I've been waiting with bated breath for details of 10.10. A list of what's going to be included (so far) would be nice.

 

So far from the developer blog and the town hall meeting I've been able to determine that it (hopefully) will include:

- 64bit application for windows and linux at least

- Shortcut keys for snapping to custom 3D viewpoints

- The Columbia 400

- Some "back end" work for the joystick code.

- Some work on the road processing code

- Shortcuts for scenery packs

- Improvements to click-drag manipulators in 3-D cockpit

- ATI performance improvements

- 4096x4096 texture support

- Quickstart menu

- Better looking cities (I'm really hoping for this one)

 

 

 

I've filed several bug reports as well. I know that out of the ones I submitted, Austin replied to one of the reports to say it will be fixed for 10.10 (electric flaps operational on dead bus).

 

Will I get 10.10 beta 1? Well, I'll let one of you jump in first and report back!

I'm just excited for the future.

Another feature I think it will be included is faster sim loading (by half time) which would be great.

Goran, I think you're intelligent enough to understand that my comparison has nothing to do with the way you've framed it. Taken in your light, EVERY computer program could and should be considered unfinished if there is a single scrap of code which could be improved upon or added to.

 

Absolutely, which is why even Austin Meyer himself has said numerous times that X Plane will never be finished. A version run will be considered "final", with all facets of the current tech being exhausted while taking into account the free updates. When the tech gets more advanced and requires a lot more work, that's when the new version run begins. But the flight sim itself will never be "finished". When you say that FSX is "complete", I would have to disagree because there are still performance issues and CTD issues that people need to be aware of. Sure, it's boxed, packaged, take it or leave it, but it's still quite "buggy".

 

When Microsoft released a simulator, that was essentially "it". Aside from the occasional bugfix or performance patch, there were generally no updates of any significance to the content or features in the game - especially nothing which would be considered a core feature. You had a known quantity to purchase.

 

I think we can be honest and say that the problems plaguing (maybe a strong word) FSX are more than just a simple bugfix or performance patch. The one thing that stands out is memory issues. FS9 had them. FSX has them. And then when you get complex airliners coming out (which I am a huge fan of), there are developers who recommend a 64 bit OS to help prevent CTD's and OOM's.

 

Contrast this with Laminar Research, who take a different approach. In addition to their bugfixes and performance improvements, they also attempt to release content and features which at the time of initial release may have been non-existent, incomplete, or otherwise non-functional, only declaring the product "complete" when they move on to developing their next generation. Some of this content is considered by many to be quite important material, and the absence gives the simulation a significant feeling of incompleteness even 6 months after its initial release.

 

 

The beauty of hindsight and the ability to do something about it. And it is warmly welcomed by the entire x plane community. It's not often we can discuss things with the guy at the top.

We're only human. Even Austin, as intelligent as he is, misses a few things. And it's definitely refreshing to know that, if we have the facts backed up by hard figures, he will implement fixes in new updates. He's said it before, it does no use to tell him "the flight model feels wrong. It doesn't fly like FSX." Provide hard figures from the real world....NOT from FSX...and he'll take steps.

 

Laminar acknowledges these shortcomings but gives no indications as to if or when these issues will be addressed, so existing customers and potential customers alike are left hanging. Some might declare this a superior method of product development under the guise that the product is always growing, but I see that as a overly sympathetic justification for the practice.

 

Programming is an unknown quantity. If you ever delve into the world of add on development, and you get a programmer that can give you a firm (Not an estimate. Estimates are fine) date for completing his code, then you have a substandard programmer. Too many things can go wrong when it comes to programming. Even the PMDG 737 was over a year past their own estimate.

 

The build-it-as-you-go method is not what is traditionally seen in software entertainment industry and is/will be a major culture shock for those who buy X-Plane expecting it to be a traditionally complete package only to find many commonly found features missing or incomplete with vague indications of repairs somewhere down the product lifespan. It generated a lot of consternation in November 2011 with XP10's release, and it continues to generate thread after thread both here and on other X-Plane oriented sites about the status of development, missing features, and the overall state of affairs.

