So who's made the switch from FSX?

[greggerm 312]

If what I read is accurate regarding XP's engine, then developers will be able to use the extra performance and smoothness of the engine to produce exceptional sceneries beyond those of FSX.

 

I think you're correct! It's got fantastic potential, but needs time to capitalize on it. Even with subtle improvements to the default X-Plane scenery, it can easily rise to a level above and beyond default FSX and even that of certain addons. It's just not there yet, and that's one of the reasons why my opinions early on in XP10's life were so vociferous - I'm not used to X-Plane's slow-and-steady development of content and I have a lack of patience for things. Be sure to use the demo though - that way you can start forming some 1st hand experiences.

 

-Greg

[GoranM 3,809]

Please do. BUT............you had better have a good reason for doing so.

 

And what was your reason for posting your screenshot to someone who has been involved in FSX for years and knows exactly what they look like?

 

It was stated that FSX's clouds look like highly defined billboards, in a comparison to X-Plane. I have seen shots that look like dotted billboards, yet my real weather FSX "saved flights", usually look like what I posted. And I have NO FSX weather addons. The way I look at it, perhaps you're surprised how well the screenshot looks. Perhaps you didn't realise that FSX is capable.

 

Actually, the clouds are one of FSX's outstanding features. Made even better by ActiveSky X. So no, I'm not surprised at all. But flying through them kills the immersion factor. They don;'t have X Planes 3D cloud effects.

 

In the meantime, lets get back to what YOU don't get. You seem to believe that I have an agenda of pushing FSX over X-Plane. That's not true, unless of course you keep insisting that X-Plane is 100% capable of accuracy in flight dynamics. In that case, FSX will never have an equal in your mind, and I'll always be a confrontation. In the meantime, why would I still be buying X-Plane addons..............if I was so entrenched into FSX? Do, you ever wonder?

 

Please find this mysterious post where I said X Plane is capable of 100% accuracy in all phases of flight. I'm very interested in reading it. IIRC, I said it can achieve NEAR 100% accuracy. Maybe I should say 90%-98% accuracy in the normal flight envelope depending on the developers skill set

Do I ever wonder why you keep buying X Plane add ons? ABSOLUTELY! Speaking of which, can you list which ones you have?

 

Yes, let's discuss this. There is quite a difference between you and Morten. Morten freely admit's, when he doesn't agree with Austins programming. On the otherhand, you tend to imply that the base program is nearly perfect...........to design an airplane, if it's used by those with capable minds.

 

 

Implication is just a fancy way of assuming. And you know what they say about assumptions.

I never said X Planes flight model was "nearly perfect". I said, based on what I know, it's more accurate than FSX's flight model. You don't agree? Fine. I got no problem with that. Just like you shouldn't have a problem with my opinion. The difference is, I don't go to the FSX forums and keep going on about how X Planes flight model is better.

Morten said the ground modelling WAS very bad, but has been adjusted quite a bit. There are some corners of x plane where things don't work like we want them to, but for a GA or turboprop, the flight model is pretty damn close. Engine modelling is greatly improved in XP10 and allows for more flexibility. When it comes to the heavies flight modelling and supersonic engine modelling, if a developer wants to go for extreme realism, some things need to be added via plug ins. But for someone who isn't an absolute fanatic, what it is capable of, out of the box, will more than suffice.

 

If that's the case, then surely NASA, Boeing, Cessna, and countless others would have no need for wind tunnels, etc. X-Plane could have saved Cessna two prototypes lost to spins.............if only Cessna had designed the rudder with X-Plane. Boeing could have saved to "cash" too.

 

What an unusual thing to say. Aside from the obvious sarcasm (something I never extended to you in any of my posts) Nothing can replace a wind tunnel.

Shall we cast our memories back a bit, when Microsoft used the slogan "As real as it gets". I'm just curious why you don't mention that in any of your posts. Or is that excusable because they don't use it anymore? Or maybe they just realized that MSFS isn't as real as it gets.

 

Yes, I believe that near 100% accuracy can be achieved; but that's for duplicating the flight dynamics of an "actual" flying plane. In the meantime, XP as a design program is still "ballpark", unless of course, you read all of the crap spread over the internet. I do get quite a kick out of reading some of these debates on forums I've never head of. Just type XPlane versus FSX, as I mentioned earlier. According to these other threads, FSX is a "game" at best, while X-Plane duplicates an actual flying aircraft because of it's modeled airflow. See, a lot of people actually believe this stuff.

