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.

 

Hook, I respect your generally very reasoned posts, but this one's a bit of a strawman. We're talking preferences here, not absolutes. Heck, I BUILT a 3D wireframe rendering system as a project in college back in the dark ages (largely in assembly language BTW), so it's not like I haven't BTDT and got the T-shirt when it comes to the early days of 3d rendering. But these days I do want and expect more.

 

I completely agree with Geof's post a page back or so. Part of why I sim is a feeling of actually GOING somewhere different from where I started and having terrain and landmarks along the way be appropriate and recognizable. XP's default "plausible world" doesn't work for me in most places any more than FSX's defaults did. This isn't a knock on XP as such and I realize it's what the base product will probably always be, so I watch to see what the options are to enhance via 3rd parties.

 

That doesn't make me right or wrong, but it IS make or break for my use of XP (along with some other critical factors, many of which ARE there). I expect that most people who've moved to XP from other sims have done so because on balance they've felt they gained more than they lost in the switch based on the things that are most important to them. So far, the scales tip another direction for me, but I do see progress in directions that matter to me.

 

Scott

Heck, I BUILT a 3D wireframe rendering system as a project in college back in the dark ages (largely in assembly language BTW), so it's not like I haven't BTDT and got the T-shirt when it comes to the early days of 3d rendering.

 

Ain't it fun? One of my early projects was an isometric projection of a hex grid tactial wargame map with elevations on an Apple 2. Probably the first time it had ever been done, and a similar technique eventually became the standard for wargames that used hex grids. Started in BASIC, translated to 6502 assembler. I doubt if anyone called it isometric projection, but I had a drafting background.

 

There's a big difference between those who have actually paid their dues, and some younger newcomers today who never had to go through that process. I want better eye candy too, but for the most part I'm willing to accept a lower standard. If you want to display 50,000 Napoleonic troops on a simulated battlefield, sprites are perfectly acceptable. But suggest that to some guys and they react as if you'd kicked their puppy.

 

Part of why I sim is a feeling of actually GOING somewhere different from where I started and having terrain and landmarks along the way be appropriate and recognizable.

 

I agree completely.

 

So far, the scales tip another direction for me, but I do see progress in directions that matter to me.

 

I'm not prepared to make the switch from FSX to XP myself yet. It's not a graphics thing, it's a lack of features thing.

 

I don't care if the Dallas suburbs look exactly like the Los Angeles suburbs, as long as both are attractive, but I'd expect European towns to look different. I was flying over Greece and talking to an online friend who lived there and discussing the architecture differences unique to that area that were portrayed in FSX. And if I'm flying over some remote mid-east town, I expect mid-eastern architecture. Nice to have, but it might not be possible for a small shop.

 

Hook

Since they abandoned us and stopped developing, some of the shortfall was taken up by third parties essentially trying to make the relatively ugly FSX into something compelling. I concur that with all of the add ons, FSX is MUCH prettier and more fun to fly than it ever would have been WITHOUT the third parties. I have purchased and installed a TON of add-on software plus hardware controllers for FSX.

 

Sure, but I still believe the reason the 'shortfall was taken up by..' has to do w/ the fact the SDK's were good enough, plus the core engine was good enough, including reasonable ATC, etc plus there was plenty of scalability (within the confines of the 32-bit core engine). Follow this basic approach and you will have another successful product. Your testimony of purchasing a ton of add on software only affirms this.

Sure, but I still believe the reason the 'shortfall was taken up by..' has to do w/ the fact the SDK's were good enough, plus the core engine was good enough, including reasonable ATC, etc plus there was plenty of scalability (within the confines of the 32-bit core engine). Follow this basic approach and you will have another successful product. Your testimony of purchasing a ton of add on software only affirms this.

 

No- at the time I made the investment XPlane was in a much more primitive state, and thus I felt FSX was 'the only game in town'. Now that there is a viable 'alternative' - I am willing to live on the edge of simulation and watch XPlane grow into something better than FSX. I also think Austin Meyer indeed may be the next Steve Jobs, at least in the simulation world. He is dedicated and firmly resolved, and it hasn't been an easy ride trying to 're-invent' the wheel as it were.

 

The negative comments about XPlane are understandable. Thus far, there hasn't been the army of programmers involved that built FSX and all its myriad add-ons into what it is _TODAY_. I remember the early days of FSX itself. It was VERY primitive when it first appeared on the scene as I recall - so much so I disregarded it for many years. Only by accident did I stumble upon FS version X, and it was much nicer than I remembered. I think similar things will occur for XPlane - particularly since 64-bit version is not only planned but is already in a working BETA.

 

Anything that compels a user to be locked in a platform-limited (32-bit) prison is a throwback and is going to choke off progress. Eventually the number of add-ons will be so severe a load on system memory resources, the entire sim will fail to function, or suffer OOMs/ CTDs/ and or horrid frame rates.

 

I vividly recall the first time I flew the PMDG 737NGX into the LA area while filming with FRAPS. I experienced 9 frames per second. I don't care WHO you are - that is a non-starter.

