I can think of a couple improvements right off the top of my head.1) Selecting aircraft by going to a file requester and finding an acf file is needlessly complicated, as is changing a livery which is found in a completely seperate menu2) For the over 50 crowd-the menus are too small!...which brings me to3) the little arrow buttons to change numbers are very awkward-why not just click in the box and type the number you want on the keyboardJust for starters....

LOL! Those were the first things that immediately occurred to me, too!

1) The aforementioned weather menu. It's very powerful, but also too complex when just want to get something IMC-ish, for example. Preset weather options like in FSX are a better solution IMHO. You can still hide the full-blown weather options behind some "advanced/custom weather" option.2) Also agree with the aircraft menu. The folder navigation is not very convenient. A flat list that can be filtered may be better.3) The airport selection. Again, should be able to filter by country, state etc.4) At the risk of repeating myself: Welcome screen, with tutorials, flying school etc. IMHO you should be able to get started in the sim without reading a manual. Only later, when you want to dig deeper into the sim. That's how all games that are published today do it (and please don't start a discussion whether this is a game or a sim. I'm over it. It's sold in the games section, period!)There are probably many more things that might be improved over time, but those are the biggest points in my opinion.

@ TedGWhats left out of that is the new user interaction. Does "Little Billy" (or even Dad) know what on earth an ACF file is? Or a "repaint folder"? How many regular people know the first thing about computer file structures? (I did computer customer service once; believe me, not many)The assumed level of knowledge is way too high, and your ability or mine to do XYZ a zillion times in our sleep is not a reliable indicator of the ease at which others will grasp the same concepts/principles.Instead, factor in the new users utter confusion as to what on earth an ACF is, and the resulting fumbling that occurs in assimilating that concept and then at last moving on to the location of repaints.Alternatively contrast that with the user experience of:Here is the Maule click me. Or Here is the Maule with red stripes: click meThe actual time in seconds it took you or any other experienced member of this forum in this context is irrelevant because its the new user experience we are really looking at. Most programs try to avoid unnecessary feature shock by the expedient of implementing a simple front end complemented by an advanced options tab for the more experienced.EDIT: Typed this up only to see I am lagging behind tom79 again. :(

Edited February 20, 201214 yr by HiFlyer'

EDIT: Typed this up only to see I am lagging behind tom79 again. :(

lolJust a side note: I don't mean that XP should look like FSX. But LR can certainly take it as an inspiration ("great artists steal"). But in the end, it should be BETTER than FSX.For example, you could add options to show you airports that fit in a certain category: High altitude airports, challenging approaches, airports for floatplanes, big international airports, small airstrips, beautiful scenery, "take me somewhere where it's warm now".I would like to see a UI that makes it fun to explore the world of flying. You can still hide the old elitist-fs-nerd-interface somewhere, for those who like it better (maybe commercial users). Even Windows 7 can be made to like Win95, for those who enjoy it.

100% agreed.I actually like the UI.Different is not "broken".And thank %^*£ for no $*&^*£% .cfg file lol :(

Yes, but unintuitive and counterproductive IS broken.Let me give you an example: Most people want to start a flight with a certain plane at a certain airport. Some people want to start with their last plane at their last airport. Now XP serves some people well, most people badly. Most people have to load an airport they don't want to use to use one they want. What for?

I'm just going to step back here as I do find the UI intuitive and easy-to-use.And as everyone's opinions matter....I don't wish to argue mine-v-anyone else's. :( :Love:I'll leave by saying I would not like it to resemble an MSFS interface. As Tom states quite well....make it better rather than simply cater to what MSFS users are used to.I would also point out that I have not really noted any complaints regarding the UI at X-Plane dedicated sites.Anyway....carry on.

I'm just going to step back here as I do find the UI intuitive and easy-to-use.And as everyone's opinions matter....I don't wish to argue mine-v-anyone else's. :( :Love:I'll leave by saying I would not like it to resemble an MSFS interface. As Tom states quite well....make it better rather than simply cater to what MSFS users are used to.I would also point out that I have not really noted any complaints regarding the UI at X-Plane dedicated sites.Anyway....carry on.

Sorry to see you go. I have tried hard to make all my reply's polite and non-confrontational while still trying to make a point, and I hope it was nothing I said.As regards complaints at other sites, unfortunately I kind of don't think you would really see it, and I will tell you why, with a little (hopefully) story.Once upon a time, at another site, I suggested some possibly helpful changes in the organization of the place, which seemed (to me) over time to have become bloated and messy. The thread was immediately inundated with reply's along the lines of "Nope, never seen a problem" "Don't know what you mean, its all fine." "Happy the way it is." "Don't change a thing!" etc........Feeling quite well rebutted after I while, I desisted. People were obviously happy, what made me think I might be right? In fact, why even bother?Shortly thereafter, the site was completely re-done, and with many of the things I had suggested implemented, which made me believe it had already been well in the works when I spoke up. "Love it!" Better than ever!" "Wonderful!" "You guys are the best!" "This is perfect!" came the posts............It was often the exact same people.It was all very puzzling! But the lesson I took away was that if you need to speak up...... whatever. Just do it. There is apparently a certain innate negative reaction to change, but that probably does not make a good faith attempt to try to help not worthwhile.After that, its all up to Clotho, and her sisters. :(

Edited February 20, 201214 yr by HiFlyer'

I got out a few days ago thinking along the same lines as with what you say, I'm just not so good with words.

I'm just going to step back here as I do find the UI intuitive and easy-to-use.And as everyone's opinions matter....I don't wish to argue mine-v-anyone else's. :( :Love:I'll leave by saying I would not like it to resemble an MSFS interface. As Tom states quite well....make it better rather than simply cater to what MSFS users are used to.I would also point out that I have not really noted any complaints regarding the UI at X-Plane dedicated sites.Anyway....carry on.

...... the lesson I took away was that if you need to speak up...... whatever. Just do it. There is apparently a certain innate negative reaction to change, but that probably does not make a good faith attempt to try to help not worthwhile.

We be cool :drinks:It is quite easy for myself to minimize the UI complaints simply because I have been heavily using X-Plane for over a year and am quite used to it and comfortable as opposed to new arrivals from alternate sims (lol...ok...from FSX) being used to a different interface.Then again coming from an engineering perspective I am quite used to patiently "RTFM'ing" and asking the odd question for clarification as opposed to requiring or desiring spoon-feeding. I don't mean spoon-feeding in a negative sense either.....and I do understand the value of "selling the sizzle-not the steak"!And if after the XPX optimization is completed LR feels like tweaking the UI....great.

I've been using Xplane since its first version....All sims have room for improvement.

I would also point out that I have not really noted any complaints regarding the UI at X-Plane dedicated sites.

I don't remember reading a review of XP10 at the usual flightsim sites, but that's not even the point. As I said earlier, we --the die-hard simmers-- are used to getting comfortable with complex stuff. But think about the first-time simmers. They may simply be overwhelmed.To prove my point, here is a review of XP10 in a German business newspaper. It's not aimed at existing simmers. But I suppose most of the readers of that newspaper fit into the category busy and educated. People who can understand complex things, but may not be willing to invest too much time into it if it's just a hobby.As I understand, most people here won't be able to read the original article, so here are a couple of quotes from that review:

"Lack of realism is certainly no issue with X-Plane 10. But it doesn't make it easy for beginners.""There are two manuals --or rather booklets with 11 and 18 pages respectively-- to get you started. One is called 'taking off in 5 minutes' and explains the basic settings for your first flight. The 'quick start guide' explains the program's features. Unfortunately, that's it. A little more help for people who take interest into a flight simulator for the very first time would certainly be appreciated."(Note: this refers to the version distributed by Aerosoft)"The 'nasty' thing about this program is its realism and complexity. (...) You shouldn't set your hopes to high that things works right from the start. That's also why the booklet recommends using the Cessna for starters.""After about five failed takeoff attempts that ended in the grass, the plane finally takes off. Which shortly leads to the question: 'how do I land this thing?' Unfortunately, this is not mentioned in the manual. A few hints for your first landing would certainly be welcomed."The article then talks about that there's a bigger PDF manual installed in the hard disk. "but for newbies it would certainly be nice to have some missions like 'let's fly a runway pattern'.""The user interface doesn't make it easy for rookies. The menus appear a little antiquated and unintuitive. But those who have some patience and are interested in aviation will find X-Plane 10 a rewarding program."

The article is certainly not all-negative about XP10. But can you imagine how many prospective simmers read it and thought 'Nah, better not'.XP10 really needs to broaden its user base. Otherwise, many add-on developers will not produce for it. Therefore, making XP10 more user friendly will have benefits for all of us.