 

The build-it-as-you-go method is very valid in a flight simulators case. We're talking about aviation. Aeronautical engineering. An abyss of potential unknown variables...particularly outside the normal operating flight envelope. These are areas that "games" developers don't really pay attention to. In particular, games like BF3 and Crysis. Those games are considered complete because they serve their purpose as a game.

 

However true it might be, there is a degree of absurdity when X-Plane users suggest people should purchase v9 if they want a finished product and steer clear of v10 if they don't want a work in progress, when v10 is advertised as being "The most advanced flight simulator in the world.", and "...the world’s most comprehensive and powerful flight simulator for personal computers..."

 

At it's core, XP10 is (in many peoples opinion) the most advanced flight simulator in the world. Engineers use it. Pilots use it. And it was designed and created by a person who specializes in BOTH those fields. You and a few others will obviously disagree with me, and that's your prerogative.

However, as with every version run of X Plane, it isn't considered stable until around Version XX.2. And that only stands to reason as it's a completely new "program" with new tech. The core, however, remains the same with a few fixes and enhancements. I particularly like the new engine modeling. Much more customizable.

No new version of any software is without it's problems. Windows comes out with 300MB service packs. There are always going to be small issues or "gremlins" that need to be ironed out, and that can only be done when data becomes available. Not even a room full of testers can provide feedback on every little thing that can potentially go wrong. No add on developer...ever....has put out a Version 1.0 of their product and considered it completely bug free with no use for patches/service packs.

The root of this data is in the millions of peoples hardware configurations. When the feedback comes back, Austin and the LR guys begin work to address these issues as quickly as possible.

 

I don't mind talking about it over and over because I think it is very important that people see this difference and understand what it might mean for them. There are no guarantees whatsoever that what you want to see improve with XP10 might ever actually come to pass even though development continues. At least with the MSFS series, you knew that what you bought was "the package". There was no confusion as to what might come down the road, no waiting for important features to be added, and no disappointment after months and months of waiting after your purchase for a feature which never got added in. People could make their purchasing and use decisions based on a more concrete set of circumstances.

 

I absolutely and unequivocally agree with you. People do need to understand what they are getting. That's one of the reasons I switched. Support for the sim from the author himself? Knowing he will implement a fix if I have the figures for it? Not to mention a 15 minute time limited Demo for anyone "curious" about it.

At it's core, XP10 is (in many peoples opinion) the most advanced flight simulator in the world. Engineers use it. Pilots use it. And it was designed and created by a person who specializes in BOTH those fields. You and a few others will obviously disagree with me, and that's your prerogative.

 

 

And of course, if I was to write this same paragraph..........

 

I'd just make a few changes

 

 

At it's core, XP10 is (in a few peoples opinion) the most advanced flight simulator in the world. A few Engineers use it. A few Pilots use it. And it was designed and created by a person who specializes in BOTH those fields. You and a many others will obviously disagree with me, and that's your prerogative.

Maybe because only a few people have the background and expertise to really understand wether a simulator simulates REAL flying well or not...

 

I'm just excited for the future.

 

Reality check .. Xplane has the same unrealized promise each version.....

Honestly, why can't there just exist two distinct, perfectly viable desktop simulators which are each recognized for there respective strengths and weaknesses? Must it just be X-plane is complete garbage and FSX is the ordained unassailable king of flight simulation for all time?

 

I have and enjoy both X-plane and FSX for many reasons. I admit these days, I spend most of my time with X-plane because I've purchased many great add-ons for it and precisely because it is a modern program which is always growing and improving. FSX is to put it bluntly, a dead platform. The code is locked and has been for some time, along with all of the flaws. However this is the one of the best times to be a fan of FSX because of 3rd party developers like PMDG and A2A Simulations. If not for them FSX would already have been relegated to the dustbin of history, but these talented people and others like them are keeping it viable. Now, notice I said fan of FSX, not fanatic.