 

People are sniping at XPlane because the scenery isn't 'precisely a match' with the RW, and I totally agree the FMC that is part and parcel of DEFAULT XP is a joke. I'm willing to give a few bucks to Javier for his uFMC (I bought the x737-specific version), which solves that problem by and large. The x737 EADT plane (freeware) will already run in 64-bits, and the FMC by Javier Cortes will (projected within no more than 90 days) work in 64-bits as well. Is the x737 'as good' as the NGX? NO!

 

Will we likely see a PMDG entry plane (OF SOME SORT) within XPlane? I am betting a strong YES but can't predict the timing.

 

By 2015, will XPlane become the new 400-pound gorilla on the block? I'm hoping so. If Austin can avoid the distraction of the patent troll.

 

Something that is in its early days (XPlane) has the most promise of fulfilling our expectations at ever-higher levels. As someone here rightly said, we most definitely are SPOILED, now that we have CHOICE.

It's very tough breaking the "FSX addiction".

What you call FSX Addiction is FSX Goodness to many including me. Please stop using that inappropriate phase as we all are mature enough to know what we like in a flight sim product. Cheers jja

What you call FSX Addiction is FSX Goodness to many including me. Please stop using that inappropriate phase as we all are mature enough to know what we like in a flight sim product. Cheers jja

 

Inappropriate phrase? hahaha Give me a break.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

What you call FSX Addiction is FSX Goodness to many including me.

 

Hello, my name is Hook, and I'm an FSX addict.

 

Actually, I think that's a pretty appropriate phrase. I pretty much describes what I went through when first going to Microsoft Flight, for example. It also describes an effect I've seen in many other games, where someone has a preconceived notion of what a game should be based on experience with another game, and has to "detox" before beginning to enjoy the game.

 

Relax. He's not accusing you of anything bad.

 

Hook

I don't think it has to do with anything about de toxing and all about the ability to make a sim into what you need. All the sims in the past that have failed largely did so because they were designed only for a certain nitch-the fs series though could be customized to the end user.

 

My frustration with xplane right now is that I think overall it is the superior sim. However, I can not make it yet into the sim I need-therefore it at this point is more of a diversion than useful...

 

Hello, my name is Hook, and I'm an FSX addict.

 

Actually, I think that's a pretty appropriate phrase. I pretty much describes what I went through when first going to Microsoft Flight, for example. It also describes an effect I've seen in many other games, where someone has a preconceived notion of what a game should be based on experience with another game, and has to "detox" before beginning to enjoy the game.

 

Relax. He's not accusing you of anything bad.

 

Hook

 

Exactly, I even included myself! I remember when I was addicted to Battlefield 2 then Battlefield Bad Company 2! I couldn't stop playing those games. Speaking of which, we really need Bad Company 3!

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

I don't think it has to do with anything about de toxing and all about the ability to make a sim into what you need. All the sims in the past that have failed largely did so because they were designed only for a certain nitch-the fs series though could be customized to the end user.

 

My frustration with xplane right now is that I think overall it is the superior sim. However, I can not make it yet into the sim I need-therefore it at this point is more of a diversion than useful...

+1 BTW my only objection is that AVSIM has a good reputation and a quality user base so there are some expectations that everyone plays well. We all need to keep in mind that the goal is to improve the simming experience and that derision doesn't help to achieve that goal. Cheers jja

My frustration with xplane right now is that I think overall it is the superior sim. However, I can not make it yet into the sim I need-therefore it at this point is more of a diversion than useful.

 

My feelings exactly. You could also say the same about Microsoft Flight. What it does, it does extremely well. It just doesn't do enough for me. I still recommend it to other people, however.

 

the goal is to improve the simming experience and that derision doesn't help to achieve that goal.

 

Agreed, and it works both ways. I just find the "detox" comment to be especially appropriate, and not just about FSX but about XPlane as well, and a heck of a lot of other games and genres.

 

Remember the "poison dwarves" in the Flight forums?

 

Hook

LOL yea I guess that we are all addicted in one way or the other. Cheers jja

+1 BTW my only objection is that AVSIM has a good reputation and a quality user base so there are some expectations that everyone plays well. We all need to keep in mind that the goal is to improve the simming experience and that derision doesn't help to achieve that goal. Cheers jja

 

Denial is the first sign of an addiction. ;-) It's clear that no offence was meant at all with me saying it was hard to break a FSX addiction. That phrase has been brought up ad nauseum in the past and people know what is meant.

 

Like Hook said, I am BimmerCop and I'm an FSX addict but working hard on breaking it.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

No offence taken Efrain - just remember we are all counting on you to prove that XP is the best sim so we will be watching. Cheers jja

Hi All - I've asked questions on FlyTampa's website, as well as Aerosoft's in respect to USCities. Might be worthwhile getting engaged with them directly.

 

These forums are great for open comms between users, but to get real change I think direct engagement with the developers is needed - ask the question if they've considered it, and make them realise there actually is a growing user base to make it commercialy viable for them.