 

L.Adamson

 

And can you show us the data that leads you to this ball park conclusion. Any flight models you have researched and their real world counter parts? Figures you have gathered of these flight models using X Planes built in flight model analysis software. These would obviously be payware. The Falco would be a good examples for you to research since you own it and you have extensive experience in a very similar aircraft.

I do realize that a lot of people believe the statement that Austin made about X plane, but then again, i believed microsoft when they said FS98 was as real as it gets.

I'll never forget when John and Martha King came to Sydney to hold a seminar and someone asked them how realistic FS2002 was because the water effects felt "weird". John came back with the best response. And i quote..

"What's the matter, you can't land that sucker on the water in a computer game??"

Rapturous laughter immediately followed.

Austin genuinely believes that X Plane is the most accurate desktop flight simulator on the market. Again, you might not agree with him, but that's something you have to deal with...if you choose to. Personally, I couldn't give 2 rips what the marketing slogan for Flight is. They can say "Better than X plane and more fun!!". Best of luck to them! I simply would not agree.

[LAdamson 240]

And what was your reason for posting your screenshot to someone who has been involved in FSX for years and knows exactly what they look like?

 

It wasn't posted for him. It was posted for other readers, who might believe that FSX is merely a bunch of puffy billboards in the sky.

 

 

They don;'t have X Planes 3D cloud effects.

 

You won't see me complaining....

 

 

Speaking of which, can you list which ones you have?

 

None of yours. I don't know about the future.

 

Implication is just a fancy way of assuming. And you know what they say about assumptions.

I never said X Planes flight model was "nearly perfect". I said, based on what I know, it's more accurate than FSX's flight model. You don't agree? Fine. I got no problem with that. Just like you shouldn't have a problem with my opinion.

 

How would some of you even know? Austin claims he's used FSX for 15 minutes. You claim to own the program, but use it very little. In the meantime...........how many RealAir products have you purchased and became familiar with? I'm sure it's a big "0". Besides, as you have a 100% financial interest in X-Plane, as a developer/vendor...........you seem to have a mega problem with my opinions.

 

The difference is, I don't go to the FSX forums and keep going on about how X Planes flight model is better.

 

You probably don't dare......as AVSIM isn't to the point of complete "counter point moderation". Yet, Austin does it all of the time, with his own websites. It's also a normal occurance at X-Plane org. And for you, as a commercial vendor.........it's not good to burn too many bridges.

 

On the other hand, I'm sure you don't mind when someone like GeofA. (a real Beech pilot), mentions that he prefers the Carenado XP Beechcraft F33 over the FSX model. It's fine with me too. That's why I ALSO bought it.

 

And can you show us the data that leads you to this ball park conclusion. Any flight models you have researched and their real world counter parts? Figures you have gathered of these flight models using X Planes built in flight model analysis software. These would obviously be payware. The Falco would be a good examples for you to research since you own it and you have extensive experience in a very similar aircraft.

 

When I say ballpark...............that means designing an aircraft using X-Plane. Not reproducing a replica, in which changes are made to make the numbers & behavior more exact.

 

 

I do realize that a lot of people believe the statement that Austin made about X plane, but then again, i believed microsoft when they said FS98 was as real as it gets.

 

Was it FS98, or FS2000, when that slogan appeared? I'm not sure at the moment. I didn't like FS98. That's when MSFS truely flew on rails. X-Plane wasn't doing any better either. It was Pro-Pilot that captured my imagination with a desktop airplane that actually promoted "feel". I was truely amazed! The FS98 crowd, didn't ever appreciate, what I had to say. In the meantime, Microsoft's Combat series was doing circles around FS98 in the flight dynamics department. At least for versions 1&2. As to "Real as it gets"...........it was true. With FS2000, Microsoft began using real life terrain and navigation data-bases. This in itself, brought the sim to a much higher level, than a game. It could easily be used for "pre-flights" to unfamiliar airports.........especially when mountains were involved. Incidently, this is also why I like XP8/9..........which is it's higher fidelity terrain data base.

 

L.Adamson

[GoranM 3,809]

It wasn't posted for him. It was posted for other readers, who might believe that FSX is merely a bunch of puffy billboards in the sky.

