John...we're in an X-Plane forum. A place X-Plane enthusiasts would like to talk to about X-Plane and how to improve it, while keeping an open and objective mind. Not read posts from people who keep saying FSX+payware looks better than XP default.

 

Fair enough GoranM, I actually don't take part in those type of XFX versus FSX+payware discussions here, as the two are apples and oranges to me and I like both, the thing that sort of made me jump into the middle of this one was that the XPX clouds for me are one of the parts I hope XPX improves soon, but I was reading folks say how great they are, so I stuck my foot in to see if maybe I'm missing some key thing that will make me see the greatness of them like some do.

 

Actually I'm glad I did, as I discovered that HDR mode will make me much happier with them.

 

Edit: thanks for your examples as well, I just checked the EXIF info on that last shot you added and it is 2:44pm in June so indeed maybe my expectations for white clouds outside of sunset are unreasonable, this info will help me be more reasonably happy with what we have so far.

Fair enough GoranM, I actually don't take part in those type of XFX versus FSX+payware discussions here, as the two are apples and oranges to me and I like both, the thing that sort of made me jump into the middle of this one was that the XPX clouds for me are one of the parts I hope XPX improves soon, but I was reading folks say how great they are, so I stuck my foot to see if maybe I'm missing some key thing that will make me see the greatness of them like some do.

 

Actually I'm glad I did, as I discovered that HDR mode will make me much happier with them.

 

Maybe it was taken out of context.

Are the clouds "great"? To some people, they might be. To me, they are good enough.

Would I like to REX make some updated clouds? Absolutely! Opus for X Plane? Definitely!

X-Plane isn't perfect, and no one claimed it was, but neither is FSX or P3D.

The title of the ops post is " x-plane's superior cloud rendering" and then a paragraph of how it is better than FSX-(isn't that bringing up FSX and comparing?) -yet when that brings lively debate from users of both sims that is somehow astonishing and should not be allowed.

 

Simply amazing-and more amazing to me is proposing the burnt clouds that remind me of pro pilot 99 are the norm rw. I'd rather see a nice debate admitting flaws so the sim can continue to move forward. T

 

Now without taking sides-I think the clouds in all sims are not even close to portraying the huge variety that exist in the world - and xplane does some amazingly well and so does fsx. I'm still waiting for any sim to do towering cumulus and good t storms clouds which are the ones you really want to avoid in the summer, and better icing effects which you spend all your time avoiding in the winter-whether in them or out.

The title of the ops post is " x-plane's superior cloud rendering" and then a paragraph of how it is better than FSX-(isn't that bringing up FSX and comparing?) -yet when that brings lively debate from users of both sims that is somehow astonishing and should not be allowed.

 

Sure it's allowed. But saying FSX+ REX is 1000x better than X-Plane? Really? What was the scale used to gauge this number?

Yes, I agree. "Amazing".

Simply amazing-and more amazing to me is proposing the burnt clouds that remind me of pro pilot 99 are the norm rw. I'd rather see a nice debate admitting flaws so the sim can continue to move forward. T

 

Maybe there are people who prefer to focus on the positives (while acknowledging and accepting the negatives) and enjoy the sim for what it is...a hobby...rather than waste time picking out the negatives and criticize the developers for not addressing clouds when they have bigger fish to fry.

One of my biggest peeves of FS2002 or FS9 was the paper thin clouds. I shrugged it off and said "What do I expect out of an $80 sim?"

Who is actually an authority on clouds? I doubt you're a meteorologist. Your opinion is just that. An opinion. Just like the OP's post was just his opinion.

Maybe there are people who prefer to focus on the positives (while acknowledging and accepting the negatives) and enjoy the sim for what it is...a hobby...rather than waste time picking out the negatives and criticize the developers for not addressing clouds when they have bigger fish to fry.

 

Well I think an overly defensive attitude about the faults is just as bad as an overly critical statement about it, both are likely to just attract more statements of the kind and throw the discussion ever into the extremes.

