I love X-Plane. Really. I'm flying the crap out of it right now, especially since discovering how to get photoscenery into it. If anything, I tend to apply confirmation bias pretty heavily when it comes to defending it versus other sims when people start comparing it.

 

But I'll level with you-- X-Plane 10's ATC completely and totally sucks right now. I've read where some people don't seem to have a problem with it, and more power to them. I've tried numerous times to fly a route as flawlessly as I could, and all I got was a nagging "You're off course" every 5 seconds.

don't forget the "Papa" :lol:

 

I'm really considering trying out XPX. Can anyone tell me if ATC is better than the FSX version? Cheers jja

So glad to see this platform is getting more attention. Progress! FSX looks like a big brown poo regardless of what you install in it. Maybe a big silver poo at best. And if you try and upgrade it to a golden poo it throws a spaz, crashes with a out of memory error (32 bit) and goes back to being a big ugly brown poo again.

 

As soon as they implement seasons and there are some ATC addons available for some good ATC I'll probs hop onboard as well.

So glad to see this platform is getting more attention. Progress! FSX looks like a big brown poo regardless of what you install in it. Maybe a big silver poo at best. And if you try and upgrade it to a golden poo it throws a spaz, crashes with a out of memory error (32 bit) and goes back to being a big ugly brown poo again.

 

As soon as they implement seasons and there are some ATC addons available for some good ATC I'll probs hop onboard as well.

 

I disagree with some of that.

 

I see the progress, but looks like alot of work has to be done. I dont have it yet, but alot of it looks good on video. However alot of things suck compared to FSX. I havnt seen real world weather like FSX. The ATC is pitiful, and didnt see any addons either for it.

 

And the biggest thing ive seen is although the aircraft cockpits look ok, they are nothing like the NGX looking. The 777 looks pretty good in systems depth. But all the aircraft movements be it taxiing or flying dont look right at all. The flight dynamics seems messed up. Im sure this will be fixed and improved in the very near future, but those things dont look like FSX at all.

 

Compare some well done videos in FSX and they look fantastic. Ive seen really nice scenery in xplane but videos have not matched FSX videos Ive seen. There is no doubt that 64bit makes XPX grow in leaps and bounds in potential, but now that the foundation is there, it has to be built up. Once FSX devs decide to embrace it, it will be the new simulator. If they decide its P3D then that will be the way to go.

 

Either way , PC flight simulation is not dead as some people claim.

So... does anyone else get the impression that whenever a trend towards a positive outlook about XP creeps up, it's as if there's some sort of klaxon going off saying "WARNING! Enthusiasm rising! Must smack down!". This, of course, results in these "Ah, X-plane. How cute. Wake me when it's the fully featured 6-DOF full motion simulator FSX is." posts.

 

...or am I just imagining things?

I disagree with some of that.

 

I see the progress, but looks like alot of work has to be done. I dont have it yet, but alot of it looks good on video. However alot of things suck compared to FSX. I havnt seen real world weather like FSX. The ATC is pitiful, and didnt see any addons either for it.

 

And the biggest thing ive seen is although the aircraft cockpits look ok, they are nothing like the NGX looking. The 777 looks pretty good in systems depth. But all the aircraft movements be it taxiing or flying dont look right at all. The flight dynamics seems messed up. Im sure this will be fixed and improved in the very near future, but those things dont look like FSX at all.

 

Compare some well done videos in FSX and they look fantastic. Ive seen really nice scenery in xplane but videos have not matched FSX videos Ive seen. There is no doubt that 64bit makes XPX grow in leaps and bounds in potential, but now that the foundation is there, it has to be built up. Once FSX devs decide to embrace it, it will be the new simulator. If they decide its P3D then that will be the way to go.

 

Either way , PC flight simulation is not dead as some people claim.

 

Definitely some valid points there and I agree with most of your criticisms which is why I haven't hopped on the Xplane shuttle myself yet. I think these are all things that will undoubtedly improve with time as more developers jump onboard and LR progresses further with the project. There are some things that as the OP stated just blow FSX out of the water and that to me is the indicator of XPs true potential. It may just take a while to get there.

