Beta 9 now out

[N1G 88]

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

 

That math is the root of all that is logical and the clarity that we all have today in Flight Sim development and that which surrounds it. :unsure:

 

Bob

[JasonHarris 96]

How many people are actually doing any coding on XPX? It's obvious that a lions share of important parts of the code is done by Ben. Is the 3rd party interface still unsupported by LR?

 

I think there is no doubt that things would go faster if there were more people working on things. Don't tell me that more people would be like having to many chefs. A flight simulator is a complex beast that should be able to be broken down in to different areas where developers can coexist nicely. If the argument is that they cannot then the design is somehow flawed to make it this way.

 

Also we all know that the business can afford to hire more development resource - if it so chooses to instead of spending large sums of money in shareholders drawings.

[Geofa 108]

"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."

 

I certainly agree with this because the whole 1st year I owned xplane 10 it was "beta". Now that there is a "stable" version all it does is run out of memory on my machine (the earlier "betas" did not) .. now we are on to 64 bit beta which does not have the memory problem but most of my add ins don't work.

 

Meantime my Carenado aircraft which is what made/makes xplane 10 interesting to me from day one still a year later carry the statement" ***WARNING: This aircraft was NOT developed for X-Plane 10. It works in that platform, but it doesn t take advantage of all the new features. We will provide a patch in the future which will make it 100% compatible.

 

Now that the world did not end today-I guess we have a long future ahead...and it seems future for compatibility issues can last a long time.

 

I agree with the math.

[greggerm 312]

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?

 

I understand how people familiar with the X-Plane way of life look at my opinions above and ask what am I smoking... Why would anyone *NOT* want interim feature updates and improvements between major releases?

 

Think about it this way - between MSFS versions (2002->2004->FSX) the simming community essentially knew that the sim "is-what-it-is", and no missing features (except for major bugfixes) were be expected to be added until the next major release. If the sim was missing "Feature X", you knew that it wasn't going to show up at least until the next major release a few years down the line. People don't have the opportunity to get their hopes up for a feature to be fixed, finished, or added, only to have their hopes dashed time and time again in a process that can foster frustration. Such a model also gives developers a much bigger opportunity to jump in and get involved... think of how many developers for MSFS got their start "filling the gaps" with their products, only to continue with bigger and better innovations which are considered essential today by most simmers.

 

In the X-Plane world, if "Feature X" is missing, it might get added 2 weeks later, or 6 months later, or 18 months later, or not at all. I can only imagine that some 3rd party developers understand this and are reluctant to take the time and effort to fill in the gaps left by Laminar Research because they don't know if Laminar is going to spend the time on it themselves, lessening the return on their development. That's the moving target I am talking about.

 

It can also harm developers when the do make an effort to contribute their work, too! Why would I spend $30+ on an addon to repair a scenery visibility problem when I've read that it's being considered for repair by Laminar Research themselves at some point after the 64-bit process is stable?

 

This development cycle probably doesn't affect people creating airport or airplane addons in X-Plane very much, but I imagine that it can have an impact on people or companies who might want to work on ATC projects, AI add-ons, larger-scale regional scenery, texture updates, seasonal improvements, etc. etc.

 

I doubt they will change their core business practices based on your comments... It is not the "nightmare" you make it out to be.

 

I truly don't expect them to, nor did I say it was a nightmare. I am postulating that one of the many reasons why there is a gulf in the number of 3rd party developers for X-Plane vs. other sim platforms may be due to developers not wanting to spend time creating and "fixing" things which might find their way into X-Plane's native platform before too long.

 

In my little dreamworld, X-Plane 10 would not have released until all the features they wanted to get in the product were far more complete than what they were/are. Once released, they spend some time squashing the bugs, then begin working on XP11 in earnest while we all use, love, and extend XP10 as it is. A few years later, XP11 drops in its completed form with all sorts of new features and improvements and the cycle begins again...

 

Until my dreamworld becomes a reality (*yeah right!), I am appreciative of the updates which come out on a regular basis. I wouldn't even have X-Plane 10 installed on my system if it weren't for the updates which have occurred over the past 12 months. They have improved the platform from what it was when I first bought it... but I still feel X-Plane can make a bigger splash in the flight simulation world if they adopt some kind of point-in-time completed version release rather than the progressive style they have today. If anything, such a transition to that model will give everyone even more time on XP10 to develop and extend the platform. One can dream, but until then, I'll keep waiting for my OSM/DSF tile updates...