 

imo, not really a good enough reason. But whatever,

You won't see me complaining....

 

And you won't see me posting. Know why? Because I don't care to cause problems in a forum that I have very little to no interest in.

 

None of yours. I don't know about the future.

 

I didn't ask which ones you DON'T have. I asked which ones you DO have.

 

How would some of you even know? Austin claims he's used FSX for 15 minutes. You claim to own the program, but use it very little. In the meantime...........how many RealAir products have you purchased and became familiar with? I'm sure it's a big "0". Besides, as you have a 100% financial interest in X-Plane, as a developer/vendor...........you seem to have a mega problem with my opinions.

 

It's not a claim. It's a fact. And you're right. I use it very little. Maybe 10 minutes in the last year.

I haven't purchased any Real Air products. They don't make the add ons I'm interested in. I own most of PMDG's products. Flight 1 products. PSS products. Wilco products. Fly Tampa. The RFP 747-200, which I wrote 3 tutorials for and, for the last 5-6 years, dedicated some of my own server space for some of the free software that came with it so people can download them without looking too hard for them after they were discontinued. So I would say that my experience with FS9 and FSX payware is more than comprehensive enough.

 

You probably don't dare......as AVSIM isn't to the point of complete "counter point moderation". Yet, Austin does it all of the time, with his own websites. It's also a normal occurance at X-Plane org. And for you, as a commercial vendor.........it's not good to burn too many bridges.

 

Incorrect. I don't do it because I just don't care. If people want to dump on X plane in another forum...pfft...so what? I really and truly don't give a rip. I don't go to those forums. I come to these X Plane forums. I consider these forums like the corner store that I used to frequent when I was a kid. They had a video game that we would pay 20c to play 1 time. It felt like a second home. But every once in a while, there was the local bully and his friends who would push in and play that video game ahead of everyone else and he would say there were better video games 2 blocks away. Those few ruined the whole afternoon for the rest of us on a regular basis.

I don't go to x-plane.org because I don't agree with their policies. And that's just it. i don't go voicing how I feel about them or what they do wrong. If I don't agree with something, I don't go there. i did complain to the owner about the 11 day delay for support for a product I bought from them and was told I was causing trouble. I won't go into too much detail, but that's 1 bridge I am well and truly glad I burned.

 

On the other hand, I'm sure you don't mind when someone like GeofA. (a real Beech pilot), mentions that he prefers the Carenado XP Beechcraft F33 over the FSX model. It's fine with me too. That's why I ALSO bought it.

Why would I mind? That's his opinion. And one I definitely value as he has experience in the real aircraft. I didn't criticize him for it but I don't have it so I can't comment on it. But it's quite obvious to me why he prefers the X Plane version. And it's something Austin and many of us have said all along that you simply appear not to believe. Kudos to Dan Klaue on the work on the flight model. It really shows what X plane is capable of and hopefully will change your opinion of it...albeit, just slightly.

 

When I say ballpark...............that means designing an aircraft using X-Plane. Not reproducing a replica, in which changes are made to make the numbers & behavior more exact.

 

It's out of the box planemaker. I've made 4 flight models with no plug ins and all fly to about 95-98% accuracy in normal flight operations. I think the DC-3 had a 0.5% to 1% discrepancy on the take off roll. I don't know about you, but I consider that to be pretty damn accurate for out of the box ground modeling. And that had very little to do with me and what I made. It's mostly X plane. I just entered the figures from the doc's and let X Plane do the rest with a small adjustment for landing gear friction.

[tf51d 284]

The difference is, I don't go to the FSX forums and keep going on about how X Planes flight model is better.

 

If people were boasting inaccuracies about X-Plane over in the FSX forum, you would have every right too! As I pointed out in a previous post you don't see many posts comparing XP to FSX over there, so there is no need to. I guess to be fair, the XP10 community (As well as Flight) is in a state of transition with a relatively new version being released, which is wooing new users to look closely at it, (Especially that it's attracting current FS users) that inevitably invites comparisons, between the new and the old! The same thing happens with each FS release FSX vs FS2004, FS2004 vs FS2002 etc... Eventually I'm sure this will settle down as it did for the sims before, then things will for the most part go back to normal.