 

Anyhow for my part, I am ok with the clouds for now especially with the new info from this thread, but I will hope they continue to be improved and that we have some better add-on options in the future, so consider that an acknowledgement of the fault while being happy with it for now.

:Peace:

If XP10 came out at the same time as FSX, I would expect them to of similar quality and finish, but XP10 came out 6 years after FSX came out. In some ways, I can see this as saying that you might expect XP10, the newer of the bunch, to be of better quality than something that is 6 years older...

 

Also, XP is for purchase, indicating that it is a relatively final product ready for mass users to consume and utilize, thereby expecting the product to have some finality to it and be polished. Many people who turn away from XP10 do so due to the unpolished and unfinished feel XP10 has.

 

It has come a long way, but has a lot longer to go before it will be accepted widely in the flight sim community. Until then, you have to look at it like this...XP10 is the 135lb 5'2" long brown hair with glasses girl that isn't the prom queen, but will be faithful to you as long as you treat her well. Most people looking for something new aren't looking for okay when they've spent thousands giving their average girlfriends thousand dollar plastic, lasik and dental surgery to turn her into a prom queen. Instead of switching to a faithful but not-gorgeous girlfriend, they want another prom queen. If XP10 ever gets to that level, maybe people will switch.

That's ok. I find some of the cheerleading about FSX's flight model hard to understand as well.

 

And............why is that? Do you really believe that FSX doesn't have the capability to replicate flight "rather" realistically, as to compare with "blade element theory". I say "rather", because I don't expect any desktop sim to be totally realistic in all phases & circumstances.

 

Kind of reminds me of what I read at the org. today. A new simmer with a new CPU, but not a very good video card was asking if XP-10 would run on his computer. He had just loaded FSX, and it wasn't doing to well. Some of the better suggestions was to try the demo, but it probably wouldn't run very well, due to the video card, most said. And then there was the suggestion to "forget" about FSX altogether. FSX just has to many distractions (according to the reply), and you need to think "aviation now". Then the reply went on to explain that XP had a tough learning curve, because that's the kind of simulator it is.

 

So.............as an owner of both sims, that I am...................what is such a higher learning curve with XP? As far as I'm concerned, they both simulate flight, or both can be on the gamy side. Both can teach you a lot, or a little about aviation. I see nothing in X-Plane that makes it any more real than FSX. From my point of view..............neither are real enough. They may have to become a substitute for real flight in my mind, but they'll never take the place of it. At least for right now.

 

And yes, this is why I sometimes make what is considered disrespectful statements, much to the displeasure of some X-Plane faithfull. I see it written over & over. Something to the effect, that if you're interested in "real aviation", then stick with XP...........and forget FSX, after all...........it's just a game.

 

P.S. --- I also think the XP clouds are always on the dark side. Lighten them up, some. A whole lot of clouds are much lighter than those shown as examples.

 

L.Adamson

And............why is that? Do you really believe that FSX doesn't have the capability to replicate flight "rather" realistically, as to compare with "blade element theory". I say "rather", because I don't expect any desktop sim to be totally realistic in all phases & circumstances.

L.Adamson

 

I deleted most of your post in my quote because it's irrelevant. I wasn't addressing clouds or whether someone can run X Plane on their computer.

What I did quote is ambiguous, at best. "Rather" realistically has no measure for comparison or a definitive figure attached to it. What is "rather" realistically? Completely subjective statement.

I don't think anyone expects a desktop flight sim to be "totally" realistic when compared to rw flying. And no one claimed that to be the case.

I really don't understand all this angst. Is XP10 perfect? Of course not. Is it "good enough", all things considered? Absolutely. Is it getting better? Without question.

 

It's a $70 program made to run on current consumer level computer hardware, so one has to keep their expectations reasonable. You want something better? Then save your money for a high-end commercial simulator (and even those have their faults).

