Sign in to follow this  
captain420

I'm an ex X-Plane 10 convert

Recommended Posts

Its not hard to convert FSX to 64bit. Just Get the source code and recompile with a 64bit target. Done. Cheers jja

convert d:\fsx.exe /x64 /nooom /++fps - enable gpu superpower
please wait..
wait..
BSOD

:P :lol:

 

More seriously, I think it helps to look at what P3D achieved after more than 2 years of extra development and on the things we care about. Namely oom problems and extra framerate. Well, one could even wonder about engine models and system details. It's still the same.

 

As much as I like FSX, I think its limits are close when it comes to running just some more addons. And we have a lot already. As seen in some other threads, we may even operate beyond them at times.

 

XP10 looks less limited to me but e.g. lacks the artwork some FSX devs have established. But you can use a modern GPU and tons of RAM over there. Not that shabby. And I like the cloud shadows.

 

Just some three years to go and our 'latest' favourite sim is ten years old. :ph34r: There will be cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I've tried the demo version of XP10 from the beginning.

 

With several new updates some things were getting better, other were worse.

Several times: two steps forward, one step back, but it has to be said, updates come at regular intervals.

 

The "blade element theory" that XP10 uses instead of the "lookup tables" that FSX and also a lot of Level D full motion simulators uses, is very nice in theory but the question is: are there enough parameters taken into account in the XP10 implementation of this blade element theory.

Some people think not, some even say that it is not possible on a modern PC at this moment to use enough parameters, so extra added "lookup tables" or other modifications should still be necessary.

 

So i think, besides the lack of good ATC, exaggerated turbulence, missing landmarks, seasonal textures and airport buildings, the 2 biggest problems still are in the flight dynamics.

 

In this two threads you can read all about it:

 

1. the exaggerated roll:

 

http://forum.avsim.n...-aircraft-roll/

 

2. the exaggerated "wind vaning" even with modest sidewinds.

 

http://forum.avsim.n...good-after-all/

 

 

XP10 has of course great potential, and is slowly getting better, no doubt about that, but i stick to FSX, where i have the feeling of a living, breathing realistic looking world and good balanced flight dynamics. Since the ground behavior of the aircraft has been modified by Johan Dees and the implantation of this into FSUIPC (Peter Dowson) now, an important flaw in FSX (the exaggerated side slipping/skidding at correct landingspeed at dry runways) is now corrected.

 

Let's hope P3D can make FSX better in the future, if not there's aeroflyFS with it's good modern engine, (less stress on the CPU and more on the GPU: so very good framerates and stutterfree) great graphics, and very good flight dynamics. Of course it's still limited in features at this moment, but it can become a real challenger to XP10 in the future and hopefully for P3D to !

 

AeroflyFs development status see: http://www.ipacs.de/...elopment-Status

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P3D's next update V-2.0 will be DX-11. That being said, what is the advantage of DX-11? Thanks.

 

Ability to move more of the workload from CPU/RAM to GPU/VRAM and much better/realistic graphic effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X-Plane 10 gives mostly my GPU a good thrashing, whereas with FSX it's mostly the CPU.

Even if P3D introduce v2 with DX11, it will still only be 32-bit. Too little too late.

 

Okay it's been said ad nauseum, but maybe if Austin sold just one of his planes he could hire 3 or 4 guys, who could have AI, ATC, airports, landmarks, and seasonal textures sewn up in a year. Thing is... maybe it's too late now as he's currently fighting a patent troll (not his fault). :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most want landclass, not a made up world.

 

+1,000. It doesnt have to be perfect, but it should be realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X-Plane is very much capable of doing what FSX can do and better, just not many are interested at the moment in actually doing it. John Venema of ORBX has said they're not interested, as X-Plane as it is too unstable. However, I'm happy we do have Carenado and Aerosoft onboard. Now just convince RealAir, A2A and PMDG, and I'd say goodbye to FSX :-)

 

PMDG has already began development for X-Plane as stated here:

 

XPLANE Development Update:

==========================

I mentioned awhile back that we were beginning the process of bringing onboard a developer to run the Xplane development process in house at PMDG. We have had Chris Powell with us for few months now and he has been leading the Xplane development process since hitting the ground back in October…

 

We have selected the airplane that will be our first release for the Xplane marketplace- and that project is well into development, although it is taking longer than we would otherwise like. Xplane is a completely new platform for us- and as such we are still fumbling and feeling our way through various tasks that come as second nature to us in FSX.

