from my understanding there is a lot of compatibility between the two.

 

Even thought both may have some similarities, they are both totally different in many ways. The only part of both that may be somewhat similar are the menus/options windows, even the shortcuts are different.

Wow, loving the 64 bit XPX, to paraphrase" this ###### is bananas" it's got it's problems like addon-compatability. BUT that's coming down the pipe.

 

I am so happy with this sim right now I'm so happy that we have TWO sims that will carry us forward P3D and XPX.

 

cheers.

As it has been pointed out before, XPX is still in beta and so it is not for everyone, this process requires patience.

 

I'm curious, seeing as X-Plane 10 was released a year ago, as to when it is no longer considered a beta? Is there a magical decimal that indicates it's through being tinkered with? If so, that goes against what I've seen posted that X-Plane is constantly being worked on and hopefully improved. But with it's continual development cycle, isn't every release going to be a beta?

 

When's the beta for XPXI due for release?

So 64 bit broke all my add-on compatability, but it is ridiculously smooth. I mean I feel like I am flying, wow, I really like it! It beggars saying, as a pilot, WOW.

 

It's awesomeness, but we have to be paitent to get all our stuff running in it. My Carenado planes are up the creek, for now. But WOW!

I was wondering, how does payware like the CRJ 200 or the new Boeing 777, work with these new betas?

 

For me, not at all. Though the CRJ has been updated. I got it from x-aviation and they haven't released the patch yet. It's crazy smooth, though. But I suspect that this boils down to the fact that no heavy 3rd party aircraft work.

 

Skickat från min GT-I9300 via Tapatalk 2

 

 

Longranger-I just don't buy it. Every sim since the first fs1 has had some type of recognizable worldwide objects in it-fs1 had the John Hancock building and Sears tower in Chicago-and every incarnation of flight sim I've used has something in this department.

 

Well, my experience is really different. In FSX there were only major highways, but otherwise it was nearly impossible to see clear city limits. Without additional scery it was hopeless.

 

With X-Plane 10: No, the default scenery had at least ALL the roads, lakes and rivers in the right place, in fact it was so up to date that the road layout was not older than 6 months. Ok, the buildings... But then came the hour of OSM2XP. And in the mean time the ground textures were replaced by a photo texture. The result is better than FSX with sceneries.

 

I personally am not going to buy any more FSX scenery-but i would buy every Aerosoft city scenery made for xplane. Why? 1) xplane needs city landmarks-very badly 2) with about 1000 rw buildings in each city this is a new

realsim for any sim 3) The scenery runs much better in xplane than it does in fsx.

 

Sure, but you really have a proiblem if you always talk about aerosoft as if it would have a single mind. There are several people with different opinions. There isn't only x-Plane 10 but as an alternative: P3D, an improved, moire stable version of FSX and some people hope that they son't have to relearn their workflows and the Simulator will still improve.

 

On the other hand you have to support three different plattforms with your installers and so on. In the same time the freeware scene is much more active and sucessfull. As an example: htey had to learn that they have to test their new products with active OSM sceneries if their are good maps available. And since there are already so many dree pfoto textures this segment doesn't look as interesting.

 

The suporters for X-Plane at aerosoft have to sell their ideas to their own management. While the number of additional features (number of objects, HDR, 64 bit) is very interesting from a technical stand poiunt the management will probably argue with the short comings of X-Plane (AI, ATC) and they will compare the sales.

 

I think that the idea of TruScenery with their sdmall airports is quite good. Additional to their own airport they add a new photoscenery and their own OSM map. If they would simply add landmarks in the surrounding area it might be a rather cheap alternative.

 

In fact this idea is not new. They added in their regional airports for FSX not only airports but landmartks too..

Am I the only one having no sound with the default 747/400 in the B5? Just thought I'd take it for a spin, but having no sound was a bit sad.

 

Skickat från min GT-I9300 via Tapatalk 2

 

 

Am I the only one having no sound with the default 747/400 in the B5? Just thought I'd take it for a spin, but having no sound was a bit sad.

 

Skickat från min GT-I9300 via Tapatalk 2

 

Richard, have you filed a bug?

 

Check this link:

http://developer.x-plane.com/2012/11/i-cant-hear-you/

For me, not at all. Though the CRJ has been updated. I got it from x-aviation and they haven't released the patch yet. It's crazy smooth, though. But I suspect that this boils down to the fact that no heavy 3rd party aircraft work.

 

Skickat från min GT-I9300 via Tapatalk 2

 

I think I might wait until either the CRJ 200 or Ramzzee's T7 works. I can't deal with default.

With X-Plane 10: No, the default scenery had at least ALL the roads, lakes and rivers in the right place, in fact it was so up to date that the road layout was not older than 6 months.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Heh. ALL?