 

-Greg

 

Editing to add: I know I spent entirely too much time on the above discussion, considering I know I've got a better chance of hitting a unicorn with my car on my way home from work tonight than changing the development foundation X-Plane is built on. Being a relative newcomer to the X-Plane world, sharing these sorts of outside perspectives can sometimes be useful. It truly is a different culture and atmosphere over in the X-Plane world.

[Longranger 148]

Meantime my Carenado aircraft which is what made/makes xplane 10 interesting to me from day one still a year later carry the statement" ***WARNING: This aircraft was NOT developed for X-Plane 10. It works in that platform, but it doesn t take advantage of all the new features. We will provide a patch in the future which will make it 100% compatible.

 

Well, this is hardly a surprise since the quality of their planes in general always improved due to improvements of X-Plane 10 while they only had insignificant problems (the display of the oil pressure), till we reached 10.20 and the 64 bit versions. There was simply no real pressure on Carenado to change anything. Instead it was proof that the claims about a "moving target" where slightly exaggerated. There was simply no real need for a general update of their planes.

This has changed with 10.20, on the one hand planes with plugins need 64 bit plugins while on the other hand the propellers have to be updated. We have to wait and see if they use this situation for some other improvements too.

 

In general you don't really need the most up to date setting. 10.20 with its 64 bit plugins is a real excception even among betas. But X-Plane 10 itself is an exception among X-Planes. Normally you could use resources and plugins several versions older, but for X-Plane 10 many things had to be created from the ground up. In a perfect world they would only release completly finished versions, but in fact it takes quite a huge amount of money to work this way. You have to pay the complete development before you earn your first dollar andf you have to pay for tzhe limited tests.

 

Ihn a flight simulator the tests are really limited. You need some interaction with thirds party plugins and features to really recognize some of the problems.

[Geofa 108]

Well an incorrect prop arc with most changes, missing textures on a wing, inability to trim may not be biggies but it sure would be nice to have a fully functional product after a year. Considering how quickly and timely they issue patches for FSX- why would Xplane be different? I think the answer is right there.

[Longranger 148]

Well an incorrect prop arc with most changes, missing textures on a wing, inability to trim may not be biggies but it sure would be nice to have a fully functional product after a year. Considering how quickly and timely they issue patches for FSX- why would Xplane be different? I think the answer is right there.

 

Well, here you are facing a different problem: Laminars road map. They clearly designated that 10.0 would only be bug fixes and general improvements of the main plattform The plane base was still 9.7! 10.10 was the designated target for feature complete planes, but before 10.10 got final it became obvious that 10.20 will include the 64 bit switch and therefore a fundamental change. If you look at it clearly it was even a kind of tragic: Just when the Dash 8 got its 10.10 update 10.20 beta was a long and a lot of people no longer used this plane and instead switched to the Duchess..

[DannyH73 16]

I certainly agree with this because the whole 1st year I owned xplane 10 it was "beta". Now that there is a "stable" version all it does is run out of memory on my machine (the earlier "betas" did not) .. now we are on to 64 bit beta which does not have the memory problem but most of my add ins don't work.

 

Meantime my Carenado aircraft which is what made/makes xplane 10 interesting to me from day one still a year later carry the statement" ***WARNING: This aircraft was NOT developed for X-Plane 10. It works in that platform, but it doesn t take advantage of all the new features. We will provide a patch in the future which will make it 100% compatible.

 

Well an incorrect prop arc with most changes, missing textures on a wing, inability to trim may not be biggies but it sure would be nice to have a fully functional product after a year. Considering how quickly and timely they issue patches for FSX- why would Xplane be different? I think the answer is right there.

 

Geoff - couple of things. You still have a 32 bit version you can run in the 10.20 beta run. Turn down some of your settings to avoid memory issues - you should try reading some of the release notes as the impact of settings for autogen, trees, objects etc have been tweaked over time, so you'll need to find the right balance for your system again.

 

oh, and if you want to elect to try the 64 bit version while it is still in its beta development of course your 32 bit plugins wont work.

 

As for Carenado updating their aircraft, that will be at their perogative. Most developers will update at each new release RC - when there is a need. Carenado will make a commercial decision about when their aircraft needs an update to function correctly. As mentioned above 64 bit support will be a good reason to see a large number of developers provide updates.