 

So... does anyone else get the impression that whenever a trend towards a positive outlook about XP creeps up, it's as if there's some sort of klaxon going off saying "WARNING! Enthusiasm rising! Must smack down!". This, of course, results in these "Ah, X-plane. How cute. Wake me when it's the fully featured 6-DOF full motion simulator FSX is." posts.

 

...or am I just imagining things?

 

I think it's because overall it's still a mixed bag and not a full FSX replacement yet but I personally am more than happy to see enthusiasm for it. Eventually it will attract new blood and that can only encourage other developers to create more addons to make the platform complete.

X-Plane 10 64-bit represents the next-level in the evolution of flight simming that began with FSX/Prepar3D many years ago. It's unfortunate that other than 3rd party development - the underlying code base of FSX became stagnant about 6 years ago (when Microsoft closed the ACES studio and stopped developing FSX) while the physical flight-simulation hardware platforms and operating systems continued to march forward. It was unfortunate for all of us that Microsoft killed FSX prior to widespread use of 64-bit operating systems (Widespread use of 64-bit OS 'by default' didn't occur until Windows 7). You need a 64-bit operating system to run 64-bit program code. You need 64-bit program code to be able to address (use) every last byte of ram, far above the 3 to 4 GB 'max' limit imposed by 32-bit programs. Now you can use 8GB, 16GB, even 32GB which have become commonplace in PCs. If you had a multiple CPU motherboard X-Plane 10 uses EVERY CORE, be it 2, 4, 8, 16 or whatever. So in plain language, the more power your system has - the better XPX will run. I can't count how many pilots lament that though they are running high-end hardware, the performance they get in FSX ranges from barely acceptable to downright poor. There are legion users who have become expert computer support engineers solely from trying to obtain acceptable FSX frame rates when running all the add-ons plus high-end complex aircraft. 64-bit simulation running in a 64-bit operating system environment eliminates that hassle which translates to a more enjoyable flying experience and better eye candy!

 

This stagnation in the basic programming 'floor' of FSX meant that a cottage industry of "tweaking" ensued, as we all fought mightily to continue to breathe life into our virtual flight world. The scenery got better, the planes more complex, but the memory limitations of 32-bit programming meant unending and ever-increasing problems. A "glass-ceiling" that eventually drove many users to other simulations or out of the hobby altogether.

 

The pain and hours of tinkering with FSX settings have resulted in a colossal waste of man-hours world-wide, robbing pilots of sleep and flying time. In fact, if all the hours collectively wasted world-wide on tweaking FSX were stacked end-to-end, they would circle the globe 2 billion times! That's a BIG number of hours!

 

Compounding this problem are the myriad different locations in FSX where tweaking occurs. Not just in FSX.cfg or FSUIPC.ini - but also in the nVidia drivers, within FSX setup itself, then within many of the add-ons (like GEX, UTX, FTX, UT2, GSX, EZDOK, etc.), many of which fight with each other. It's so convoluted and complicated, it has become a nightmare. And no end of debate over who the "messiah" of tweaking is. I have tried many different people's suggestions. I put X-Plane 10 64-bit on my system and guess what? It worked great right out of the box! What is THAT all about?

 

In FSX, buy a new HD airport or enhanced weather program and what you thought would be a better/prettier sim experience turns out worse than a blind date with one of Cinderella's ugly step-sisters. Like trying to turn a Smart Car into a Lamborghini, it simply doesn't work.

 

I tried Prepar3D - didn't see a difference in performance or the virtual world. Until and unless Prepar3D goes 64-bit, I would not fly it. I bought a P3D license yet never fly it. The pain levels were about the same as FSX, and trying to make all my FSX stuff work in P3D? Too complicated.

 

X-Plane has many refinements planned. Forward-thinking and the only flight simulation available in 64-bits (can 128-bits be far behind) speaks volumes. Flight dynamics are a work in progress, yet who hasn't experienced weird behaviors in FSX due any number of problems? If the weather gets really nasty and wind-smoothing is disabled, almost anything can and does happen in FSX! Flight dynamics? I'll show you bad flight dynamics!