[GoranM 3,809]

If people were boasting inaccuracies about X-Plane over in the FSX forum, you would have every right too! As I pointed out in a previous post you don't see many posts comparing XP to FSX over there, so there is no need to. I guess to be fair, the XP10 community (As well as Flight) is in a state of transition with a relatively new version being released, which is wooing new users to look closely at it, (Especially that it's attracting current FS users) that inevitably invites comparisons, between the new and the old! The same thing happens with each FS release FSX vs FS2004, FS2004 vs FS2002 etc... Eventually I'm sure this will settle down as it did for the sims before, then things will for the most part go back to normal.

 

For your reading pleasure, Tom.

Enjoy...

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/361880-pmdg-and-x-plane-10/

[woweezowee 10]

completey useless debates for mac- and linux users, 50% of the X-Plane community. pretty useless X-plane 10 without 64-bit on Mac, too. That's all very unfortunate. Even more so that Laminar listens to FS user too much in my opinion, doing updates they desire instead of working on the real issues. We'll see. 10.20 will tell. Everything and every debate before is a joke.

[tf51d 284]

For your reading pleasure, Tom.

Enjoy...

http://forum.avsim.n...and-x-plane-10/

 

One that's the PMDG forum,not the FSX forum, and that is because of PMDG announcement that they are going to support X-Plane 10 (Which I think is a very good sign for XP,). I also stated you will find some FSX vs XP threads in the FSX forums, usually by people that just want to stir the pot, but they are no where near the amount we see in this forum. I believe that those threads are worse then the ones here, because those are usually designed to be intentionally inflammatory, where as these here, are more well intentioned, started by the curiosity of a user to a new product, SIM in this case!

[GoranM 3,809]

One that's the PMDG forum,not the FSX forum, and that is because of PMDG announcement that they are going to support X-Plane 10 (Which I think is a very good sign for XP,). I also stated you will find some FSX vs XP threads in the FSX forums, usually by people that just want to stir the pot, but they are no where near the amount we see in this forum. I believe that those threads are worse then the ones here, because those are usually designed to be intentionally inflammatory, where as these here, are more well intentioned, started by the curiosity of a user to a new product, SIM in this case!

 

Absolutely true. But it just goes to show that these debates do exist in an FSX based forum. And I make a conscious choice not to participate in those. There are a few in the FSX forums that I didn't search for as well, but it's 3am here now and I'm wrapping up a 19 hour work day on my next add on.

I, like you and many others, don't mind a healthy discussion on this kind of thing, but some people cross the line and it's very difficult to sit by and let them have their say when I know it's an uninformed opinion that I know plenty about.

When it comes to scenery, I say nothing. I'm not into scenery. But I think I know my way around X Planes flight model well enough to hold my own.

[LAdamson 240]

It's not a claim. It's a fact. And you're right. I use it very little. Maybe 10 minutes in the last year.

I haven't purchased any Real Air products. They don't make the add ons I'm interested in. I own most of PMDG's products. Flight 1 products. PSS products. Wilco products. Fly Tampa. The RFP 747-200, which I wrote 3 tutorials for and, for the last 5-6 years, dedicated some of my own server space for some of the free software that came with it so people can download them without looking too hard for them after they were discontinued. So I would say that my experience with FS9 and FSX payware is more than comprehensive enough.

 

Interesting (not really, I already knew). You tell me that I should respect your opinion, in regards to X-Plane's flight dynamics being purely superior.............but yet, you've never witnessed some of the best "desktop" flight dynamics available. This has much to do with ailerons & rudder. Pedals required!

 

 

 

Why would I mind? That's his opinion. And one I definitely value as he has experience in the real aircraft. I didn't criticize him for it but I don't have it so I can't comment on it. But it's quite obvious to me why he prefers the X Plane version. And it's something Austin and many of us have said all along that you simply appear not to believe. Kudos to Dan Klaue on the work on the flight model. It really shows what X plane is capable of and hopefully will change your opinion of it...albeit, just slightly.

