Seems as though the settings will need to be considered again to find the right balance. I like the new autogen and tiles usage to gradually give you 3D objects, but also starting to move away from the overly green squares in developed areas.

 

The X-Plane developer blog provides some really good insight - http://developer.x-plane.com/

we're getting there slowly! Looking good so far :good:

Thanks for the info,Can't wait to check it out.

I am really beginning to like the "plausible world". Took a spin in the ATR around ESNU today and it's really getting quite good. It's miles ahead of the suburban nightmare that it has been. Airport lighting seems to be back for me as well.

Wow this has got to be the best update yet (at least for me). In beta 8 I lost a good chunk of frames. With this new update, got my frames back and better, in 32 bit it feels a lot smoother then before. My settings are quite high and I'm getting nice frames.

 

This is getting better and better!!!

These guys have all the talent and vision to make a truly amazing next-gen platform. All they lack are the resources. If they had the resources of Aces we would probably be much further ahead with Xplane. I'm excited to see how they continue to improve it.

For the price, they should be able to hire more help :mellow:

The price is nothing without a large customer base. And compared to other games/software (OS, Office, shooters, RPGs or even MSFS) the customer base of XP is quite small. You have to take that into account.

 

Flo

The price is nothing without a large customer base. And compared to other games/software (OS, Office, shooters, RPGs or even MSFS) the customer base of XP is quite small. You have to take that into account.

 

Flo

 

Good point. How much smaller is the base I wonder.

 

Bob

The price is nothing without a large customer base.

 

...and without the timely improvements that a larger team could bring to the table, they are going to have a significant challenge gaining a substantial customer base, regardless of the lack of active competition in the flight sim market. The vicious circle continues...

 

 

...and without the timely improvements that a larger team could bring to the table, they are going to have a significant challenge gaining a substantial customer base, regardless of the lack of active competition in the flight sim market. The vicious circle continues...

 

I've only come to start X-Plane 10 over the last few months. In that time I saw the move to 10.11 release, and most recently the intro of the 10.20 run with 64 bit support. I think the improvements are actually ramping up quite quickly. I'm quite happy with what I've seen, but I'm also one who enjoys supporting smaller developers.

 

I think the elective beta program makes a big difference. It means this small development team gets feedback very quickly on issues with code. FSX received two service packs, and I guess that is what X-Plane could be considered once 10.20 goes final, all in about 12 momths since launch. X-Plane isn't perfect by anyones measure, including the developers, hence the continued development.

 

In contrast FSX has a major advantage in that its code has been stable for about 6 years now - not perfect, but stable and unchanging. This has meant developers have been able to get familiar with the code, and found ways around some of the limitations - The Orbx products are a great example. Developers are what continued building interest in the FSX platform by breathing new life in to it. But these developers are expressing they are at the limits of what they can acheive - hence the interest in LM with Prepar3d.

 

Currently though the interest in the P3d platform has been that it supports FSX addons. But AES is already a noticeable exception. Plugins are already becomming broken during their dot version updates that occur on average every 6 months, and might also be better considered betas. With the move to DX11 there is a high level of expectation many scenery and visual addons will be broken.

 

So, in terms of developer size I think X-Plane has been doing rather well. It's kept at the same pace as what FSX did with service packs, and even LM with its development of P3d. I think the reason the addressable market hasn't taken to it is probably more relevant in the lack of 3rd party developer products. Support is ready with examples like Aerosoft, Carenado, JRollon, FlyJsim, TropicalSim and a host of others starting to build a library of products, but the continual evolution and change within the core platform is what holds some back - the development and redevelopment to accomodate those changes adding additional development time and support requirements.

 

The funny thing is, if you think about it, if X-Plane just stopped the engine refinement, and handed over a stable (ie non-changing) product to the developer community, these 3rd parties would most likely fillin the gaps - better clouds, city landscapes, stars and moon movement, seasonal textures etc.

 

So what would be better - continued refinement of the X-Plane code by LR, or locking down the code and allowing 3rd party developers to specialise in perfecting different areas of the code?

The funny thing is, if you think about it, if X-Plane just stopped the engine refinement, and handed over a stable (ie non-changing) product to the developer community, these 3rd parties would most likely fillin the gaps - better clouds, city landscapes, stars and moon movement, seasonal textures etc.

 

No doubt - why is a developer going to spend time and effort improving certain elements of the platform if they don't know A.) If it will work with the next update, or B.) if Laminar Research themselves is planning on fixing/improving that aspect natively.

