conference, though the majority of that (I believe) was developers wanting a less idiosyncratic way of assessing content creation tools. Luckily those concerns spilled over to general users too.Lucky For both XP and for all the potential users out there, I hope.

Nice interview, gives us an insight too on what makes Austin tick. Lots to look forward to.

Plenty of folks, on these forums, have told me that the UI wouldn't make a difference in XP sales...some said that my point was baseless. Austin now sees the light.... I feel vindicated. :(

- That was a nice video, but -

how about hiring a video company that knows how to manage light and exposure better?

~~~

It's good to have goals.. it's better to have the requisite number of employees needed to reach those goals before the icecaps melt away. Many of his stated goals need reasonable completion before I take the leap, but if history has told us anything, its that X-Plane is often a case study in "if only we had more time and resources."

Appears this 'might' be addressed with 10.10. Something MS would never do months after initial release in my humble opinion.

 

Tim

Appears this 'might' be addressed with 10.10. Something MS would never do months after initial release in my humble opinion.

 

Tim

 

With the GUI of FS2004/FSX/Flight, was there any need for them to address a problem? To date I don't hear anyone complaining about the GUI of the FS series.

I write simple programs that do simple things for me instead of manually doing things. Or a program to fill in some gaps. As of right now, I'm writing a program that will combine the inputs of several joysticks into a single joystick using a virtual joystick driver called vJoy as the output that Battlefield 3 interfaces with. In all their wisdom, DICE created a fantastic shoooter with tanks, planes and helicopters, but left out multiple joystick users. BF3 only supports a single controller. My X52 from 8 years ago works well except for the twist action is wonky and unreliable, but my rudder pedals work great. Being a separate controller means that I have to use a slider or rotary control instead of the twist action as those are the only other axes on the stick besides the twist.

 

My only option is to buy a new stick or find a way to trick BF3 into accepting inputs from several devices through the vJoy virtual joystick. Since it wasn't designed for what I'm doing, I'm having to write the front-end and back-end myself. Overall, it has to present you the devices and axes available to you as well as the output result that you can save to a file for future loading. You have to assign an axis for a specific joystick to an output.

 

Why am I telling you all this? Because eventually, this program will benefit other users besides myself. People other than me will be using it and they may or not be familiar with my methods. So how do I make my UI simple, but effective? Give it to an idiot to test. See if he can use it. Any questions he has about something needs to be made simpler to that the UI explains itself to a user.

 

XP10 settings and interfaces aren't all that simple and take some getting used to. That in and of itself lends to confusion for new and old users who aren't used to a completely different method of doing. With most windows programs, there is a common theme that should a developer wish to not confuse users, would put an exit command as the last on a File menu, the Help section in the About menu and a Tools menu would contain the Options link to bring up the settings configurable by the user. These conventions of UI standardized many places one has to look to find things. Since Austin is a MAC only guy, there being very little convention in how a UI is designed other than the standard set of controls, his UI is very different than that any windows user would be accustomed to.

 

Using "Siberian Winter" for a traffic level instead of a percentage or vehicle count is very comical, but any idiot knows a number, but how much more traffic is in a Kansas Residential setting than a Siberian Winter? Idiots need numbers with quantifiable values. These are some things that can be relooked at to remove the nagging UI concerns that most windows users have against XP10.

 

It is usable. True. But only by some. Rendering options will always be over some people's heads as it deals with very geeky ideas and complex concepts of what goes on in a rendering pipeline as well as what one's own graphics capabilities are. There will always be questions as to what effect a change may have on performance, but I know that there should be 2x as much buildings in a 100% setting as a 50% setting. I have no idea how much more would be in a Tons versus MEGA TONS setting. I just know that there is more.

How boring is 10% when we have the much more interesting "Siberian Winter" ;)

 

I actually like the way Austin doesn't blindly follow the rest of the sheep and introduces some personality and character into the simulation.

I agree there should be consistency with office and other business type software, but I'm quite happy with the "stuff" "more stuff" and "tons of stuff" approach Xplane has.

 

Regards

I'm quite happy with the "stuff" "more stuff" and "tons of stuff" approach Xplane has.

 

+1

 

If you write "50%" instead of "a lot", most people will think they get only 50% of X-Plane or half of the experience. "Mega tons" instead of "100%" is a good way to combat a known disease where the user will never be happy until he can max all the settings.

 

Idiots need numbers with quantifiable values.

 

Idiots need to know that it's better to have enough frames per second and a smooth and stable flight simulation experience, than eye candy and insane graphic details inside a slide show. Idiots never know how limited their hardware is.

Idiots need to know that it's better to have enough frames per second and a smooth and stable flight simulation experience, than eye candy and insane graphic details inside a slide show. Idiots never know how limited their hardware is.

 

I want BOTH! Or all five, if it's put that way. And this doesn't have anything to do with which sim it is. I'm just saying this..........because "eye candy" is high on my flight list. If I'm in imaginary flight, then I had better have some good imaginary scenery to keep my interest. Therefor, I'll need a CPU upgrade (which I already am aware of), and good scenery designers to keep on doing their best.

 

In other words...........just a smooth and stable desk top flight experience, won't keep me from being bored with it for long. What it really comes down to, is that I just don't like the term "eye candy"!

In other words...........just a smooth and stable desk top flight experience, won't keep me from being bored with it for long. What it really comes down to, is that I just don't like the term "eye candy"!

 

If "eye candy" is the most important thing for you, then why (I assume, from what I know) do you spend most of your "add-on budget" for aircrafts (looking for the best possible flight models, RealAir, etc.) and not on scenery add-ons? Might as well use the default Cessna (or even better, just slew mode!) and spend all the money on scenery addons, if "eye candy" is so much more important than a good flight model! :-)

If "eye candy" is the most important thing for you, then why (I assume, from what I know) do you spend most of your "add-on budget" for aircrafts (looking for the best possible flight models, RealAir, etc.) and not on scenery add-ons? Might as well use the default Cessna (or even better, just slew mode!) and spend all the money on scenery addons, if "eye candy" is so much more important than a good flight model! :-)

 

That's kind of an ignorant responce,

 

It's ALWAYS been a 50/50 proposition. That's why I'd want everything stated. Best flight models in the world, with no "eye candy" would provide no interest to me, whatsover. Why would it? Right out my back door, is some of the most beautiful scenery in the entire world. This IS why I took up flying. I prefer sim flying to duplicate RW as much as possible. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. In the meantime, just saw this ,10 minutes ago. I'm impressed, as I've been to this area many times. It's exactly what XP needs. And once it's common, in XP, then so much the better.

 

P.S. ---- I picked up on this, because of the small screen shot pics at the top of the Avsim page. I though it was perhaps the Columbia 400 at Lowi. Turns out, it wasn't. Then I looked up Orbx for KJAC (Jackson Hole, Wyoming). This is next door to Yellowstone. My wife and I have flown there several times, which can be done before lunch time. Nice to have all of this "eye candy", so close.

 

It's ALWAYS been a 50/50 proposition.

 

Now that's better!

 

I just think different simmers have different preferences, as always. So looking down at those simmers who regard "eye candy" as their top priority, is the same as looking down at those simmers that regard flight model, or system complexity ("button pushers") as theirs. No one is more simmer than the other. Maybe for you the "eye candy" is the main reason you're fascinated with flight. For others, it may be the "magic" happening under the wings and the flight dynamics. For others again, it may be the majesty and the power of a big airliner and its technologic, breathing, living complex systems. No one is less entitled than the other.

 

Marco