 

The hobby of simulating flight doesn't have to be painted with such a thick brush dowsed with black and white. Xplane 10 has it's problems but it is still quite new. Anybody care to remember FSX when it first arrived on the scene? No perhaps not, because then you might recall what an unmitigated disaster it was when it first launched in 2006. There was almost no computer on Earth that could run it with any decent performance unless the graphics were dialed back to where it didn't even look as good as MS 2004 at the time. For years people still refused to upgrade from MS 2004 because all of the flaws with FSX and this changed perhaps what, 2 years ago when the hardware finally caught up? Yet, this is what some in this thread have referred to as a complete product, while denigrating X-plane 10?

 

X-plane 10 is consistently improving on what is already a quality code base. It is not a precarious shifting house of cards ready to topple at any second. Sometimes I feel like FSX is though. Just try running Air Hauler, the REX weather engine, FS Commander flight planner, and the PMDG J-41 and see how complete and stable you feel like FSX is when you open up the ground services panel to try to connect the GPU and the whole thing comes crashing down around your ears after spending 20 minutes planning the flight. But I endure because when it all works in harmony, it's simulation heaven. To those who simply dismiss this statement and say I shouldn't try to run so much at once, I say who doesn't? FSX is about the add-ons, not the original program. The 3rd party developers do their best to provide stable products of quality but, they simply can't do much of anything about problems with FSX itself except for turn as much of the code off as possible like with A2A's Accusim.

 

Goran happens to be a dedicated and talented developer of some of the best work currently being done for X-plane. He simply made some reasonable statements and levied some honest criticism about FSX which to be honest is quite well known. If it was said most anywhere else that FSX indeed has performance and stability issues which make for a flawed program that will never be solved than I'm sure it would be met with a multitude of personal accounts like the one I described of scrubbed attempts to have the simulations gods shine down and grace them with a few trouble free hours of blissful flight simulation.

 

LADamson, you simply pull the term "few" out of thin air to try to back up your statements and marginalize those who don't agree with you. Yes there many, many more users of FSX than X-plane. However I believe the current numbers tally at around 80 to 100 thousand for Xplane 9 and 10 and more than a half a million if you count the Apple app. Nothing to scoff at for a hobby which is in of itself a marginalized pursuit and Laminar Research didn't have the 800 pound gorilla of Microsoft behind it to get there either.

 

As to greggerm's statements; yes EVERY computer program IS considered an unfinished product until that particular program is either locked and archived, like FSX is, or replaced with a brand new version or a separate product entirely. It's been that way with ALL software for ALL computers since the computer itself was invented. This is why there is generally accepted practices for developing a program such as versioning and naming. This is why you have X-plane 10.01 r blah blah because it is following the practices of versioning software. Maybe you think that other companies don't do this, but you would be incorrect. FSX also went through many patches, fixes, and then big multi-megabyte service packs to try and fix the performance problems. They just did it behind the scenes and didn't call their product FSX.1 or 2.0 or whatever.

 

If your issue is that you never know what Laminar and Austin are going to do next, then by all means head to the developer.x-plane.com/blog where every major topic and issue is discussed at length. Also check out xplane10.wordpress.com for an independent look at all things flight sim outside of MS Flight Simulator. DCS A-10, Rise of Flight, Il-Sturmovik Cliffs of Dover, Xplane 10, Aerofly FS. There's all kind of amazing flight sim products to enjoy when you peek around the shadow of FSX.

Xplane harder to fly planes but it feels more predictable more stable and subtle. Xplane feels your moving in air. 10.10 all install and see how GA planes react.

X-plane 10 is consistently improving on what is already a quality code base. It is not a precarious shifting house of cards ready to topple at any second. Sometimes I feel like FSX is though. Just try running Air Hauler, the REX weather engine, FS Commander flight planner, and the PMDG J-41 and see how complete and stable you feel like FSX is when you open up the ground services panel to try to connect the GPU and the whole thing comes crashing down around your ears after spending 20 minutes planning the flight. But I endure because when it all works in harmony, it's simulation heaven. To those who simply dismiss this statement and say I shouldn't try to run so much at once, I say who doesn't? FSX is about the add-ons, not the original program. The 3rd party developers do their best to provide stable products of quality but, they simply can't do much of anything about problems with FSX itself except for turn as much of the code off as possible like with A2A's Accusim.