 

Must be the use of "artificial stability", that's used in the Carenado F33 Beechcraft. GeofA, felt that it better represented real flight, than many other X-Plane models. I do too! XP-8 was most annoying with it's tail wagging, and bobbing around. I used artificial stability & turned off all weather...........to be able to enjoy it more than five minutes. Some armchair pilots believe that a continual wag or bounce is "real" flight dynamics. And that because MSFS is too smooth, that it's "riding on rails". They think that the air is constantly forcing the pilot to make control actions for straight and level flight. Well.............that's purely the wrong assumption. In reality, you'll have many smooth winter days. Mornings & evenings during the spring, summer, and fall, can also be extremely smooth. More so, than a vehicle on a very smooth highway. It can almost seem motionless, as the ground appears to slowly move by........even at 200+ mph, and only 3-4000' agl. We know that Geofa, owned and flew a single engine Beech, as well as a twin Beech Baron. I know that he felt exactly like I did with Pro-Pilot & FS98. We seemed to discover how Pro-Pilot was miles ahead in providing a sense of feeback and feel at the same time. FS98 was just dull, and X-Plane was the puppet on a string in a vacuum. No sense between small & large aircraft, whatsover. Happily, as I did suggest in the "Flight" forum (recently), X-Plane has certainly changed for the better in regards to inertia, dampening, power to weight, etc.

 

P.S. Cameron knows which two aircraft I bought. You're familiar with one of those. Same with the org. (1), and Carenado.

 

L.Adamson

[GoranM 3,809]

Interesting (not really, I already knew). You tell me that I should respect your opinion, in regards to X-Plane's flight dynamics being purely superior.............but yet, you've never witnessed some of the best "desktop" flight dynamics available. This has much to do with ailerons & rudder. Pedals required!

I thought PMDG make the best add ons and best flight dynamics for FS9/FSX. And I have every single add on of theirs up to and including the 747-400 for FSX.

 

 

 

Must be the use of "artificial stability", that's used in the Carenado F33 Beechcraft. GeofA, felt that it better represented real flight, than many other X-Plane models. I do too! XP-8 was most annoying with it's tail wagging, and bobbing around. I used artificial stability & turned off all weather...........to be able to enjoy it more than five minutes. Some armchair pilots believe that a continual wag or bounce is "real" flight dynamics. And that because MSFS is too smooth, that it's "riding on rails". They think that the air is constantly forcing the pilot to make control actions for straight and level flight. Well.............that's purely the wrong assumption. In reality, you'll have many smooth winter days. Mornings & evenings during the spring, summer, and fall, can also be extremely smooth. More so, than a vehicle on a very smooth highway. It can almost seem motionless, as the ground appears to slowly move by........even at 200+ mph, and only 3-4000' agl. We know that Geofa, owned and flew a single engine Beech, as well as a twin Beech Baron. I know that he felt exactly like I did with Pro-Pilot & FS98. We seemed to discover how Pro-Pilot was miles ahead in providing a sense of feeback and feel at the same time. FS98 was just dull, and X-Plane was the puppet on a string in a vacuum. No sense between small & large aircraft, whatsover. Happily, as I did suggest in the "Flight" forum (recently), X-Plane has certainly changed for the better in regards to inertia, dampening, power to weight, etc.

 

P.S. Cameron knows which two aircraft I bought. You're familiar with one of those. Same with the org. (1), and Carenado.

 

L.Adamson

 

I never said cheating with artificial stability was a bad thing. What is a cheat? Cheating refers to an immoral way of achieving a goal. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain advantage in a competitive situation.

Now that may sound a bit harsh because AS is in Planemaker and free to use. If it works for that developer with no adverse side effects, then by all means, I hope they continue "cheating". I just choose not to use it, unless it's in the form of a yaw damper that is in the actual aircraft. And I know Morten feels the same way. I do know a way around artificial stability that uses actual figures. It takes longer but I just prefer to go about things "properly". I've said this before.

 

And I know which 2 aircraft you bought from XA as well. Purely because you mentioned them both in these forums. It's safe to say you hardly have a comprehensive library of add ons that justify an opinion on flight models in X plane.

But that's another matter.

[Peter James 0]

I have made the switch ... albeit part time.... but have been enjoying XP now for months, and really almost exclusively. What did it for me was the extremely realistic scenery when it comes to terrain modeling and forest / tree locations.... way closer to real life than FSX. And, you get the whole world like this... no other sim has great default Caribbean Islands, or remote Pacific islands too... FSX has none....I like the real weather modeling too, overall smoothness (expcept moutains are hard on framerates)... and reliability. I can only enjoy flying it with either it's default 744, or the payware add-ons I bought.... with good VC modeling.... however, sadly, most free addon aircraft aren't great, and none have VC! So, it's good and bad.... too sensitive too on controls, but over time you get used to it... but the graphics are always sharp, crisp and great looking.....