 

You may recall that I said earlier that we will not be announcing the Xplane project until it is nearly finished… We made this decision in order to prevent ourselves from getting locked into a particular simulation when we might decide later on that a different airplane was more conducive to Xplane conversion and our own learning process with the new (to us) simulator platform. I am glad we made that decision, because just such a change took place a few months back- and we have a really great new airplane coming for you on the Xplane platform.

 

What happens after the first Xplane project releases? We’ll start working on the second one. :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bought X-plane 10 when it came out like the flight model and feel over fsx. Still, no landmarks or eye candy in X-plane. The best thing X-plane could do is add landmarks, and more important than that add seasons. The auto-gen rollback to earlier version with just ranch houses is better than new update looks ghetto public housing projects and non plausible in most places. X-plane someday will support stereo 3d I hope not a big priority to me, but when fly low and slow it helps with immersion of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If XPX would be an FSX add on, how could we name it?

Nuked World X

Traffic Light X

Road Traffic X

Landmark SAR Mission

Seasons X, one fits all

Engine Torq Booster X

Snow in Summer Miracle X

Watch the 747 at your local FBO X

 

to be continued and please, take it easy...

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If XPX would be an FSX add on, how could we name it?

Nuked World X

Traffic Light X

Road Traffic X

Landmark SAR Mission

Seasons X, one fits all

Engine Torq Booster X

Snow in Summer Miracle X

Watch the 747 at your local FBO X

 

to be continued and please, take it easy...

 

Flight Model Upgrade X.

Rendering Engine Enhancement X

Shockwave 3D Replacer

Water Effects Xtreme

Street Traffic 2013

Autogen Booster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about flight enjoyment, I like most FSX because of the moods that flying gives visually, something important to me. I find that visibility and haze more real IMHO in FSX.

 

 

FSX stock scenery with Shade add-on only, 40 miles of visibility:

 

 

XP10, same area and conditions as above, stock scenery, no add-on

 

 

XP10 @ 20k feet....igh!!! No comments (Hope this will be fixed, it is mandatory...)

 

 

 

BTW, it is near KHSN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xplane not all terrible for version 10, just found high quality photo ariels of Las Vegas and laid OSM type data for buildings and I did not shut it off the Chicago Public autogen housing in Vegas went away. Its flawed beast but for the long haul X-plane is good back up software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, the biggest issue in X-Plane 10 is the controls. While I know that I can be faulted for not wanting to learn new bindings, I do feel like it shouldn't be too difficult to do as MS did and tie some controls cyclicly - that is that I can press ONE key to raise AND lower the gear, I can press ONE key to toggle on AND off the landing lights, I can press ONE key to cycle views, etc. Which I could not do in X-Plane 9. While I did notice some improvement in that regard in the XP10 demo, there was still much to be desired.

X-Plane fans often cite the "learning-curve" as evidence that the sim is fairly realistic. In my experience, all that means is that the control bindings could use some streamlining - the program is the thing that is difficult to use.

Also, in reality, many pilots are certified on and fly regularly multiple types of aircraft. Even in the days of yor, when planes were built differently without all our fancy computer controls and could be a simple beast to fly, people didn't have to begin learning how to fly all over again just 'cause they switched aircraft! Take Ernest K. Gann and Gen. Doolittle as examples - each one flew hundreds of types up until they died - and both died in their old age of natural causes. Clearly, we shouldn't take a "learning curve" as evidence of superiority - and we should be clear what is the thing that needs time to learn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X-Plane fans often cite the "learning-curve" as evidence that the sim is fairly realistic. In my experience, all that means is that the control bindings could use some streamlining - the program is the thing that is difficult to use.