 

If you subtract all the addons in FSX and just look at FSX in default 'as-shipped' mode- you can instantly see which platform wins. The X-Plane 10 DEFAULT airports are prettier compared with FSX airports, the road traffic and freeways, the animation of the vehicle on the roads are LIGHT YEARS ahead of FSX without buying one add-on.

 

Support for as many CPU cores as actually have in your system (doesn't stop at 4-cores) and all the memory your motherboard can handle? WOW. My GTX690 card is actually doing me some real good. Each GPU in the GTX690 has 2mb of VRAM. 1.78 is in use right now on each side. Finally, a sim that puts the graphics work where it belongs - on the GRAPHICS CARD!

 

BONUS! No time wasted listening for the ding-dong warnings of impending OOMs or sudden CTD's stuttering and freeze ups in the middle of your long haul flight!

 

Those who spent all the money for a higher-end system with a decent video card and 8gb or more of ram? Visit X-Plane.org and take a test-drive in X-Plane 10 demo. The demo (as well as currently offered purchase versions) includes both the 64- and 32-bit versions of X-Plane 10.

 

It's not perfect, but then PMDG hasn't released any planes for it yet. Once that happens, LOOK OUT WORLD. Yes, I know some of the 32-bit X-Plane add-ons won't work in 64-bits. Given the potential worldwide market and anticipating it will go 64-bit sooner rather than later- it's a no-brainer if you're an add-on developer, you get busy and migrate your products to support 64-bits!

 

I heard from VRinsight that they are adapting their VRiSim software to enable their hardware products to work with X-Plane.

 

Navigraph currently is releasing monthly AIRACC updates for the Ramzzess 777 X-Plane aircraft.

 

While not a PMDG NGX, The Ramzzess 777 is appealing and available right now for around $60. Their FMC can be run across your network to your iPad or Touch Tablet! How cool is that? PRETTY COOL! Their 777 also features an Electronic Flight Bag within the aircraft virtual cockpit itself for chart viewing.

 

FLYJSIM offers a very attractive payware 727 as well. The engine sound track on the 727 knocked me over when I watched the promo video on YouTube.

 

I have a substantial investment in FSX - yet I'd rather switch than tweak. Once you get an up-close and personal flight in 64-bits and see the traffic on the roads sweeping gently around curves, not criss-crossing through each other... the overhead freeway signs (USA) you'll be amazed. You immediately notice the terrain doesn't 'materialize' or come into focus as you fly towards it. That was a MAJOR irritant in FSX. The disappearing textures the further away from your airplane...ruined the immersion!

 

You're seeing the future of our hobby, not it's demise. X-Plane has made a serious commitment to cockpit builders and the commercial market. In fact, their commercial product is FAA-certified for flight training (but not the consumer version) which tells me they must have done something right with their flight dynamics. They have native support for Precision Flight Controls Yokes, Rudders and Throttle sets, even in the consumer version.

 

X-Plane 10 GLOBAL (PC/MAC 32/64 bit versions both included on 8-DVD SET) for around $69 or less. The only 64-bit flight simulator currently available for PC and MAC (not Power Mac)

 

Danny, do you have a link to download G2XPL? I can't find it...

 

Also, what about home cockpits? I am building a Cessna 172SP full size home cockpit with 3 projectors. Will XP allow me to create detached windows so I can have the gauges on a 4th monitor?

 

Check out Simavio, I love it for my GA setup.

Each GPU in the GTX690 has 2mb of VRAM. 1.78 is in use right now on each side. Finally, a sim that puts the graphics work where it belongs - on the GRAPHICS CARD!

 

Well, this, as crazy as it sounds, is also the problem with X-Plane, you need a really good computer to actually get anything decent out of it. Not everyone can afford brand new hardware, or some people, such as myself, prefer to use notebooks. I've seen videos of X-Plane running on high-end software and it does indeed look incredible, but shouldn't it run better than FSX? For me, it clearly doesn't run better than FSX on the same hardware. I have to turn down everything until it looks plastic, blurry and by that time I just go back to FSX. I appreciate that X-Plane will use the full power of newer systems, but it shouldn't penalise users with slower hardware. X-Plane 9 ran fantastic on my machine, and I enjoyed using that version.