 

While the road layouts in your area of interest may have been updated in OSM just prior to Laminar pulling the data down, the water data as of July 2011 in the United States was notoriously weak. The water that was there is likely in the right spot, but it's the water that ISN'T there which is conspicuous. It significantly hampers proper VFR flight, and takes away from the experience as a whole.

 

Since last November, I've personally added hundreds of thousands of data points for countless water bodies in my area of interest, as well as in other areas... they're all sitting in OSM, just waiting for the next scenery rebuild from Laminar Research... to be determined...

 

The biggest mistake they made, in my most humble of opinions, was to bury the terrain data into what seems to be a very challenging format to manipulate. Why bother basing your scenery on an open mapping standard if there's no way of actually using it in the sim as an end-user.

 

I still have some degree of hope that some sort of tool will be released to allow us to make such changes, but based on all my reading about how the scenery was created and Laminar Research's apparent hatred of having more developers on staff, I'll be surprised if we ever see such a thing.

 

FSX: Without additional scery it was hopeless.

 

With X-Plane 10: ... But then came the hour of OSM2XP. And in the mean time the ground textures were replaced by a photo texture. The result is better than FSX with sceneries.

 

Errm, isn't using OSM2XP and photo textures additional scenery? Sounds to me like you're saying that FSX and X-Plane are about equal - both needing addons.

 

Richard, have you filed a bug?

 

Check this link:

http://developer.x-plane.com/2012/11/i-cant-hear-you/

 

Hehe, now I feel like an idiot... I have actually read that blog post... Bug report filed... :-D

 

Skickat från min GT-I9300 via Tapatalk 2

 

 

I think I might wait until either the CRJ 200 or Ramzzee's T7 works. I can't deal with default.

 

the crj works in 64bit but the 777 not yet.

While the road layouts in your area of interest may have been updated in OSM just prior to Laminar pulling the data down, the water data as of July 2011 in the United States was notoriously weak.

You are talking about the US, I don't!

 

The biggest mistake they made, in my most humble of opinions, was to bury the terrain data into what seems to be a very challenging format to manipulate. Why bother basing your scenery on an open mapping standard if there's no way of actually using it in the sim as an end-user.

 

Well, if you read some other statements it is clear that it was a concious decision. There are always drawbacks. We have to wait how long they will take to develop a faster and more regular way to update their maps.

 

At the moment it would probably be a big help if scenery designers could decide for their airport if the runways shall follow the terrain or not.

 

Errm, isn't using OSM2XP and photo textures additional scenery? Sounds to me like you're saying that FSX and X-Plane are about equal - both needing addons.

 

Not quite. You could do what you want but the buildings in my place were NEVER in the correct location in FSX and the road layout was only right if you superimposed a photo scenery. In FSX I was always able to say where I was, but there were buildings in other locations than expected and especially in the wrong style.

 

In FSX I often enough didn't knew where I was, without the help of the map.or the GPS.

Well, if you read some other statements it is clear that it was a concious decision. There are always drawbacks. We have to wait how long they will take to develop a faster and more regular way to update their maps.

 

I have no doubt it was a conscious decision, but that decision is dependent on future development - namely, figuring out a way to regularly update the OSM data in-house and distribute it to customers. If there's anything I've learned through this experience with X-Plane is that as a customer, you can never depend on something to be programmed later. There are no guarantees and there are no certainties with X-Plane development... doubly so for scenery related enhancements.

 

Had they opted for a more layered scenery construction approach, it is entirely possible that we would not have to wait on their already overtaxed, overworked, and overburdened development staff.

 

The "Lets do this today, and we'll figure the rest out tomorrow" gameplan is NOT a good one for X-Plane customers, considering Laminar's real or perceived staffing issues. If X-Plane is truly making a play for being the "next" flight simulator, they need to get more elves in the workshop this Christmas.

 

~ ~ ~

 

On Beta 5 - the new autogen items, while good (*dare I say great!) looking, only serve to further accentuate the landclass/landuse discrepancies in my local area. In reality, there aren't any highrise apartment buildings for miles and miles around me, and yet there are dozens upon dozens of them suddenly appearing in my backyard.

 

If my area is being portrayed so inaccurately, I can only infer that everywhere else is also being portrayed inaccurately. This subtle but important problem sets the tone for the "plausible world" on a global scale.

 

I trust this will be worked on and tempered as time goes on, but it's jarring enough to really eliminate any sense of "being there" for me.

"On Beta 5 - the new autogen items, while good (*dare I say great!) looking, only serve to further accentuate the landclass/landuse discrepancies in my local area. In reality, there aren't any highrise apartment buildings for miles and miles around me, and yet there are dozens upon dozens of them suddenly appearing in my backyard."

 

Ditto in the areas I have flown as I have shown in the shots above. Perhaps a United States issue only-but then there are many of us who live here.