 

It's one of my biggest pet peeves with the continuous update process they have... customers are left wanting and waiting for refinements to arrive, and developers have a moving target for stability, compatibility, and saleability/applicability of their potential developments..

 

Case-in-point - Taburet's XPOrbit package. The visibility at altitude issue is one that Laminar Research has indicated they are working on repairing as part of the 64-bit headroom benefits. Now a payware vendor has released what could be considered an interim fix... but for a price. Is this good for the X-Plane community? Perhaps yes, because it provides an enhancement to the product... Perhaps no, because it lets Laminar off the hook from having to do something they previously stated they'd work on (or at least look at) for all customers as part of the free updates.

 

Regardless... I am seeing slow improvements in the scenery world which is my biggest gripe with all of X-Plane, but it's all mustard and mayo on top of a meatless ham sandwich until they get around to re-cutting the global scenery. All those water bodies... missing... where's my ham!!!

 

-Greg

No doubt - why is a developer going to spend time and effort improving certain elements of the platform if they don't know A.) If it will work with the next update, or B.) if Laminar Research themselves is planning on fixing/improving that aspect natively.

 

It's one of my biggest pet peeves with the continuous update process they have... customers are left wanting and waiting for refinements to arrive, and developers have a moving target for stability, compatibility, and saleability/applicability of their potential developments..

 

Case-in-point - Taburet's XPOrbit package. The visibility at altitude issue is one that Laminar Research has indicated they are working on repairing as part of the 64-bit headroom benefits. Now a payware vendor has released what could be considered an interim fix... but for a price. Is this good for the X-Plane community? Perhaps yes, because it provides an enhancement to the product... Perhaps no, because it lets Laminar off the hook from having to do something they previously stated they'd work on (or at least look at) for all customers as part of the free updates.

 

Regardless... I am seeing slow improvements in the scenery world which is my biggest gripe with all of X-Plane, but it's all mustard and mayo on top of a meatless ham sandwich until they get around to re-cutting the global scenery. All those water bodies... missing... where's my ham!!!

 

-Greg

 

Wow, If A=B and B=C then C must = A. Nicely put.

 

Bob

No doubt - why is a developer going to spend time and effort improving certain elements of the platform if they don't know A.) If it will work with the next update, or B.) if Laminar Research themselves is planning on fixing/improving that aspect natively.

 

It's one of my biggest pet peeves with the continuous update process they have... customers are left wanting and waiting for refinements to arrive, and developers have a moving target for stability, compatibility, and saleability/applicability of their potential developments..

 

Sorry Greg but, as a developer for X-Plane, I completely disagree with you. This so-called "problem" you mentioned with Laminar's approach to releases/updates is more a wive's tale than reality. I have had a product on the market for over 2-1/2 years and do not feel Laminar's process impedes my development at all. I would much rather have an evolving simulator platform to develop add-ons for. Laminar rarely, if ever, "removes" things from the sim without a VERY LONG period of notification. There have been very few instances where something has "stopped working" and, if something did stop working, it was almost always immediately fixed (thanks to the frequent updates).

 

How can you say ..."It's one of my biggest pet peeves with the continuous update process they have... customers are left wanting and waiting for refinements to arrive..". This makes no sense. How can a "frequent" update process leave you "wanting" and/or "waiting" for refinements more so than a less frequent update process? Don't you see the contradiction in what you are saying?

 

And your statement... "...and developers have a moving target for stability, compatibility, and saleability/applicability of their potential developments." is just flat out false. People have been repeating this mantra as a way to justify their opinion of X-Plane when it doesn't meet their needs, but the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. I don't expect, nor do I want, a simulator that is "static" in its development.

 

End users should also educate themselves on the beta process. There are stable releases of X-Plane and that's what most people should be using. Far too often users are updating to the beta and then claim that it's Laminar's fault that the sim doesn't perform as they wanted. Buyer beware, as they say.

 

Laminar does business the way they do. They have their business model. They cannot be compared to others. You have a right to express your opinion about them... I doubt they will change their core business practices based on your comments. However, you don't have a right to speak for me as a developer about what the add-on development process is like. It is not the "nightmare" you make it out to be. If there are developers who have not yet started creating products for X-Plane, and they listen to what you are saying about stability, compatability, etc., they will probably never choose to join the X-Plane developer community. You should get your information straight before making comments like that... it only hurts the very thing you supposedly want fixed.

Wow, If A=B and B=C then C must = A. Nicely put.

 

Bob

a Math problem :help: , no one said anything about a popquiz today :lol: