Haha, remind me of that AI. So true at times with the 'what is he doing?!' impression. I also think that the default planes offer a way too large variety of character traits and actual quality range. Though I like the Space Shuttle. While FSX has some really good ones (for a 2006 default) and others are a bit weaker, the spread in XP is huge.

Getting a nice payware one really changes things, but some quality default model could help the new XP users a lot. Maybe there's a good freeware tip though.

All

 

Thanks for your time and feedback on this.

 

So it seems that XPX is probably at this stage where FSX was in 2006/7. It took a long time for 3PD to get going given the significant change in design techniques from FS9, as well as people's reluctance to want to move from FS9 with a wealth of accumulated addons. Sounds familiar :)

 

For now, I will stick with FSX/P3D, but it seems that XPX may well be a worthwhile contender in a few years once 3PD has gained momentum

 

It's an exciting prospect of more choice for all.

 

Have fun flying.

But scenery in some other countries (Asia) are really lacking. Imagine an island with multi-million population, in xp10, with maximum graphic detail, you see about 1000 houses, the rest are just trees, trees, trees, I can't recognize the area at all. In FSX, the scenery are much closer to reality, at least I can see a lot of highrise buildings and houses, not an island filled with trees.

Wouldn't say that its too good in FSX either. Most of Southeast Asia which is supposed to be really green and full of rainforests looks like dry Southern Europe in FSX, and that is way worse than just lack of buildings.

 

Wouldn't say that its too good in FSX either. Most of Southeast Asia which is supposed to be really green and full of rainforests looks like dry Southern Europe in FSX, and that is way worse than just lack of buildings.

 

I agree.

 

To be fair, FSX just had desert in every location outside of the US and Europe when it was released. I remember the upset that caused. But that's all academic now.

Well, i don't like it (yet?) so i stopped testing for now.

 

I tested the DEMO versions for months and i think X-Plane 10 is still overhyped.

 

The default C172 or Beech Baron flight model i tested is very poor. You still can't takeoff or land in a crosswind in a realistic way. The aircraft are not stable enough even when trimmed perfectly.

Yes i know, the FSX flight model is a bit to stable, the AeroflyFS is a notch better for me, XPX feels unrealisticly to me, to much 'roller coaster'. Maybe the 'P-factor' is exagerated to? Turbulence was also much exagerated but is a bit better in the last update.

 

I have been in a real Cessna 182 RG for some hours, with a friend of mine as pilot and my experience is that a Cesnna of that type is a very stable aircraft, you can trim very well in pitch and roll/yaw.

 

I experienced that in XPX even a modest crosswind like 5 knots without shear from the right will weathervane the aircraft as soon as the brakes are released with the engine at idle! I have to use to much of left rudder to stop the plane from turning right. So taxiing is not realistic. On takeoff you have to hold to much left rudder and then quickly change to neutral rudder as the gear comes off the ground.

 

For a flight simulator that claims for years to be thé most advanced one, this is very strange: if the 'Blade Element Theory' is so superior, why can't they prove it at least (also in the DEMO version) with the popular Cessna 172, the one you usually find in the competition flight sims like FS9, FSX, Fly! Legacy, Flight Gear and AeroflyFS ?

So it would be possible to compare the (full potential of ...?) XPX behaviour against the flight models of the competition.

 

I still think that the default C172 general behaviour in FSX feels more realistic than the XPX one. (But with the RealAir flight model the C172 is even a lot better in FSX).

 

I know that there are XPX users that claim the flight models of other (not demo) aircraft are much better, but that's not enough for me for buying the sim.

 

With my FSX Expanded (see my specs) i have now the impression to be in living, breathing realistic world.

In XP10 i have not (yet) that feeling. The lack of airport buildings, the dark atmosphere, the strange flight model ...

 

Yes it has been said hundreds of times: XPX has indeed great potential and can become a terrific flight simulator, but i think it's still to soon, it doesn't deliver it's full potential yet.

So i've decided to wait, maybe with XP11 ?

 

Here a typical discussion about the XPX flight modelling:

 

http://forum.avsim.n...good-after-all/

All

 

Thanks for your time and feedback on this.

 

So it seems that XPX is probably at this stage where FSX was in 2006/7. It took a long time for 3PD to get going given the significant change in design techniques from FS9, as well as people's reluctance to want to move from FS9 with a wealth of accumulated addons. Sounds familiar :)

 

For now, I will stick with FSX/P3D, but it seems that XPX may well be a worthwhile contender in a few years once 3PD has gained momentum

 

It's an exciting prospect of more choice for all.