 

Goran happens to be a dedicated and talented developer of some of the best work currently being done for X-plane. He simply made some reasonable statements and levied some honest criticism about FSX which to be honest is quite well known.

 

I get tired of the FSX disaster stories. As a beta tester for FSX, it wouldn't run well on my CPU. I upgraded for FSX (was releasd by then), and bought XP8 at the same time. I was very pleased with FSX. The graphics were far superior to past versions. The program also ran very well, with hardly any conflicts. No doubt, there are others who chose to stick with the prior version of MSFS. But to use FSX as the "disaster" example to excuse XP10, just makes my head spin.

 

At the same time, I agree that there is no reason, not to use both. I know that quite a number of X-Plane users believe that X-Plane is the "real" make believe airplane, while MSFS is just a make believe- make believe airplane..........or something like that. To me, they are both computer driven. They are not real. They are imitating. I also don't see Austin sitting on a high throne, and being the master of all that's perfection..........while some programmers just don't use his program properly (at least that's the excuse for poor models). Since there are developers who push for higher stardards with both programs, I see no reason not to use both, unless it's the "real" mentality I mention above. In the meantime, FSX is far from dead........as the 3rd party releases get better all the time.

 

L.Adamson

On the topic of the "Status of X-Plane 10 Development"....

 

A lot of people used to X-Plane's development cycle seem to use the x.2 version as the demarcation point for when the product starts to truly hit its stride. I've seen that dot-release as a target number on many occasions.

 

If that is the case and the x.2 level is when nearly all content is complete, nearly all major bugs are quashed, and the product starts getting new features which weren't necessarily planned for the version, then it's my belief that Laminar Research should hold back the retail sale of their products until they achieve that x.2 level of completion.

 

Issuing the demonstration months in advanced as sort of a beta preview opportunity is fantastic, and I think would be well received. Waiting for the product to mature before offering it for sale, or perhaps labeling the product as beta until the maturity of x.2 is released would also be well received (in my opinion, of course).

 

As it stands now, I see many X-Plane users sticking with v9 and not moving to v10 because they know it has not yet reached a decent level of maturity. I see many MSFS users trying the demo and dismissing X-Plane because it lacks the well rounded experience that might eventually come with x.2. When your existing users and your potential pool of new users are shying away from adopting the new platform due to it's adolescence, I think it's fair to state that it was released for sale too soon. THIS is at the heart of the discussion about X-Plane's development status.

 

For those who are X-Plane aficionados, this early release and growth process might be second nature... but for new customers who are used to a very different process, it can be cumbersome and confusing. The cat is out of the bag now, and it's too late to bring the product back in to have it mature before selling it.

 

Laminar and the development team were very very good at talking about what was being worked on shortly after XP10's November 2011 release. In the past 5 or 6 weeks though, they've gone quiet. I don't think we need reports every time they go to the bathroom, but it would be nice to know what's being worked on, what is next for repair or completion, and what is on the far-out timeline. Such information could easily make the difference between another sale or someone dismissing the product line for months, if not years.

 

For those who might suggest I'm not doing my research, I pop into the developer blog darn near daily, and review the general and scenery design X-Plane forums here at AVSIM, at the .org, and at X-Pilot on a daily basis as well. I continue to dabble with WED and zip around in the demo, but just can't pull the $80 trigger without knowing if the missing elements I feel are essential will ever make it into the simulator.

 

Here's where I introduce MSFS to the discussion because at least with the MSFS series, I would know from day one if a particular feature was or was not in the version, and could either rejoice or "get over it" quite quickly, because content and feature development was typically reserved for the major version releases, not any interim bugfixes.

 

With X-Plane, there is uncertainty as to whether or not something a user feels is important might eventually make it in during the development cycle, and that's the rub.

also waiting for the next beta.

