The AI has already been changed to include other aircraft that replace the default aircraft. GA's and airliners alike. I'm not sure what can be done with scheduling, though.

I will probably be the next, but still have to wait for xp10.10, maybe 10.20 and decide. After all I invested some €€€ on MS FLIGHT, and Xplane is a lot more expensive.

While I wait for xp10.10, I reinstaled SilentWings and keep using ELITE - the only flightsim I never really quited using... :-)

 

It's interesting to learn that RL professonal pilots opt for Xplane, even if keeping active in MSFS for obvious reasons, and private pilots uulike Larry Adamson, Gregory, etc... also use Xplane even if they keep using their MSFS 9/X or Prepar3d platforms.

 

MS FLIGHT was, until last night a great experience, and indeed the simulator that made me feel closer to the experience of being there that I ever had with a GA flight simulator. Unfortunately I eventualy got bored with some aspects that were long making me "nervous", I really do not have the time, nor the disk, nor the personality (my limitation... I admit) to use multiple sims, unless they somehow complement each other...

 

There is yet another reason why I think I will soon make the "switch"... Rotary wings - they allways felt a lot more coherent/realistic in xplane, even when I take into consideration some MSFS great add-ons. When it comes to rotary wing, if you don't want to be limited to that great DCS ka-50 Blackshark, then Xplane is the way...

What happened last night? Don't answer if it might start another war ;)

No serious and experienced X-Plane user should recommend "the switch" to fellow virtual pilots before 10.2.; please just enjoy what you have and take another look when that version has gone final. I guess that might be 4-6 months away.

 

If you enjoy your sim of choice now, there is no reason to switch to early XP10. Too many issues are still unsolved, but they are on the agenda (64-bit, Cities, real weahter winds and turbulence, more art assets, improved ATC, better shadows, better HDR performance,…and…and…and…).

 

Best thing one can do is follow the developer Blog: http://developer.x-plane.com/

It's interesting to learn that RL professonal pilots opt for Xplane, even if keeping active in MSFS for obvious reasons, and private pilots uulike Larry Adamson, Gregory, etc... also use Xplane even if they keep using their MSFS 9/X or Prepar3d platforms.

 

Of interest.....

 

I have quite a number of RL professional pilot friends; and none of them uses either sim...

I have quite a number of RL professional pilot friends; and none of them uses either sim...

 

Hi Larry :-)

 

Perhaps because they simply do not use flight simulators. Most of my friend glider pilots are even sceptic about using flightsims...

You're saying they don't use either MSFS or Xplane, if I understood....

 

What happened last night? Don't answer if it might start another war ;)

 

Nothing really that special - I simply found some way to give it away to a friend who offered me a x52 Pro, allowing me to profit from ms flight for quite a while, even if I preferred to use the excelent mouse interface. That way the money I spent in all the DLCs will not be lost :-)

 

Don't get me wrong - ms flight offers a great visual and "physical" sensation of flight. But it lacks some aspects that are the main reason for me never having abandoned ELITE or SilentWings:

- my area of flying in RL is not there (Portugal and Spain), and most probably will never be...

- it lacks detailled systems simulation, and I have to admit that is something I really like to have... And I do not mean fancy MCDUs and APs, but deteilled engine models, coherent at least, things like icing effects so important in RL, and even a damage model without which it feels to simple to please me...

- it lacks some important aspects of weather modelling I find in ELITE and SW and even Condor and MSFS9 and X, and xplane too. Yet the visuals are really great, the winds/gusts/turbulence are better than ever before on other versions of MSFS...

 

ELITE and SW both have a problem, and that's why xplane10 will probably become my nest choice - expandability/future development. I know about many of the problems that plague xplane, but I also know it is an ongoing project, with tallented people behind, and this is why I am willing to try it again...

 

Also, I don't think I would ever get some more "picky" details implemented on the MS FLIGHT platform, so...

 

Back to ELITE and SW, looking forward to test xp10.10, and further xp10.20 when my decision will probably be made...

Answering the OP.

 

I've made the switch a 2 years ago, using 95% (XP9 2010-2011 and XPX in 2012) and 5% of FSX. But recently, I'm more 95% FSX which I find more immersive globally.

 

And you know what? Just one add-on and couple of payware AC (Acu-feels add-on, Carenedo's Aircraft, A2A's Aircraft), That's it!

I have both Sim platforms and enjoy them both,That said the more I get used to XPlane and it's interface the more time(and money) I'm spending on it,I Love it!