 

That's about it. Just a different way of setting up controls. There is nothing new, that FSX is missing, that makes X-Plane more realistic. In fact, X-Plane has had a problem with perceived "torque" that requires constant roll trimming in cruise (right aileron). This may give the impression that real airplanes always require this, if someone assumes that XP is automatically more realistic in the flight dynamics department. It's also a reason for the "FSX flies on rails" statements....................just because FSX isn't constantly wanting to roll to the left, and the fact that FSX is using calmer weather conditions by default.

 

L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stock for stock xp-10 is a better looking and better sim overall.. BUT FSX has many years of not being updated so it's stable for development and it has the largest following so it has the best add-on's

 

Personally I prefer X-plane 10 and I can't wait for planes such as the IXEG 737 and PMDG's port over plane

 

:lol: by the way does FSX have a police car chasing cars on the freeway :lol: just that alone is worth $70

 

 

PMDG will announce their xp10 project this year, they mentioned this many times, but honestlty I don't care because JRollon, Ramzzess, and some other xp10 devs are releasing awesome payware identical to pmdg and captain sim quality.

 

I disagree with you a bit there. X-plane planes are not at the level of top FSX payware yet. maybe captian sim level but Not PMDG or flightsim labs level and certainly nothing like the majestic q400

 

 

 

But from the looks of it that will change with the IXEG 737

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also a reason for the "FSX flies on rails" statements....................just because FSX isn't constantly wanting to roll to the left, and the fact that FSX is using calmer weather conditions by default.

 

Could not agree more. Using the right amount of tubulence in different layer FSX change this perception. I had the chance to fly a real C172 in calm weather with no turbulence and it was actually feeling like on rails. You can reproduce this in X-Plane with no turbulence and you have this same effect of rails feeling, btw.

 

The thing that is missing about turbulence in BOTH sims is the lack of randomness of turbulence and amplitube of them: you DO have it all or you DON'T it have at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could not agree more. Using the right amount of tubulence in different layer FSX change this perception. I had the chance to fly a real C172 in calm weather with no turbulence and it was actually feeling like on rails. You can reproduce this in X-Plane with no turbulence and you have this same effect of rails feeling, btw.

 

The thing that is missing about turbulence in BOTH sims is the lack of randomness of turbulence and amplitube of them: you DO have it all or you DON'T it have at all.

 

I owned a plane, in which my wife and I regularly flew cross country flights. It was a common joke between us............that this was an FSX day. It all started when she once mentioned, that we almost seemed to be standing still. We were actually doing a ground speed of nearly 200 mph, and somewhere around 3000' agl. It was just pure calm. There were many calm flights, such as that, as well as varying degrees of turbulence, all the way to enough to bump your head. Point is, the flight is very smooth, and certainly doesn't require holding aileron against a persistent rolling force. Just a bit of slight stick movement (mine had a stick) to maintain heading & altitude.

 

L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But from the looks of it that will change with the IXEG 737

 

Prototypically though it looks like it's going to be a 1 airline addon, at least initially! The overhead switches are reversed (Like Airbus'), which is a Lufthansa option only. According to Tom Kyler he hopes to have the standard layout soon after release, but there are some technical issues, and also stated that could depend on sales and how much demand for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prototypically though it looks like it's going to be a 1 airline addon, at least initially! The overhead switches are reversed (Like Airbus'), which is a Lufthansa option only. According to Tom Kyler he hopes to have the standard layout soon after release, but there are some technical issues, and also stated that could depend on sales and how much demand for it.

Tue but it still looks like it's going to be the first study level simulation for x-plane.

 

 

To be honest I think IXEG made a questionable choice to do the classic instead of NG 737. As far as I know . The only operator in the US that flys the classic in that configuration is alaska.