 

Maybe I was a little bit spoiled by the fast pace of updates and the daily communication in the first months after release. Ben and Austin are pretty quiet lately... But as they are such a small team, they might not able to roll-out all the planned stuff and keep us in the loop...

 

I remember, there was some talk that the next Beta might be published End of April / Beginning of May. But as there were also some ups and downs with each Build, it is better to take a deep breath and some extra time and deliver a bigger chunk and better polished this time.

 

I just hope that are no huge showstoppers (e.g. ATI) or other circumstances (e.g. sickness) that prevend the team from progressing with the product.

 

I hope for some adjustments of the turbulence settings, then i can even better practice crosswind landings for my PPL-A :Peace:

 

And BTW, a new, highly detailed oil rig should also be in 10.10, Screenshots were posted.

I hope for some adjustments of the turbulence settings,

 

+1

 

I don't like having to turn off real weather because of turbulence.

 

If fact I think it's best that turbulence is turned off in real weather downloads. I don't think the METAR reports include turbulence, so it is an entirely derived phenomenon of LR's making.

 

In my experience, setting the "wind gust increase" instead gives a far more typical resemblance of the usual bumps and shifts that an aircraft experiences in flight. Indeed I believe they are included in METAR reports.

I suppose it's really subjective as whether or not someone wants to have a WYSIWYG or what you see is what you get product or something that evolves over the life of the product. For me personally, I like the fact that Laminar Research is small and nimble enough to respond to reasonable questions, concerns, and new ideas. The reason for the recent lack of new information from the Laminar team I'm sure is mainly due to the run up to a significant mile stone in 10.10. From what I've heard there should be quite a lot to this new version.

 

But that doesn't mean there hasn't been a flurry of news surrounding X-plane in the last month. Aerosoft has continued to release quality airports like Keflavik and Lugano, Peters Aircraft just released a new Airbus, Leading Edge Simulations just announce a new Citation X being developed, a big new upgraded Inside Passage scenery from Tom Curtis was just put out, Carenado just announced that they porting the superlative Cessna Grand Caravan. I see no reason to worry that X-plane 10 would not be good purchase. If there was evidence that Laminar and X-plane 10 were floundering or slowing down than that might give someone pause, but there is nothing to suggest something like that.

 

As for my earlier comments, perhaps calling FSX a disaster was hyperbole, but it seems that I wasn't the only one who felt that FSX was released before it was ready as is what can be gleaned from a statement by PMDG's Robert Randazzo:

 

 

 

"You see- we nearly put PMDG out of business by adopting our entire development process for 2006/2007 around the release of FSX. When that platform proved to be unready for the market it had disastrous consequences- and while we were very much excited by the idea of a new and more capable platform- there remained the obvious fear of "going down that road again..."

 

Though he was talking in an article referenced to the new Angry Birds game called MS Flight, it shows many people including developers had major problems with FSX in the early days.

 

I'm also on board with the motion for a turbulence slider or noteworthy change to the current set-up. The implementation now nearly gives me motion sickness in anything more than a 5 knot wind after a while.

On the topic of the "Status of X-Plane 10 Development"....

 

A lot of people used to X-Plane's development cycle seem to use the x.2 version as the demarcation point for when the product starts to truly hit its stride. I've seen that dot-release as a target number on many occasions.

 

If that is the case and the x.2 level is when nearly all content is complete, nearly all major bugs are quashed, and the product starts getting new features which weren't necessarily planned for the version, then it's my belief that Laminar Research should hold back the retail sale of their products until they achieve that x.2 level of completion.

 

Issuing the demonstration months in advanced as sort of a beta preview opportunity is fantastic, and I think would be well received. Waiting for the product to mature before offering it for sale, or perhaps labeling the product as beta until the maturity of x.2 is released would also be well received (in my opinion, of course).

 

 

As with any piece of software, there will always be some issues on an initial release. What LR does is absolutely no different to what any 3PD does. I've seen add ons from developers come out with bugs and then, based on customer feedback, service packs are then issued later on down the line.