Ah thanks for the detailed answer. Nice

I have both Sim platforms and enjoy them both,That said the more I get used to XPlane and it's interface the more time(and money) I'm spending on it,I Love it!

 

I am also finding myself spending more and more time (and money) in XPX. Bought the 208 yesterday and I suspect I will spend lots of time in that one. And the CRJ200, and Challenger 300 and f33, and "Gorans" DC3...

 

And now, really decent scenery is becoming more common, just look at the videos posted, I am thinking about the Copenhagen scenery. Not bad at all. Think I will have to dig out the old credit card once again..

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Lebelge's scenery (http://home.scarlet.be/xplane/) is very, very good. In most areas of Reunion the houses are represented on a 1:1 scale. The effect is amazing, towns and cities have this very dense look that you get in reality too.

 

I'm flying XP10 all the time these days. The flight model in a good payware aircraft in XPX is more 'interesting' (for lack of a better word) than the corresponding planes in FSX and P3D (case in point the FSX Caravan vs the XPX Caravan).

 

Once you get good scenery like lebelge's Corsica, Guadeloupe, Reunion, XP10 really shine.

 

On the negative side: - the default scenery areas on the other hand are off-putting to be kind, - the clouds look very bad in XP10, - default sound is bad (it loops...:-(), but in a plane like the Carenado Caravan with its own sound plug in things are just as good as any other sim.

 

Once you get good scenery like lebelge's Corsica, Guadeloupe, Reunion, XP10 really shine.

On the negative side: - the default scenery areas on the other hand are off-putting to be kind,

 

This is one of the things that would bother me.

 

I don't generally download detailed local scenery in FSX and wouldn't plan to do it in X-Plane. That sounds like a mess of micro-management unless you only fly in a small area. Whether it is stock or an add-on or two I want to tweak a few settings and get half-decent global scenery. I don't care if when I fly over my house that I can see it and it has the right number of windows - I just want there to be rivers/towns/etc in approximately the right areas.

 

Airports matter more. I don't need every outhouse in the right spot, but the runway/taxiway/parking layouts should be accurate. Even FSX isn't perfect in that regard - often you have taxiways dumping you in a grass field for small airports.

 

In FSX the sort of scenery changes I've found helpful are denser grids, better terrain maps, and better textures. Honestly, that is about all I really need - I don't need 14GB of photo-accurate scenery that covers 500 km^2. If this sort of thing is available in XP that would make me happy.

 

the clouds look very bad in XP10,

 

From what I've read the clouds sound better in XP10. FSX clouds are great for screen-shots, but they don't look so nice when you're flying through them. I don't take screen-shots - I care more that clouds behave decently when I'm flying in them. My only complaint with XP is that it seems like the clouds don't render to the horizon, but I'm just messing with the demo so maybe I haven't found the right setting.

 

I re-downloaded the demo and was a bit more impressed this time around. I'll have to mess with it some more. One suggestion I would make to Laminar is to make the demo use a Cessna or something smaller than an airliner. When taking off in an airliner you really need to be able to manage controls/autopilots/etc, and without knowing how to work FMS/etc you're going to struggle to get that thing where you want it, and where are you going to fly it in 15min? With a small plane you can just "wing it" fairly easily and fly circuits or whatever. It isn't a big deal if you can't find the flaps button in a 172, and you are going to rip off your gear or stall if you don't micro-manage your speed while looking for that button.

If you feel that way about scenery, then X-plane should make you happy. The default scenery has all that, roads, rivers and correct airports. all in the right places.

 

Another thing I find very nice about X-plane is that scenery handling is very easy and well done. You just drop the scenery folder in the x-plane custom scenery folder and that's it. FSX and P3D is a nightmare in comparison.

 

Re clouds, yes, I guess they are better when you're in them, but from the outside they look very bland and the fact they don't render to the horizon is really annoying (as in really).

 

Demo: if they want to sell copies of Xplane they need to buy or make a good payware-level quality GA aircraft for the demo. The graphics in the default planes made me exit the program in horror the first time.

So fellas, is there any scenery being produced for XP that is comparable to Orbx for FSX? I mean large areas such as New Zealand, Pacific north west etc which are true renditions of the specific landscape.

Howard

A very high detail Norcal package is currently under development by the same developer who made Oahu.

The problem with obtaining that kind of scenery data is that it is very expensive so there won't be many developers doing those kinds of OrbX equivalent scenery projects unless they do them well and accurately.

The market is definitely ripe for other developers who are capable of making this kind of scenery.

Airports, on the other hand, are ridiculously easy to make. After looking into it, even a pleb like me can make a small airport in a matter of a month or 2.