 

I also get the uncontrollable yaw in the default C172, and also the constant stupid tire screeching noise, which happens for no apparent reason. Again, I don't use a gamepad but a proper controller designed for Flight Simulation, which works out-of-the box in FSX and X-Plane.

 

Also, not really X-Plane's fault, but the main community on X-Plane.org is extremely unwelcoming, almost like it is an elitist club. Try asking for help (you aren't allowed to create a new thread for some stupid reason), and often you get banned for no reason, knocked down, etc. The moderators there must have been bullied or something in school, because there is absolutely NO reason to treat other people (sometimes paying customers who use their site) the way they do. I wonder how many potential users have been put of my going to that site to ask their questions and made to feel stupid, unwelcome, etc.

 

Some of us really want X-Plane to succeed, but it seems so far off at the moment. They aren't a large team, and Austin should really consider taking on more developers instead of switching focus on each beta and abandoning other areas.

I am sorry David, but that is simply not true. Here I am providing video evidence that less than 15% of available rudder deflection is needed to keep the Cessna straight on a no-crosswind takeoff.

 

http://youtu.be/87rYRmwtZiQ

 

The only thing appalling here is claiming unsubstantiated stuff that sheds a bad light on XP10. Of course you will need a proper control setup to properly fly, a mouse or joystick only will not do!

 

Here is a video that shows how the Cessna handled in a 20 knot crosswind. Both takeoff and landing. While this is certainly quite a crosswind for that plane, it stays well under control throughout.

 

http://youtu.be/_uJHT4yw47I

 

 

I have flown small SEL´s from Cessna 172s over Archers to Bonanzas, and the XP flightmodel is not far off.

 

Jan

 

Thanks for that Jan. I have a joystick correctly setup, and have encountered this phenomenon since version 9 and before. Please don't suggest this is unsubstantiated as it is what I experience, I am not interested in this sim vs that sim.

 

I too have real world experience in Bonanza's and Mooney's ( a lot). If I compare what I experience when taking off in my Mooney Bravo to the XPX Cessna, it is poles apart. Sorry to offend you, but that is what I see.

I think one of the reasons why the X-Plane community can be off putting is because X-Plane has always been an underdog when compared to the MSFS series. Clearly, MSFS has the advantage in terms of 3rd party support and codebase maturity, so of course there are a lot of advantages to using it. Many X-Plane users are well aware of this, so it gets extremely tiring to hear over and over again how much better FSX is. While I don't participate much in the x-plane.org forums, I suspect the atmosphere over there is the result of years of oh-so helpful FS'ers logging in over there to tell them how much X-Plane sucks.

 

Here, it's a bit different, because X-Plane's footprint is simply a subforum in a greater Simulator-wide community. Many of us here also use FSX or were once primarily FSX (and previous versions) users so we're a little more easygoing. Still, as my earlier post alludes to, we do get a few passers-by who make it their solemn duty to tell us in one way or another how inferior X-Plane is. It's not like there are group of people going to the FS forums here telling everyone how superior X-Plane is, inciting retaliation. It seems X-Plane gets shot down by some for simply having the audacity to exist.

 

Speaking for myself only, I understand what the sim lacks. I choose to revel in where it excels.

Well, this, as crazy as it sounds, is also the problem with X-Plane, you need a really good computer to actually get anything decent out of it. Not everyone can afford brand new hardware, or some people, such as myself, prefer to use notebooks. I've seen videos of X-Plane running on high-end software and it does indeed look incredible, but shouldn't it run better than FSX? For me, it clearly doesn't run better than FSX on the same hardware. I have to turn down everything until it looks plastic, blurry and by that time I just go back to FSX. I appreciate that X-Plane will use the full power of newer systems, but it shouldn't penalise users with slower hardware. X-Plane 9 ran fantastic on my machine, and I enjoyed using that version.

 

I also get the uncontrollable yaw in the default C172, and also the constant stupid tire screeching noise, which happens for no apparent reason. Again, I don't use a gamepad but a proper controller designed for Flight Simulation, which works out-of-the box in FSX and X-Plane.

