I never really put too much stock in screen-shots - while looks are nice honestly the feel is more important. One thing I really like about the XP demo is that the frame rates are MUCH better than FSX. However, other than balloons hovering over KSEA it is a bit lacking in AI. The ATC also needs work, though I did read the blog post about that. Some ATC improvements that would help:

1. Allow for ATC interaction beyond IFR plans. If I fly up to KSEA VFR I ought to be able to call somebody up and ask to land. For its faults FSX does this part reasonably well.
   
2. Better departure/arrival procedures. ATC just clears takeoff, and doesn't give altitude clearances/etc. I don't fly in the real world, but I suspect that even on a SID you'd probably get more explicit instructions than those provided.
   
3. Ability to load plans/etc - if I were using an aircraft with a nice FMS it could get tedious re-loading the same plan into 2-3 places.
   
4. Some kind of "co-pilot" assistance with the radios, or good keyboard mappings for the radios. If I'm flying a 747 I'm not going to be flying the plane, adjusting the AP settings, and manning the radios solo. Honestly, even in a C172 solo I imagine the radios are a bit easier to manage than on a PC, and the ATC would likely provide departure info with the clearance to aid with that.
   
5. Obviously in 15min I can't fly too far, but in my ATC experiments it seemed like I was flying in circles (told to report field in sight, then vectored off before it was). No idea how well it works to the end of the flight as I haven't been able to fly one end-to-end yet (anybody have a 10min IFR route they'd like to offer?). 15min is a bit short for a demo, but it is 15min longer than you get with FSX...
   

Seems like ATC needs some work, though I realize it is new.

 

Actually, keyboard settings are something that could be done better out of the box. Yes, I know I can map the radios to keys, and in general it is much better than FSX in that regard. However, I'm forced to basically design my own keyboard mapping from scratch, while unfamiliar with the default mappings. Why not find a mapping that works well and ship it with a nice keyboard template diagram. It looks like earlier versions had these available, and v10 has gone back to basics. Being able to change things is nice, but why not have the "experts" at least provide a good starting point?

 

It has been growing on me, though - this time I didn't delete the demo after a few flights...

keys:

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=15421

keys:

http://forums.x-plan...&showfile=15421

 

Thanks - very helpful. Would be nice if there were default mappings for radios/etc, but this will at least help me to understand the logic of the current defaults and find something sensible.

Here is my take:

 

BACKGROUND:

I first bought MSFS in 1988 and today I use and love FSX. MS chose a different direction when "Flight" came out, and it seems to have alienated the 3rd party developers that have made FSX so enjoyable. Instead of griping and complaining, I started to think about the future. My plan is to use FSX until it is no longer possible. Three months ago, I bought XP-10 based on some of the feedback I read from the community, and again based on the fact that MS seems to not want to take it further. Also, yesterday and I moved it to a dedicated external USB 3.0 SSD. My plan is to use FSX about 75% of the time and XP-10 the remaining 25%, and I expect XP-10 usage to go up as add-ons are released.

 

OBSERVATIONS:

- It took me about a month to get comfortable with the differences (i.e. key presses), but that's expected

- I love how the aircraft behaves with different weather

- The sloped runways are fantastic and very accurate

- It was nice to see that Aerosoft contributed with some of Europe's major airports accurately depicted

- X-Plane 10 takes advantage of multi-core CPUs and relies on the GPU too, which is a good thing, and my systems specs make it run beautifully with almost everything maxed out

- I have not had any CTDs

- I love the night visuals, such as the dark sky, the way aircraft lights illuminate the runway, and city lights

- I like the auto-gen objects

- I bought Javier Rollon's CRJ-200 for a realistic commercial airline experience, and it's a pleasure to fly

- I'm under the impression that Laminar Research is serious about customer feedback and frequently updating XP-10

- I think Laminar Research will have a great relationship with 3rd party developers, and it's great to hear that an elite company like PMDG is looking at making an XP-10 version of one of their products

 

WISH LIST:

- Major landmarks/buildings and airport terminals/hangars, like FSX did

- Moon phase sync with the real world

- An option to remove default AI

- Different colors for bodies of water depending on their type/content and location

- ATC improvements

 

PREDICTIONS:

- If MS does not reconsider its new approach to flight simulation, I think Laminar Research will eventually take over and lead the market for years to come

- 3rd party developers will make XP-10 quickly catch up to FSX in terms of aircraft, sceneries, realistic AI, utilities, etc

 

Enjoy your flights!

Here is my take:

 

BACKGROUND:

I first bought MSFS in 1988 and today I use and love FSX. MS chose a different direction when "Flight" came out, and it seems to have alienated the 3rd party developers that have made FSX so enjoyable. Instead of griping and complaining, I started to think about the future. My plan is to use FSX until it is no longer possible. Three months ago, I bought XP-10 based on some of the feedback I read from the community, and again based on the fact that MS seems to not want to take it further. Also, yesterday and I moved it to a dedicated external USB 3.0 SSD. My plan is to use FSX about 75% of the time and XP-10 the remaining 25%, and I expect XP-10 usage to go up as add-ons are released.