FS9 had a memory leak, so a "patch" was issued...2 years later.

FSX...same thing. Two service packs issued.

X Plane...instead of service packs, they make patches very early on based on customer feedback.

This is what is still so confusing to me. There are many people who are extremely forgiving at FSX's short comings, the 100+ megabyte service packs, instability issues, et al...but when it comes to small patches routinely put out by a small group of programmers, it's completely unforgiveable. In all seriousness, would you prefer the small updates or the 100+ MB service pack 2 years after initial release? I find it very comforting to know that they are always there and are always working on updates.

 

 

As it stands now, I see many X-Plane users sticking with v9 and not moving to v10 because they know it has not yet reached a decent level of maturity. I see many MSFS users trying the demo and dismissing X-Plane because it lacks the well rounded experience that might eventually come with x.2. When your existing users and your potential pool of new users are shying away from adopting the new platform due to it's adolescence, I think it's fair to state that it was released for sale too soon. THIS is at the heart of the discussion about X-Plane's development status.

 

The exact same thing happened with FSX. I'm sorry for always bringing it in, but I'm going to be honest about things here. As soon as it came out, the view was to stay away from it and stick with FS9. And it wasn't just the bug fixes that were needed. Unless you dialled down the settings, the whole thing ran like a slide show. It seems that all the negative points you are pointing out about x plane, FSX went through the exact same issues.

 

For those who are X-Plane aficionados, this early release and growth process might be second nature... but for new customers who are used to a very different process, it can be cumbersome and confusing. The cat is out of the bag now, and it's too late to bring the product back in to have it mature before selling it.

 

Again, the only difference is that FS9 and FSX issued 100+MB patches or service packs. FSX had 2 of them. X Plane has a bunch of smaller updates that address customer issues far more promptly.

 

Laminar and the development team were very very good at talking about what was being worked on shortly after XP10's November 2011 release. In the past 5 or 6 weeks though, they've gone quiet. I don't think we need reports every time they go to the bathroom, but it would be nice to know what's being worked on, what is next for repair or completion, and what is on the far-out timeline. Such information could easily make the difference between another sale or someone dismissing the product line for months, if not years.

 

IIRC, it was released in early December of 2011.

They have already mentioned what is in the next update. Faster load times. Hopefully, an ATI (AMD) graphics card fix. 64 bit version. Extra aircraft. And whatever else I missed. Sometimes, certain fixes will be relegated to a later date. And if they don't mention it in advance, they mention it after the update is out.

 

For those who might suggest I'm not doing my research, I pop into the developer blog darn near daily, and review the general and scenery design X-Plane forums here at AVSIM, at the .org, and at X-Pilot on a daily basis as well. I continue to dabble with WED and zip around in the demo, but just can't pull the $80 trigger without knowing if the missing elements I feel are essential will ever make it into the simulator.

 

At least you keep up to date. Many others don't. Kudo's to you for that.

 

Here's where I introduce MSFS to the discussion because at least with the MSFS series, I would know from day one if a particular feature was or was not in the version, and could either rejoice or "get over it" quite quickly, because content and feature development was typically reserved for the major version releases, not any interim bugfixes.

 

With X-Plane, there is uncertainty as to whether or not something a user feels is important might eventually make it in during the development cycle, and that's the rub.

 

 

What you feel is important may not be important to others. Austin doesn't care much for ATC and AI traffic. But he listened to the community and hired a programmer just for the ATC. The same can be said about the UI. That will get an overhaul to make it more easily accessible by people who are not used to the traditional UI. This mentality that Austin doesn't listen to his customers is all rubbish. Like I said in my earlier post, if someone emails him and says "The default 747 doesn't fly correctly", you can be pretty sure he won't bother with that. The same with the UI...contacting him and saying "Can you fix the UI so it looks better" is useless. Make a mock up of a UI you (or anyone else) think would be useful, user friendly, pretty and he'll take a serious look at it.