 

Also, not really X-Plane's fault, but the main community on X-Plane.org is extremely unwelcoming, almost like it is an elitist club. Try asking for help (you aren't allowed to create a new thread for some stupid reason), and often you get banned for no reason, knocked down, etc. The moderators there must have been bullied or something in school, because there is absolutely NO reason to treat other people (sometimes paying customers who use their site) the way they do. I wonder how many potential users have been put of my going to that site to ask their questions and made to feel stupid, unwelcome, etc.

 

Some of us really want X-Plane to succeed, but it seems so far off at the moment. They aren't a large team, and Austin should really consider taking on more developers instead of switching focus on each beta and abandoning other areas.

 

I have a GTX 560 (not the ti), 4GB RAM and an i5 and am getting, with default aircraft, 90+ fps with everything set to mid-high in the 32 bit version.

With some high detail add ons, 35-50 fps.

 

X-Plane uses what it can within reason. It doesn't use everything that is available.

 

As far as x-plane.org, you are not alone in your thinking and you might like to have a look at http://www.x-pilot.com

Speaking for myself only, I understand what the sim lacks. I choose to revel in where it excels.

 

Sorry if it sounded like I was deliberately bashing X-Plane. I only wanted to give my experience of using v10. I still have fond memories of using v9, but I'm very disappointed that X-Plane 10 just won't run for me well, and I really don't want to go and buy yet another new computer. This one isn't that old, I can even play games such as GTA4 (very graphics intensive) on it. Also, I didn't realise X-Plane used DX11 on Windows, perhaps it would be worth installing in on bootcamp alongisde FSX and seeing if I get any performance improvement. I have a few Windows games which run better on Windows than they do on the same hardware on Mac OS X.

 

As of x-plane.org, that very well could be the case. However, the attitude of the moderators simply stinks. e.g. I saw someone open a post up saying "Happy New Year Everyone" and saying how much he was enjoying X-Plane. A moderator added a sarcastic remark "Oh you felt you had to open and waste a new post to say that, next time use the search". Unbelievable, and for me, they've probably just lost a potential customer from buying from their website. I will never ever buy from them again, and I've been banned because I had to hijack a similar thread to ask a question, because I wasn't allowed to post. The administrators have ignored my requests, and are just rude and have their heads up their asses.

Thanks for that Jan. I have a joystick correctly setup, and have encountered this phenomenon since version 9 and before. Please don't suggest this is unsubstantiated as it is what I experience, I am not interested in this sim vs that sim.

 

I am not interested in the "simfights" myself, either - they both have their good and bad sides and I have been using both since FSII and XP7.

 

What I really can´t understand is how two users can get such a different experience out of the same program!?

 

I can´t do more than show what is happening here on my computer - with my CH Stick and rudder pedals. I even output the raw rudder deflection on screen in my video - as you can see in the video it is spiking at maybe 0.15 - the maximum deflection it can go to is 1.0.

 

You are seeing something else on your computer, so the question is, why..

 

What kind of rudder pedals are you using?

 

What is your setting for control linearity?

 

Are you using "artificial stability" in the controller setup?

 

Is it impossible to keep the Cessna straigth for you at all?

 

How much (in raw numbers) of rudder deflection do you need to keep it straight?

 

We might be on to an interesting bug here, if the program really behaves differently on different machines!

 

Thanks, Jan

Some of us really want X-Plane to succeed, but it seems so far off at the moment. They aren't a large team, and Austin should really consider taking on more developers instead of switching focus on each beta and abandoning other areas.

 

I agree - for all they've accomplished LR seem like a pretty small business. MSFS had the advantage of an entire studio in its heyday. Didn't the Aces team have something like 120 people in its prime? I wonder, does anyone know if Austin plans to expand his development team in the near future at all? Granted this isn't a simple process - getting a few new devs up to speed with the codebase would probably take months but if it means they could focus on further developing some of the areas that are lacking it would be well worth it.

Didn't the Aces team have something like 120 people in its prime?

 

283