i have checked this out, and it really isn't too bad. IMO, and not meant to demean anyone else's opinion or the product, it reminds me of the early FS 2000/2002 with some good eye-candy. If I could run my NGX on it, and the aircraft looked a little more realistic, I could maybe make the leap to this. I have XP9 for my Ipad, and it has provided many hours of entertainment. I'm going to take a wait and see approach on it. Maybe XP11, and not XP10, will really be the cat's meow. One of the things that immediately turned me off was the tire squealing on the ramp during taxi; it reminded me of something... cheaper. I won't bash it, as I abhor having a high end computer that can't quite do what I want graphically with FSX, and I'd like to see XP make it happen, so going to wish them luck and wait for a while. For anyone who just wants to fly and enjoy the eye candy, it really is a good product. For anyone like me who enjoys the technical side of the simming, using procedures, full-blown VC's, FS2Crew, etc, it's not ready for my genre of user... yet. I do hope that they do reach my genre, as I've high hopes.

 

Kevin

Well said, Kattz. That's exactly my opinion too. There are many great things about XP that a casual simmer would enjoy and maybe a moderate simmer with a great quality addon, what few exist. For those that like trailblazing into the countryside landing at bush strips, there's a lot to love about XP. When I sim, I look for a realistic environment as realistic as I can get to what would be in reality. The AI in XP is akin to having a city simulator of New York with a few cabs here and there, but no busses, limo's or police cars. The weather system can look great, but isn't yet completely finished and lacks some great features like vertically developed clouds and weather systems. The flight model is pretty good, but has its limits as to what it can create realistically. Normal flight is pretty well modeled, but add some crazy winds (or gusty winds at that), fly outside the normal envelope and you may get some surprises. There isn't anything better in my view as FSX has the same limits, especially regarding the flight model, but some of the ground handling feels better, but the flight control interaction for things like slips aren't as well done as XP.

 

One thing that I always hated was the autogen in FSX being on top of a city tile and the building and baked in roads in the city texture didn't match up with the draped roads and autogen buildings sitting across, yet the approach from XP produces results that are believable if you've never flown over an area or seen a picture or video of an area. This is getting better and better all the time, but I'm still waiting for the time when I can fly over San Francisco Bay or New York City and see some major landmarks and buildings that represent what is really there. Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge and other major landmarks should be standard as a base part of the sim. 3PD shouldn't be necessary to add those things that have been in the FS series since as far back as FS98 that I can remember.

 

All I'm saying is there are things that XP does well, but not everything is done well enough to call it done or to kill development on basic features. Austin seems to plateu with features that some find a slap in the face. If he wants to draw 3PD, his product needs to cater to more of the simming crowd than what has always been the user base. Addons like the 777 and IXEG 737 coming up are a tip of the hardcore simming iceberg. Those addons are adding a level of realism for a fair amount of users in the FSX realm, but one of the things that many of those users expect are an AI system that jams up the airports and skies around them (heavy iron doesn't fly into airports with only 19 other aircraft there) and an ATC system that can't cut the mustard. Avoiding the bad weather in heavies is also a pretty big thing and currently can't be simulated with the weather system.

 

I have already supported XP financially with my purchase and have seen it grow substantially since release, but it still has a long way to go before I will feel justified that my money was well spent and my investment returned. If Austin believes his ATC/AI system is complete and won't make the changes necessary at least for 3PD to create a substitute system, I'm sure I won't be alone in feeling that XP will never fully satisfy me. Many things will please, but never fully satisfy.

Well, what am I missing?? I have just switched from FSX to X-plane and my scenery and airports are total crap!!

I have all settings on as high as possible and have the global version and a new high end gaming computer!!!

Am I missing something??

Agreed that the simulation market is big enough to support more than a single platform - it's great to have CHOICES! What's right for you might vary from the next guy/gal who takes the left-hand seat.

 

I don't have the money to stand behind my vision personally, but I have defined in a few posts on Avsim what I think it would take to create a flight sim platform that could be so much for so many, encompassing both the entertainment and training domains, with virtually assured success and sustainability. XPlane 10 caught my attention again w/ 64-bit which really is a statement about scalability and headroom, hence this can become an incentive for development. Seems it's still not quite there though. I'd like to see a company w/ enough depth to create a vision for a long term platform--maybe LR will get there, if so there will be reason for celebration. Really what we are looking for is a Steve Jobs for Flight Simulation. This could potentially make flight simulation so attractive that the user base would grow hugely, like iPhone took off. Too cool not to participate with. It's all in the core engine & SDKs, and vision for how these two interrelate.