[Geofa 108]

The settings I have to turn down make the sim usable with the "stable" is so sparse it is no fun to play-and the odd thing is I had absolutely no trouble until the "stable" version with my present settings-which also run fine in 64 bit. In fact, it seems the Carenado aircraft really cause troubles with stable-especially the Baron.

 

My point about Carenado who is a very responsive developer is that there is most likely a reason a year later they have still not come up with a patch-and at least from my experience from xplane from the start-there never really is a "stable" time.

 

 

Just the way it is and has always been, at least since I started using it way, way back.

[DannyH73 16]

Geof - sounds like you do a have a problem, but I don't think its with X-Plane.

 

You mention you have to decrease the settings to a point where the world is sparsely poulated to make it stable for 32 bit, but you can run settings much higher in 64 bit. 64 bit obviously does extend the memory available, but you should still be able to run with decent settings in 32 bit. If you can post a screenshot of your settings you have to use for stability in 32 bit I can check the memory loads with some nifty developer tools I have. You might have a problem with your motherboard drivers and memory management, or the OS you're running might be problematic. Would be worthwhile identifying what the issue is as I sense you're not seeing the real truth of what X-Plane can deliver by your own description.

 

As for stable releases that's obviously each time the code goes final at the end of a beta run. You'll note quite a few developers will make mention that they're now 10.11 compatible. As mentioned before Carenado haven't updated aircraft most likely because they felt it wasn't neccesary as yet, but once 10.20 goes final it will be a good reason to update aircraft.

 

I'd be interested in what feedback you had from Carenado re their X-Plane product updates. I've just bought several during the sales and they all seem to work very well in the 32 bit versions I'm running. As they're obviously still supporting with more and more product releases have you asked them directly for input on when an update might be forthcoming?

[Geofa 108]

I had all settings pretty much maxed except hdr and ran fine in 32 bit betas with all my Carenado aircraft for a year until the "stable" version was released where I get an out of memory error-usually within 10 seconds of starting the sim. (I have a 2 gig video card). Turning all the scenery, car traffic down, trees to minimums helps keep the out of memory error at bay for a while till it creaps back in-but who wants that? Does anyone find it unusual that it took a year to get to "stable" by the way?

 

I have a different take. Every "beta" broke something in my Carenado aircraft for a year-nothing serious and I am very patient, and the sim was usable, though the little changing glitches with each beta annoying.

 

The "stable" now seems to have broken it to unusable for me-at least if I want the same graphic experience I have had with no problem for a year. I never ever saw an out of memory error till "stable"-really did not!

 

With 64 bit it is back to "normal" -no out of memory errors, nice high settings, but the same "glitches" in my aircraft, and most of my add ins don't work.

 

If I were a developer I'd be waiting too- this is a cycle we have seen over and over (except in xplane versions before the internet age). I'd be waiting for 64 bit to get "stable" but with 32 bit taking a year to do so what is a developer to do?-wait perhaps? Do they just release a patch for 32, move on, or wait for the real "stable" which is obviously 64? Perhaps there is the realization that only 64 is "stable" -might have to dig in for another long wait.

 

I really think it has more to do with this than anything, as the above users have expressed. A "moving" target is not good for overall for third party developers-and I am not sure it is good for users other than "tweakers" who don't mind the continual cycle of change.

 

 

I can fly my Carenado aircraft with the same glitches I've had for a year (prop screwed up, lack of trim working right, occasional glitches on the wing graphics) in 64 bit fine. But then, things which are essential to my experience like my reality xp gps are a no go in 64 bit. I can go back to 32 with everything turned down and reboot after the invariable out of memory error-but that isn't very fun either. It may be "stable" but in my experience it is not "stable".

 

 

I am well aware of the xplane cycle and can accept it as I have been thru it many,many times. Always caught between a hard rock-yet Is this ultimately good for the growth of the sim though-if there is that desire?

 

I agree with the users above about the concerns for developers-and more importantly users, and I think they are valid concerns. As stockholders of this sim after our investment, I think it is important to express them. I have a considerable investment in this version, yet is at this point is not being used.