 

OBSERVATIONS:

- It took me about a month to get comfortable with the differences (i.e. key presses), but that's expected

- I love how the aircraft behaves with different weather

- The sloped runways are fantastic and very accurate

- It was nice to see that Aerosoft contributed with some of Europe's major airports accurately depicted

- X-Plane 10 takes advantage of multi-core CPUs and relies on the GPU too, which is a good thing, and my systems specs make it run beautifully with almost everything maxed out

- I have not had any CTDs

- I love the night visuals, such as the dark sky, the way aircraft lights illuminate the runway, and city lights

- I like the auto-gen objects

- I bought Javier Rollon's CRJ-200 for a realistic commercial airline experience, and it's a pleasure to fly

- I'm under the impression that Laminar Research is serious about customer feedback and frequently updating XP-10

- I think Laminar Research will have a great relationship with 3rd party developers, and it's great to hear that an elite company like PMDG is looking at making an XP-10 version of one of their products

 

WISH LIST:

- Major landmarks/buildings and airport terminals/hangars, like FSX did

- Moon phase sync with the real world

- An option to remove default AI

- Different colors for bodies of water depending on their type/content and location

- ATC improvements

 

PREDICTIONS:

- If MS does not reconsider its new approach to flight simulation, I think Laminar Research will eventually take over and lead the market for years to come

- 3rd party developers will make XP-10 quickly catch up to FSX in terms of aircraft, sceneries, realistic AI, utilities, etc

 

Enjoy your flights!

 

Some very, very interesting observations Luis. I don't think my prediction of 18 momths before XP10 really finds it's feet will be too far removed. I must admit, I am really starting to get quite interested in the future of XP.

Unless MS does a 180 soon, I think they're basically going to concede the market. Even after they fired the FSX team shear inertia kept them around for years, but that same force will work against them. If X-Plane becomes the place where all the 3rd parties go, then even if MS releases a competitive product nobody is going to dump their new investments in XP.

 

I was thinking more about ATC and things to improve X-Plane. After some reflection I guess what I like about AI/ATC/weather/etc is that it introduces something to interact with in the simulator. Without it a flight from A to B is the same every time. Of course, right now the ATC isn't doing much better than that, but if we had 100 AI planes in the sky and airports dealing with changing winds or whatever then that would be a whole different story. While I know that some cringe, some kind of adventure capability would be nice, especially if the adventures can be created dynamically or by 3rd parties. It need not even be an arcade-like experience - maybe integrate some airline management APIs for 3rd parties, and have ways to trigger events that influence the flight just like failures do. If one out of every 2-3 flights had something interesting happen, whether minor or serious, that would probably make things interesting. Maybe there is a NOTAM in an area and a restriction to deal with, as well as modifications to some SIDs/STARs as a result. Maybe a local airport has temporary noise restriction changes.

 

A good realistic simulator is the right foundation to build on, but XP could be a lot more. And none of this need be mandatory. I'd think, however, that even pilots bent on realism would probably welcome some of that at some frequency. It isn't like you can plan a flight without checking for NOTAMs.

I really like having ATC, it's part of doing what a real pilot does when you are not one yourself and when you have an environment where you may have heavy traffic and ATC slots you in adds the the simulation.

 

I admit that I have never really used the adventure capability of fsx in the early days as I did see it as a bit of a 'game' thing. Over the last couple of years I have found that I do like the adventure system with the right one.

 

When you want to have a fly and dont have any ideas as such then a good scripted adventure can be a lot of fun. I particularly like the ones with custom voice overs that add to things, maybe a bit of chatter here and there that make the 40 minutes or so a little less dull.

 

When you get a good adventure with all the above as well as flight plans, routes etc then they can be a very good way to have a good flight. Of course not too many have big replay value but fun none the less.

OK guys, I'm an avid FSX simmer and more or less happy with my setup. However, I am never one to say never, and while I initially didn't consider XP10 I am now actually open to at least the idea of considering the new platform. I have to say, I get pretty fed up with the blurries and low frames at some airports and it seems I spend most of my time tweaking and fiddling! So, can anyone provide me with an idea of the benefits of a switch to XP from FSX. I have to say that while I see a lot of good scenery, lots of it appears to be photosceneries, which I don't particularly care for. I don't like the clouds in XP10 either, which IMO look awful. So what is the opinion of anyone who has moved from FSX and can offer a very objective view point, cheers fellas...

 

From the days of FS95/98 Fly 2k and what ever xplane version was out at the moment I had never really fully switched from one to the other i try to have all the options . it is thruth that XP gets too little to almost no use on my systems but its there . The things you may miss in one the other has it so i would suggest keeping all the sims that you enjoy .

By the way its my first time posting on the forum . This guys( IXEG ) are getting my attention lately

Rockliffe, check out this thread from a long time ago where I posted some YouTube videos of the scenery.

 

You had mentioned that you are a 3rd party scenery guy. One thing of mention is that the Open Source scenery is only of use in Europe as they have the resources there for great scenery, but anywhere else, data is very sparse. Unless you have an airport itself 3rd party or the WED 1.2 community effort improves all airports, everything will be empty and barren. The cities won't have any landmarks to fly by with the geographic exceptions.

 

There is a lot to go visibly in XP10 and it hinges on a lot of data that LR are waiting on us (yes, you and me) to put in, such as adding bulidings to our airports and adding any 3d buildings to their appropriate locations for city references.

 

I love XP10 and how smooth it is and how many buildings and the density of objects I can have with great frame rates, but the realism is still left wanting. I don't feel that I'm flying in anything close to a realistic representation of the world, but a different world with the land and airports in the same spots.

You can even find a newer version of the OSM2XP buildings. A member from the Aerosoft forum made the Europe conversion with OpenStreetMap data from end of may 2012. The link to the 1Gb file is in this post:

http://forum.aerosof..._40#entry384806

 

Happy flying.

 

That's nice, but Helgos Mallorca won't load anymore with it (although loading priorities are right and other scenery in europe loads fine).

 

EDIT: Problem is the new scenery ini-file. It will place newly added scenery not alphabetically, but on top. You basically have to delete it every time you added a new scenery and named it to your (loading priority) wishes. It then rebuilds alphabetically.

EDIT: Problem is the new scenery ini-file. It will place newly added scenery not alphabetically, but on top. You basically have to delete it every time you added a new scenery and named it to your (loading priority) wishes. It then rebuilds alphabetically.

 

and here's the explanation (yet another "feature" that wasn't thought through imho):

http://developer.x-plane.com/2012/07/scenery_packs-ini-what-was-i-thinking/

I'll add another observation related to the weather effects in XP-10. Two nights ago, I was flying the Javier Rollon's CRJ-200 in South Florida during some very intense thunderstorms. They also showed up very nicely on the weather radar in the CRJ. I decided to test the turbulence effects by going straight into one of the storms and may plane was shaken to the point that it fell out of the sky. If I had done this in FSX under the same environmental conditions, nothing would have happened. Again, XP-10 is very impressive and quite promising!

But it is OVERDONE in many places. When the wind shifts slightly (1-2kts) the aircraft banks and yaws 5-10 degrees sometimes. This is impossible to keep on an ILS without autopilot, but easy enough to handfly in real life conditions. Mind you, going into the RED on a thunderstorm is asking for the above and worse conditions, but green shouldn't be that bad. Maybe 1-5 degrees pitch and bank randomly every 10sec-45sec with maybe 1 degree yaw, but in yellow 1-5 degrees pitch/bank randomly 5-20 sec with the vsi added for up/down drafts +/- 100-400fps, RED being worst of all with 1-10deg pitch/bank randomly, 1-10 sec with +/- 100-1000fps (the above for a light twin, less drastic for a big iron with high moi)

 

I believe the biggest fault of the unrealistic bumps is the wind effect on the aircraft. It has always plagued XP for as long as I remember with the weathervaning issues and extreme turbulence. I think that an aircraft with even slight changes in wind (1-2kts) undergoes far more reaction in sim than real life, especially with the yaw forces. I have been kicked around by many a storm and would consider the events I experience in XP to be bordering on the extreme in some pretty light cells. The zoning of the thunder cells gives a good platform for LR to utilize a structure where 0% into the storm, you get A, 30% you get B, 50% you get C and in between you get random variations, stronger or lighter than the expected values. Halfway between A and B, you get 15% effect typically with random ability to get 0% or 30% (as we all know that updrafts and downdrafts in a storm cell as well as wind gusts from the center of storm come and go as they want to).

But it is OVERDONE in many places. When the wind shifts slightly (1-2kts) the aircraft banks and yaws 5-10 degrees sometimes. This is impossible to keep on an ILS without autopilot, but easy enough to handfly in real life conditions. Mind you, going into the RED on a thunderstorm is asking for the above and worse conditions, but green shouldn't be that bad. Maybe 1-5 degrees pitch and bank randomly every 10sec-45sec with maybe 1 degree yaw, but in yellow 1-5 degrees pitch/bank randomly 5-20 sec with the vsi added for up/down drafts +/- 100-400fps, RED being worst of all with 1-10deg pitch/bank randomly, 1-10 sec with +/- 100-1000fps (the above for a light twin, less drastic for a big iron with high moi)

 

I believe the biggest fault of the unrealistic bumps is the wind effect on the aircraft. It has always plagued XP for as long as I remember with the weathervaning issues and extreme turbulence. I think that an aircraft with even slight changes in wind (1-2kts) undergoes far more reaction in sim than real life, especially with the yaw forces. I have been kicked around by many a storm and would consider the events I experience in XP to be bordering on the extreme in some pretty light cells. The zoning of the thunder cells gives a good platform for LR to utilize a structure where 0% into the storm, you get A, 30% you get B, 50% you get C and in between you get random variations, stronger or lighter than the expected values. Halfway between A and B, you get 15% effect typically with random ability to get 0% or 30% (as we all know that updrafts and downdrafts in a storm cell as well as wind gusts from the center of storm come and go as they want to).

I get a sense that Laminar Reseach takes our feedback seriously. I'm confident things will continue to improve.

XPlane is good for a mac user and some one who dos not want payware like pmdg fsx is more realistic because of compines like PMDG and A2A.