Edited February 21, 201214 yr by tom79

Just to clarify.....by "usual dedicated X-Plane sites" I am referring to x-plane.org and x-pilot.com as well as XP-specific VA's I am affiliated with.The 'nasty' thing about this program is its realism and complexityThis did make me chuckle for several reasons. One of them being related to my other PC-related hobby of being a grognard. Just like loading up in a default 747 or whatever....imagine booting up Gary Grigby's "War In The East" or John Tillers "Campaign Series" with no prior knowledge of strategy, tactics, weapon system generalities, symbology, topography ad naseum. Like the fledgling simulator pilot faced with a bewildering number of choices-not the least of which being "how do I fly/why am I flying/where am I going".The same applies to other complex simulators....."Steel Beasts" comes to mind as does the Silent Hunter series.The only complex "realistic" simulator in my recent memory that could be instantly and easily dumbed down may have been IL-2 in arcade mode.But anyway:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q83tbRYQQas&feature=related :(

@ Tom79When first ruminating on this a few months ago, I did a "reality check" and read a lot of reviews. Not experienced flight simmer reviews, because flight sites can be very closed and isolated ecosystems. (Think Galapagos) I went for purchaser reviews from across the web, most specifically from "regular" people who were not obvious or avowed simmers.I found pretty much the same thing you did: Flight Sim enthusiasts (who were pretty easily identifiable) tended to gush, and say things like "Its hard, but don't give up" and "The people at (place name of a site here) are always willing to help"Reviews from self described "regular guys" were often much more divided, and tended to correlate with a very mixed user experience, centering on ease of accessibility. This was interspersed with partisan crys of "Oh, God, avoid this at all costs and get FSX instead!Correlating this with the memory of my own first experience and intermittent flirtation with the Sim, It all seemed to keep coming down to how it was presenting itself to outsiders, which is to say, it pretty much wasn't. Why was it not adapting to fit the new market it was aiming at? Was it too hard?Later, still thinking, I purchased Xplane for Ipad.And there it was. Good reviews almost across the board. (though many were obviously hard core simmers, they were still there, and talking about having fun) Simplified controls that adapted to the reality's and constraints of the Ipad market, A graphically informative and compact Ui, (some legacy stuff but not obtrusive) a non intimidating demeanor....... And no change to its computer namesake at all in that regard.The namesake that was going after the FSX market...........

Why not apply some of that gathered experience? It seems a mystery. Honestly, If I had encountered an initial experience as easy as that, and then been able to gradually move on..... I might be playing XPlane now.Chose this review because he was not an avowed "Flight Sim guy"Edit: Grammer/spelling

Edited February 21, 201214 yr by HiFlyer'

Well being an experienced simmer of all sims and a pilot I am pretty sure the menus are so small and difficult to click because supporting high resolutions of 1920x1024 I run seem to be recent (I seem to recall early version xp9 only 1/4 thru its cycle started supporting the higher res), and the interface is not expanding to make bigger menus. It really is a challenge to click the extremely small areas.Also have to agree about the airport requester. It needs to be able to sort by world geographic areas, states etc.Its great if you know the exact identifier/name but otherwise that can be a pain. Once I was stuck in Wilcox,AZ for ice and wanted to see how the airport was done in the sim. (Didn't remember the name or identifier). Tried typing wilcox-nothing-and of course you can't sort by state. Took at trip to the web to find the info-but that is inconvienent.Once while trying to find an airport I saw the name Colburn,clicked on it, and ended up in a breathtaking scenery area of Argentina. I thought-wow-I'd like to explore Chile more-but of course to visit other airports means finding their exact names/identifiers-another trip to the web-which did not have very good info on airport identifiers there-finally gave up. It sure would be nice to select "Chile" and see a list of airports there.Want to fly at Leadville,co? (as every pilot I know calls it). Can't find it unless you type "Lake county airport"....This really isn't about coming from fsx to a different interface. They are just things that need to be improved to make the users experience less frustrating and more rewarding.I think this really could be improved, just as the rw turbulence which we were told did not fixing just got improved in the last patch. :(

Want to fly at Leadville,co? (as every pilot I know calls it). Can't find it unless you type "Lake county airport"....

This I agree with 100% by the way. It's not a problem at larger airfields (the KSEA's and EGLL's of the world) but naming conventions can get a bit wonky in trying to drill down the correct airfield when dealing with smaller strips. And then to compound things bush strips like 9WA3 (River Bend...pretty cool strip by the way....about 50nm north of Spokane) become "WA3" depending on which GPS system is in use (default FMS no problem...certain others want it truncated).And its something I ignore (and Geof probably does to) simply being used to it and take for granted in how others may view things.A in-sim searchable browser for available NAVAID's and waypoint would also be helpful to make sure my flight plan created in FSC actually has corresponding waypoints/NAVAID's in the sim BEFORE I start fat-fingering things in and then have to make adjustments to account for missing "stuff".See? I found something else to improve lol. I'm not that curmudgeonly