 

In the meantime-Aerofly fs has released the following pr-which I have been hoping, praying a similar release would come out for xplane:

aerofly FS Development Status

 

Notice the last line:

"Open aerofly FS for developers so they can add their own content"

 

I believe that real competition to xplane is with Aerofly Fs-it has never been about FSX or Prepare 3d. This small developer has a state of the art engine, and a realization that with small resources the future lies in 3rd party developers, and making the program open and stable for them so the sim can grow by leaps and bounds. Keep the core good-and let others do the expansion.... Of course it hasn't happened yet-but it seems such an easily understood concept one wonders why it seems to escape others-especially when we have the history of fs which was basically a Mcdonald's sim that could be customized to what anyone wanted thru 3rd party add ons, and that was the key to its success and continued ancient success.

 

I think the expressions above are a wish for the same. There are some amazing talents working on this sim-but there is too much to be done, and a moving platform doesn't help either developers or end users.I didn't have much of a choice when I purchased last year-as it was "beta" for an entire year. Seems now I don't either-there is a new stable 64 bit version that breaks just about everything I own, and a stable version that doesn't work very well for me. What is a user to do-what is a developer to do?

[JGregory 76]

Apparently there is NO version that would be "STABLE and CURRENT" enough to meet your requirements. You want XP 10.7 when we are only at 10.2. Do you not see the problem with your assessment?

 

The issues you are describing are NOT commonplace among users and, therefore, the issue must be with you/your system... as much as I'm sure you don't want to hear it. People here have tried to tell you how to run XP without problems (reduced render settings) and all you do is ignore their suggestions and complain.. Face it... your system can't produce the end results your ignorant brain wishes it could. What part of this don't you get?

 

Again, this "fantasy" that developers are "waiting" for XP and/or Laminar to change is NOT TRUE. We are moving forward despite what you say. Your assessment that it took a year to have a "stable" platform is ridiculous! At any point in time there is always a stable platform... you just don't/didn't like that option. You want the best that is available (64 bit) but, like I said, you will complain when it doesn't provide "EVERYTHING" (ie. plugins) AND is still in beta. You really need to calm down and realize that XP will progress at the pace that is appropriate for Laminar, not you. If that doesn't fit you plans, oh well, sorry... but that's the way it is...live with it and stop complaining. Your incessant whining is frankly annoying.

[JasonHarris 96]

JGregory, if you are a commercial developer who do you develop for or will you disappear into the wilderness after your three posts? If you hadnt joined a couple years ago I would think you are trolling with a new account.

 

Kind of a rude post really? You call it a beta but performance issues must the the problem of the end user? Beta code never has issues right, especially when it comes to performance or dealing with the magnitude of different configurations.

 

Thankfully most companies do not work like LR no matter how much you may prefer them to.

[MikeT707 1,181]

Apparently there is NO version that would be "STABLE and CURRENT" enough to meet your requirements. You want XP 10.7 when we are only at 10.2. Do you not see the problem with your assessment?

 

The issues you are describing are NOT commonplace among users and, therefore, the issue must be with you/your system... as much as I'm sure you don't want to hear it. People here have tried to tell you how to run XP without problems (reduced render settings) and all you do is ignore their suggestions and complain.. Face it... your system can't produce the end results your ignorant brain wishes it could. What part of this don't you get?

 

Again, this "fantasy" that developers are "waiting" for XP and/or Laminar to change is NOT TRUE. We are moving forward despite what you say. Your assessment that it took a year to have a "stable" platform is ridiculous! At any point in time there is always a stable platform... you just don't/didn't like that option. You want the best that is available (64 bit) but, like I said, you will complain when it doesn't provide "EVERYTHING" (ie. plugins) AND is still in beta. You really need to calm down and realize that XP will progress at the pace that is appropriate for Laminar, not you. If that doesn't fit you plans, oh well, sorry... but that's the way it is...live with it and stop complaining. Your incessant whining is frankly annoying.

 

Geof has been a very well respected and insightful member and staff member of this community for years. He is very helpful and is just a good guy. In my humble opinion, I do not believe that three posts (at the time of your statement) and a rude demeanor give you the right to offer such criticism. I hope it is just that you are having a bad day, which we all can understand, but you should probably humble yourself a bit and apologize.

[deetee 164]

I don't see how Aerofly FS could be a successor to X-Plane, any more than Flight could have been a successor to FSX. They don't model the whole planet, just a small bit they can make super-photo-pretty.

 

For a flight sim to succeed long term, customers expect nothing less than the entire planet modelled within reasonable limits (plausible?). Then the add-on guys fill in people's favourite bits with more detail. That's the way it's worked for a long time now.