Adjustable.

 

and... Perfect! with some models, without any adjustment required :-). You should really try the LES dc-3 Goran ;-)

 

But, presently and without rudder pedals I have my artificial stability all set at 100% and control axis damped 30% on roll and pitch, and 60% in yaw. It feels good to me this way....

and... Perfect! with some models, without any adjustment required :-). You should really try the LES dc-3 Goran ;-)

 

I have a feeling he's probably taken it up a time or two.

I hear good things about that DC-3. Who made that fantastic thing?

^_^

The same crew working on a secret Saab project....

Not to threadjack or anything, but speaking of that DC-3, is it equipped with a Sperry?

Not to threadjack or anything, but speaking of that DC-3, is it equipped with a Sperry?

 

(Mods, please remove if it's "advertising")

 

Yes, it includes a Sperry Autopilot.

jcomm, Is there any thing that I will miss from FSX? It seems like to me that x-plane DOES look pretty good. The graphics are pretty nice. But is the x-plane UI hard to use or what? And also what about the aircraft, are they as good as FSX or acutally better? One other thing too, when you go to high altiudes in x-plane 10 like let's say FL350, does it look like your really up there? In FSX, when I was that high, it never looked like I was that high.

 

So if you could answer my questions that would be great. And sorry about the small font in the 2nd paragraph. Thanks!

 

I miss landing at airports that look anything like their real world counterparts. I don't know what data thy used for the airports, but my local airport KDLZ lengthened the runway and flipped the airport to the other side of the runway over a decade ago. But xplane still has the old configuration. Plus if I go to one there and don't take time to customize the airport myself (which is NOT why I bought the sim), then th is NOTHING there but an incorrect length runways with a single taxiway on the wrong side....

 

Scott

Scott

Going by what you said, it isn't really ALL the airports that don't look like their real world counterparts. It's just KDLZ. I understand how you feel. YHOX is my local airport and it doesn't even exist anymore. Yet there it is in X Plane, FSX and FS9.

Taking everything into consideration, if just 1 airport being incorrectly placed is a deal breaker for you, then X Plane isn't for you.

Cascais aerodrome also looks weird in X-Plane10, but so it does in ELITE, and in FSX... This specific airports require add-ons, or manual editing, but, I can perfectly live with it....

 

If a detailed scenery for Portugal ever comes into existence I'll be in the 1st line to buy it :-)

 

Meanwhile approaching Lisbon, even if not all of the OSM buildings are realistic or areas are lacking detail, is so much more immersive than in FSX that I feel I have exactly what I want :-)

Probably the only flight sim that will have accurate representations of all their airports is Aerofly. Problem is, to cover the entire planet with that kind of detail will probably take about 80TB's.

I thnk the original question is not an easy one. Most simmers who think about XP have flown other sims before, so they will always compare. XP at the current stage does not look good compared to a 1000€ Fsx with all good add ons. XP is in need of the leading add on companies to sell all the good stuff. But will they ever do, as long as the Fsx sales are good? Imagine XP with ORBX sceneries, a good weather injector, UTX, landmarks, seasons and some default airport scenery, that would be heaven. And do they all run, after the coming updates? Until we are there, XP is for some of us who say "its so great, I dont need all that'.

Imagine XP with ORBX sceneries...

 

http://truscenery.wordpress.com/

 

If ORBX doesn't want to explore possibilities with X-Plane, that's fine. I think we're covered there.

Thats a nice looking scenery but what Im looking for is a complete region like the PNW. I dont think that the average customer has the money to build his world with airports like this.

ORBX started small, raised capital with sales of their earlier works, and used it to fund the larger projects. I can easily see another company following the same route for X-Plane.

 

X-Plane can't compete with FSX in terms of add-on availability right now, and that's a given. Anyone who says they can't switch to it because they'll lose everything they invested in for FSX should absolutely stick with FSX. X-Plane is entering a different era now, I believe. Before, it was always the underdog sim, lagging behind Microsoft's behemoth and catering to a small, yet dedicated fanbase. Now that MS is no longer developing a Flight Simulator, and with P3D's uncertain terms for the home end user (See PMDG's recent statement regarding their EULA and P3D's status), it's poised to become a leader in the genre.

 

The problem is Austin Meyer needs to get a better understanding of what is desired by the market. Stable code releases, no radical, add-on breaking code changes every 5 minutes, and a more welcoming and user-friendly interface just to name a few items that will help solidify X-Plane into a viable replacement and will attract more 3PD's. Mainly, it's the constant code changes that push them away right now. Take the 777 for example. It's designed for 10.05r5, but is unusable in 10.10 until Ramzzess and Phillip patch it. Such a radical change in just an incremental update spells headaches for 3PDs.

Thats a nice looking scenery but what Im looking for is a complete region like the PNW. I dont think that the average customer has the money to build his world with airports like this.

 

There are entire regions that have been made by "RealScenery". Oahu was there latest package and NORCAL is currently in development.