XP10 is about Simulating Flight up in the sky, so why aren't the

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

clouds moving yet! but they did in XP9, Austin and his team did an amazing job with the road/traffic system but xp10 is not a road/traffic sim. :(

[jcomm 5,928]

+1 FlashIsisMayia...

 

I strongly hope the LR team will find time to concentrate on this and other demands from their supporters as soon as the 64 bit XP10.20 get's stable.

 

My guess is that items like the one you mention, as well as:

 

- Better modelling of prop effects with correction of the current huge/irrealistic torque effects, and better slipstream calculations accounting for yaw much more than bank, on typical prop aircraft;

- Better ground handling, maybe through a corrected side friction coeficient for the wheels, so that our Cessna does not weathervane like a weather cock on mild winds;

- Better autogen / landclass and their placement, allowing for more plausible representation of different types of cities/villages/etc...

- Seasonal textures would be GREAT to have too...

- Better cloud graphics, including additional cloud types, fog / haze, and being possible to set a cloud layer with a minimum thickness not limited to 2000'... and, did I mention that awful curtain effects when setting low visibility, and being able to see the Moon through it?

- Better turboprop model for turboprop engines, allowing for correct FF readings when RPM adjusted on free-running turbines...

- Better jet / turbofan engine, with proper LP N1 windmill values (HP N2 already works that way...)

- Better calculation of daylight, Sun rise/set times / azimuth / right ascension, depending on date and geographical coordinates, and preferably correct Moon phases as well...

- Better AI (please Austin, drop the heavy AI using the same FDM for it's animation, and give us something in the line of FSX...), with plausible behaviour;

- Better Map views, not restricted to current tile, allowing for a more confortable flight analysis / planning;

- Winds aloft and temperatures. Setting / reading and calculations of various weather / aerodynamics / engine performance parameters based on T / Td relationship would also be great!!!

- Better default GNS 430 / 530, with the possibility to load / edit a route (that would be great, and what we get by default in FSX)

 

might get their attention... :-)

 

I'm a positive guy!!! (sometimes...)

 

I really would rather prefer to use a single simulator instead of:

 

- X-Plane10 because I believe it may have a bright future, has smooth graphics, nice rotary wing flight dynamics (do I really know it does????), gourgeous night lighting, great METAR translation, good overall reciprocating engine performance / tunning possibilities (can't talk about the jet /turboprop / turbofan models...)

 

- FSX because it is, by default, a lot more self-contained than X-Plane, offers IMHO a much more plausible (whole) World, has nice weather rendering, specially when used with quality add-ons, a vast choice of different aircraft types, with a sound and stable programming platform that allows, still today, to get excellent add-ons, offers a flight dynamics model that is IMHO as good as the one provided by X-Plane (excluding the rotary wing and lighter than air / rocket / spaceship modelling allowed by X-Plane...) if we ballance all of the good and bad things on each simulator (FSX vs X-Plane), a credible AI (even by default), much more funcional avionics (by default) and even flight planning tools and acceptable ATC.

 

- MS FLIGHT because it has something, might it be the scenery, the light, the immersion, the AoTDs (???), the better flight dynamics compared to FSX, but still the same lausy reciprocating / prop engine models... and I should point out that the only three aircraft models I find well modelled in MS FLIGHT are the Maule, The Stearman and the Carbon Cub, the rest being way to soft and arcade-oriented...

 

- AeroFly FS because of the nice looking (even if outdated and mostly flat scenery elements...) scenery area, with great weather model for soaring, very nice flight dynamics (at least for the gliders) that while having their issues, do give us a sensation / immersion that I can not find in either X-Plane or FSX...

 

- ELITE because it offers the best platform for basic IFR trainning and it's flight dynamics, inside of the normal flight envelopes, are great, replicate aspects that X-Plane, FSX and even Aerofly FS fail to simulate, while having that "on-rails" feel because by default turbulence is at ZERO level... and having a very basic, old-fashioned scenery, but great daylight, Sun and Moon position / phase calculations!!! Aircraft can be operated by the book, and engine performance is as close to real as we could ask for, from the Archer to the B200 (so say fellow pilots with experience on those types...). It is the only flightsim that properly models those prop slipstream effects I keep mentioning in my threads, with yaw being a lot more evident than bank under most situations... I would offer my copy to Austin if I didn't want so much to keep it more than I did any other sim I have used so far...

 

I am still trying to resist investing on a military platform - DCS p-51... It wouldn't be the first time in my simmer life, when trying to find realistic / accurate flight and systems models...

 

Well...

 

Diverting... I know :blush:

[N1G 88]

clouds moving yet! but they did in XP9, Austin and his team did an amazing job with the road/traffic system but xp10 is not a road/traffic sim. :(

 

Are you sure it is not a road/traffic sim? If most of the detail and attention has been focused on this then call a duck a duck. There must be a reason why they are not focused on so many of the points made in this forum concerning this. So why are they not more focused on flight? Have the reached a saturation point on sales? Just my 2 cents.

 

Bob

[Musart 2]

Why do the clouds need to move?

[jcomm 5,928]

Why do the clouds need to move?

 

Why do cars have to be simulated? What about traffic lights on roads/streets?

It's nice! Just that... and... should the weather model be more complete, moving convective clouds could help finding the associated thermals in a more efficient way :-) but thermals are static, and don't even slant with the wind in X-Plane10 :-(

[Musart 2]

Good afternoon,

 

I'm OK with moving cars because it gives you a depth and a better idea of your altitude but moving clouds does not add value to the sim imo but I agree that it would just be an "Eye Candy" but nothing more.

 

You can feel the wind anyway on the plane, so no needs to "see" it other than from winsock at the airport. It would might be a FPS killer in some case for such a little feature.

 

But this is purely a personal taste. If it's mandatory for some user, I wouldn't mind LR to code it but as an optional toggle.

[jcomm 5,928]

It would might be a FPS killer in some case for such a little feature.

 

Yes, you're probably right given the way clouds are modelled in X-Plane10 as opposed to X-Plane9!