 

Have fun flying.

 

No, it's not. They aren't really equal like that. XPX has surpassed FSX in some areas. Night lighting is really cool. Flight dynamics are good on well designed payware planes. 3d clouds and weather depiction beat FSX. How it draws road heights and lighting is great. They have a universal lighting system that kills FSX.

 

But in other areas, it's back in FS2000. No airport buildings at any default airport but one. No ground services. ATC is better in FSX even as old as their system is.

 

The way they choose to draw scenery (plausible world vs. landclass) can be a huge setback for some users because nothing is really right (fly to Las Vegas and you'll see a bunch of houses and a few sparse generic buildings thrown about, same with any major city). Austin says he wants it that way, which is a letdown for me because I'd hope they improve that going forward.

 

The AI system is terrible and because of how it's implemented it doesn't look promising for any 3rd party program fixing it (basically, every AI plane uses the same resources as your plane, neat but unnecessary). You end up with only being able to have less then 20 AI planes total in the world because of the load.

 

Graphically, aside from night times being amazing, daytimes are just ugly, especially in urban areas where the "plausible world" starts drawing one street lines of houses everywhere. Everything is placed on a pallet of drab green as well so it makes it look really weird in cities.

 

XPX has a long way to go to just get the fidelity and completeness of default FSX. That doesn't mean they haven't passed it in some areas. Others are still sorely lacking though.

 

For those who like a real suspension of belief when flying (especially airline ops) it's just not even close to be viable yet. Too many things aren't there or are poorly designed and break the chain.

 

Outside of the game itself, it can also be frustrating that any simple question that even borders on a critique of the product results in you being attacked by a really excited user/devs on their different forums, so don't expect many answers to flaws of the game because in their mind they do not exist.

 

See the linked thread about the flight model for ample proof.

I have used XP9 for 2 years and returned to FSX, main reason is the missing default scenery/landmarks. If you compare them with payware scenery and aircraft I don't see much difference...

FSX is the most beautiful flight sim i've seen in over 25 years of simming and would be a hard act to follow.

The only reason to ditch such a gorgeous girlfriend would be if an even lovelier one came along, but so far that hasn't happened, and the XP10 demo did nothing for me.

However,even FSX isn't perfect,as tyre traction at speed on the ground isn't too good, a bit like skating on ice.

And rudder effect in a bank can be a bit weird.

 

Outside of the game itself, it can also be frustrating that any simple question that even borders on a critique of the product results in you being attacked by a really excited user/devs on their different forums, so don't expect many answers to flaws of the game because in their mind they do not exist.

 

So i don't seem to be the only one who didn't like this for several times !!

 

However,even FSX isn't perfect,as tyre traction at speed on the ground isn't too good, a bit like skating on ice.

 

Thay's right here XPX is better equipped, but the 'windvaning' spoils everything.

I had an earlier version of X-Plane about 7(?) years ago and I seem to remember that although the scenery was nothing to write home about, I did like the way you could have fun changing the flight dynamics of each plane quickly and easily by tweaking wingspan, wing loading, centre of gravity, weight, inertia and other settings, in effect 'building your own plane', or was that some other sim?

Can that be done in XP-10?

 

Outside of the game itself, it can also be frustrating that any simple question that even borders on a critique of the product results in you being attacked by a really excited user/devs on their different forums, so don't expect many answers to flaws of the game because in their mind they do not exist.

At least it has developers working on it instead of FSX which was left very unoptimized after SP2.

At least it has developers working on it instead of FSX which was left very unoptimized after SP2.

 

 

That's a misconception. There are developers that tear into FSX constantly...........making improvements.

FSX is far from dead! X-Plane will still be competing with FSX, and all of it's excellent addons, for years to come...

 

 

 

 

 

Whether FSX devs moved quick or not at the time is now entirely academic. Everything has moved on since then - and FSX is a relatively stable platform now. My question relates to the 'added value' of XPX in relation to FSX.

At least it has developers working on it instead of FSX which was left very unoptimized after SP2.

 

That's great. Changes nothing about what I said.

FSX is King and will be for years to come, and even though though MS are no longer developing it, it continues flying on without a hiccup, as do many other games/sims which are kept alive by their huge armies of fans and freeware/payware developers..:)

FSX looks just as beautiful now as it did when it was first released about 6 years ago-

 

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?

Thou art more lovely and more temperate..

And thy eternal summer shall not fade.."

(Shakesp's Sonnet 18)

 

Typical stock FSX scenery and freeware Avro 504-

(click to enlarge)