 

BUT.. In my opinion it is highly likely that the PMDG plane that is being ported is going to be the 737NG,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT.. In my opinion it is highly likely that the PMDG plane that is being ported is going to be the 737NG,

 

I would bet against that! When PMDG first announced they were looking to develop for XP they stated they were hoping to develop a NGX level aircraft for XP, but if that couldn't be done they would probably choose a less complex model to start. The latest update, states, they had to change the aircraft model, they were planning on for another. So I think for the first release anyway, XP is probably going to get a model closer to the J41 then the NGX. IMHO. (Although I do hope I'm wrong!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prototypically though it looks like it's going to be a 1 airline addon, at least initially! The overhead switches are reversed (Like Airbus'), which is a Lufthansa option only. According to Tom Kyler he hopes to have the standard layout soon after release, but there are some technical issues, and also stated that could depend on sales and how much demand for it.

 

That's not quite correct Tom...or more likely I used too many qualifiers. I honestly do not anticipate an issue. It would behoove us to provide the more common layout so it is very high ..and I mean VERY HIGH on our list to include. History has taught me to not commit 100% because of fringe unforseen stuff, hence the qualifier.... but at this stage in the game, having done quite a bit of projects, I can say it's 99% certain we will have the normal overhead switch configuration.

 

To be honest I think IXEG made a questionable choice to do the classic instead of NG 737. As far as I know . The only operator in the US that flys the classic in that configuration is alaska.

 

I think this is a subjective issue in that aircraft are constantly retrofitted....with winglets, updated avionics and as Jan points out...they are always being updated and altered. So for myself, I have no problem with the configuration existing in any livery because it's quite possible in any livery to achieve this configuration. Folks have their favorite liveries and there is no reason that a particular configuration should keep them or us from doing a livery. One cool think about this whole flight simming thing is we can make it what we want to be for what we enjoy....and to that end, we plan on providing a easy to use paint kit...some base liveries and then let the community "go to town" making liveries to share. Now as time goes on though and we can invest a bit more back into our work, I think we'll look to providing more layout options as you can never have to many options in this business IMO.

 

As to why we chose the classic, it was a deference to the popular x737 project and also our not knowing how we'd fare or the x737 project would progress. It was nearly 3 years ago we started and tech has changed quite a bit and we've been a bit more successful in our technical goals than we thought. We do not have such deference concerns anymore though.

 

Tom K

IXEG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not quite correct Tom...or more likely I used too many qualifiers. I honestly do not anticipate an issue. It would behoove us to provide the more common layout so it is very high ..and I mean VERY HIGH on our list to include. History has taught me to not commit 100% because of fringe unforseen stuff, hence the qualifier.... but at this stage in the game, having done quite a bit of projects, I can say it's 99% certain we will have the normal overhead switch configuration.

 

That is good news in deed!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft Flight Simulator X = Kids Game

X-Plane 10 = Real Simulator

And yes i was flying MFSX for long years, planes are more realistic (most buttons works) in XP10,scenary is slight better, procedures are more realistic, and you spend less money. No crashing at all (only if you put somthing wrong), only trafic is traffic is bether in MFSX.

Am hapy i swap my X-plane 10 for microsoft Flight Simulator X

PERIOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft Flight Simulator X = Kids Game

X-Plane 10 = Real Simulator

And yes i was flying MFSX for long years, planes are more realistic (most buttons works) in XP10,scenary is slight better, procedures are more realistic, and you spend less money. No crashing at all (only if you put somthing wrong), only trafic is traffic is bether in MFSX.

Am hapy i swap my X-plane 10 for microsoft Flight Simulator X

PERIOD

 

Good job rising this old  thread back to life with such an ignorant post.  

 

The truth is both FSX and X Plane 10 are about equally bad if you don't spend money to improve them with addons. X Plane does certain things better than FSX and the other way around, still only high quality (mostly payware) addon aircraft allow you to really simulate things properly.

 

Last time I checked with X Plane I could still hear a loud tire screeching sound on touchdown with a Boeing 747 and that's totally unrealistic, so how is it a real simulator if FSX isn't?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this