This is getting better and better all the time, but I'm still waiting for the time when I can fly over San Francisco Bay or New York City and see some major landmarks and buildings that represent what is really there. Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge and other major landmarks should be standard as a base part of the sim.

 

This is a reasonable strategy/element to incorporate as a component of a killer 64-bit flight sim core engine. Take note LR or anyone else!

+10

The first thing a simmer needs is a feeling he/ she has flown from point a to b.

 

If it can't get it done in house a third party is needed pronto-and I'll be the first to pay!

Well, what am I missing?? I have just switched from FSX to X-plane and my scenery and airports are total crap!!

I have all settings on as high as possible and have the global version and a new high end gaming computer!!!

Am I missing something??

 

Sorry you didn't like it. What kinds of things are you finding wrong? Maybe someone can help.

 

Hook

Sorry you didn't like it. What kinds of things are you finding wrong? Maybe someone can help.

 

Hook

 

He finds the scenery to be cartoonish and lacking.

I dunno, Efrain. I've seen a lot of screen shots that showed some pretty good scenery. I've also seen posts that indicate there are ways of fixing some of the scenery problems, and adding additional scenery. If scenery in an area is somehow lacking, there may be downloads available to fix it.

 

I'm just treating this as I would have a similar post in the Microsoft Flight forums. An unhappy customer can often be converted to a happy one.

 

Hook

I dunno, Efrain. I've seen a lot of screen shots that showed some pretty good scenery. I've also seen posts that indicate there are ways of fixing some of the scenery problems, and adding additional scenery. If scenery in an area is somehow lacking, there may be downloads available to fix it.

 

I'm just treating this as I would have a similar post in the Microsoft Flight forums. An unhappy customer can often be converted to a happy one.

 

Hook

 

I agree 1,000%, Hook. That is what HE said on another thread. We were trying to help him out but honestly, if he considers the scenery to be cartoonish or very lacking, there is not much I think we can do to change his opinion. Would seem to me that he is already comparing XP to perhaps FSX or something else. I believe that if one is to embrace XP, one needs to forget and "detox" from FSX. I don't know, I'm just rambling now hahaha I'm working OT and so ready to go home.

That is what HE said on another thread. We were trying to help him out but honestly, if he considers the scenery to be cartoonish or very lacking, there is not much I think we can do to change his opinion.

 

Ah, gotcha. I hadn't seen that thread. Some of the posts there are more helpful than others. In any case it looks like they're going in the right direction. And don't worry about "cartoonish." I've seen the same complaint laid against FSX, and I *like* their autogen. Sometimes it's a matter of getting used to something that's different.

 

Hook

Sometimes it's a matter of getting used to something that's different.

 

Hook

 

Yup and that is very understandable because I am guilty of it. It's very tough breaking the "FSX addiction". I've been into FS since the SubLogic days and XP is a whole new animal. I am seriously thinking of just uninstalling FSX from my system. This way I force myself into just concentrating on XP. Some will say, use both, but I just can't do that. I prefer to just concentrate on one, otherwise I will never get this cockpit setup done.

Yeah, I too have been simming since the early days. My first go was FS3 on a display computer at the now defunct Lechemere department store, and I've been hooked ever since. I guess since I can easily remember what it was like back then when there was ZERO scenery, and runways were just outlines that looked like garbled lines on the horizon, and the engine sounds were just the PC internal speaker buzzing, it's easy for me to overlook what XP lacks and heartily embrace what it does well.

 

I dunno, guys... what do you think? Can you relate?

Yeah, I too have been simming since the early days. My first go was FS3 on a display computer at the now defunct Lechemere department store, and I've been hooked ever since. I guess since I can easily remember what it was like back then when there was ZERO scenery, and runways were just outlines that looked like garbled lines on the horizon, and the engine sounds were just the PC internal speaker buzzing, it's easy for me to overlook what XP lacks and heartily embrace what it does well.

 

I dunno, guys... what do you think? Can you relate?

 

lol yup! I can definitely relate and like you, I tend to just look at the pros of things, instead of dwelling on the cons. Like I said before, not sure if it was on this thread, it all comes down to choices and what suits your needs. I cannot use XP without HDR ON. If I disable it, I might as well just stick with FSX then. HDR is what makes XP so enjoyable, especially at night. I will reduce sliders if necessary, in order to keep HDR ON.

Can you relate?

 

I remember when there was no 3D, only wireframes. For me, anything else is an improvement. That's why I don't complain much about eye candy not being up to someone's preferred standard. They never had to put up with wireframe.

 

I remember seeing a cutscene from a game once and wondering if we'd ever get the actual games to look as good as the cutscenes. Now days the cutscenes are taken directly from the game! I mean, how cool is that?

 

Hook