 

worth having that and FSX in my world!

[Rich0 0]

I just wanted to comment that this discussion has been helpful for me (skipping over the more bickering posts).

 

I am not an XP user yet, but I feel that it is inevitable that I will be some day. I'm just trying to figure out when that day should come. I tried XP demos back in the v8 and v9 days, and the v10 demo (I'll likely give it another shot sometime soon). My reason for holding back was just general level of polish, especially with aircraft panels and availability of 3rd party aircraft, and the ATC.

 

It seems to me that all of these things have been improving but I'm still on the fence. Both platforms benefit from 3rd-party additions so I am trying to be fair and evaluate XP against FSX minus add-ons. The biggest benefit I see is that it is just a better foundation to build on. Anytime I load up an FSX install with stuff I end up wiping everything and starting over, because general stability and the 2GB limit hit and I can't get through a flight without it dying.

 

Here is a question for the XP enthusiasts - how is the product with saving flights when using 3rd-party tools? One issue I've found with FSX is that some of these tools do not behave well together if you want to save/restore a flight (older tools like radar contact really spring to mind here). I generally can't sit in a chair for a six hour flight and real life tends to intrude, so having the ability to save/restore is a BIG plus for me. I'd think that sim makers would benefit by just having an API for saving state (add-on defines callback for about-to-save, when called it passes an arbitrary binary/xml/etc blob to the simulator, and when it restores it gets the blob back).

 

I guess I don't look forward to a new learning curve.

 

Things that I tend to use in a flight sim include:

1. Complex aircraft/panels (lots of systems/etc).

2. Lots of ATC interaction. Ideally I'd like something dynamic and not super-scripted, and the more real the better.

3. Some level of cheating - if I'm flying a 747 solo with mouse-click buttons I'm not going to be able to operate the thing like a two-man crew with real dials that are always in reach. Radio frequencies are a BIG area where this applies, especially on approach/departure. I actually tend to disfavor products that force people to do a lot of manipulation, although a realistic ATC that doesn't switch the frequencies 14 times in two minutes would help as well.

4. Interesting places to go and see. I don't care if the best places to visit are the same as in some other sim, but there should be fun places to fly around.

5. The knowledge that 3rd parties are starting to make nice add-ons. It seems to me that XP is just crossing this threshold now.

 

I don't really want to make this about XP vs FSX/etc. I guess I'm just looking to get a sense for when the right time to jump on-board is...

[GoranM 3,809]

1. The first truly systems heavy aircraft for x plane came out about a year ago. That was the CRJ-200, which Peter James himself has admitted that he can't get enough of.

2. That has only just been introduced and will be worked upon. I cannot see it being contained within Laminar's 4 walls.

3. There are no options currently available to what you may be used to (a pop up window with numbered options for the closest frequencies to the aircraft.). For now, you can either assign button/key presses to the different numbers on the radios or click the knobs to select them.

4. X Plane 10, with the exception of what has been included by Aerosoft, is devoid of well known landmarks and urban areas. There is an entire library of scenery at x-plane.org you can exploit or you can opt to use a script to import your FS9/FSX scenery into X Plane. It's very automated and the conversion takes less than a minute. It's not perfect. For example, when I imported FlyTampa's St Maarten airport, it placed a massive wall on the beach approaching the runway. Opening the scenery in WED (X Plane scenery utility), I could simply select the wall and delete it and then re-save it. Problem was solved.

5. Airliners that are being worked on:

737-300

Saab 340

747-200

747-400

BAE Jetstream

777 Series

 

Due to my status as a Commercial Member, I don't think I can post links to these projects. If you wish, I will send them to you through PM. Please let me know if you're interested and I'll be happy to oblige.

[tf51d 284]

2. That has only just been introduced and will be worked upon. I cannot see it being contained within Laminar's 4 walls.

 

The ATC system, I agree it's possible a 3rd party can take the ball and improve what's there already. The AI system though is something that is usually deeply integrated in the sim engine itself, so I think it unlikely that a 3rd party can do much with it without LR changing the inner code, of which at least in the next 24 months Austin states he doesn't have any plans on changing. (Source AVSIM Teamspeak Conference)