I really don't understand all this angst. Is XP10 perfect? Of course not. Is it "good enough", all things considered? Absolutely. Is it getting better? Without question.

 

It's a $70 program made to run on current consumer level computer hardware, so one has to keep their expectations reasonable. You want something better? Then save your money for a high-end commercial simulator (and even those have their faults).

 

Something IS better.

FSX! with REX...and GTX...and Opus...and FTX...and OrbX...and GEX...and Ultimate terrain...and Activesky...did I miss anything...(is there an actual flight sim in there??)

 

:good:

 

EDIT: FSX is so good, it doesn't even need Microsoft to support it anymore.

 

:ph34r:

I deleted most of your post in my quote because it's irrelevant. I wasn't addressing clouds or whether someone can run X Plane on their computer.

What I did quote is ambiguous, at best. "Rather" realistically has no measure for comparison or a definitive figure attached to it. What is "rather" realistically? Completely subjective statement.

I don't think anyone expects a desktop flight sim to be "totally" realistic when compared to rw flying. And no one claimed that to be the case.

 

"Rather" gives us some slack............on both sides. However, the internet is filled with statements in which "blade element theory" supposedly creates "real flight" on the fly, while FSX just uses some look up tables. They even go on to farther suggest, that an FSX 172 will fly just like an FSX 747. Of course, that's all BS. So, I ask, once again...................why do you have a problem about someone "cheer leading" the FSX flight model, as you've described it. Do you totally believe that lookup tables are inferior to blade element theory? Actually, I know you do. But since you're a developer for XP, and haven't really used FSX for four years, let alone some of the better flight models.............then what do you really have to compare with?

 

As to myself, I'm still actually neutral about flight models. IMO, they can both be "rather" good. Of course, I haven't yet used DCS yet..............in which all else is put to shame, or so I've heard. :lol:

 

L.Adamson

 

edit......a bunch of mis-spelled words in the original. Just terrible!

Remind us all again why you insist on participating in this forum when it's clear X-Plane isn't for you? I mean, the only thing I ever see from you is a guy holding a virtual fly swatter to whack anything positive anyone has to say about the sim. It's one of the reasons I have you on ignore, but since another post quoted your's (and its content further justifies my decision) perhaps others would like to know.

 

Not that you'll probably read this......................but I use XP just as often as FSX & FS9. During the course of the next few years, these sims will probably get used more, than they do now. Most of my negative comments are a reaction to negative & incorrect statements about the competition. I can only wish XP well. In fact, I hope they all will continue to improve.

 

L.Adamson

"Rather" gives us some slack............on both sides.

 

Like I said, too ambiguous. Can't even gauge it.

 

However, the internet is filled with statements in which "blade element theory" supposedly creates "real flight" on the fly, while FSX just uses some look up tables.

 

Because that is actually a true statement that has been proven.

 

They even go on to farther suggest, that an FSX 172 will fly just like an FSX 747. Of course, that's all BS.

 

I haven't seen that. Link?

 

So, I ask, once again...................why do you have a problem about someone "cheer leading" the FSX flight model, as you've described it.

Regarding the "cheerleading", I was quoting another post where someone used that word.

What I have a problem with is someone in another thread saying he prefers the PMDG 737 flight model over anything in X-Plane...even though, by his own admission, he has only flown a Piper 28. Pure speculation and bias. I have a problem with speculation. There is nothing behind it but a persons opinion...which doesn't really count for much.

 

Do you totally believe that lookup tables are inferior to blade element theory? Actually, I know you do. But since you're a developer for XP, and haven't really used FSX for four years, let alone some of the better flight models.............then what do you really have to compare with?

 

Yes I do believe that Blade Element Theory is more accurate than lookup tables. And it has absolutely nothing to do with my chosen profession as a 3rd party developer (I wish you would stop using that as some kind of ammo against me. It wasn't AVSIM that put that label on me. It was me). If I wanted to capitalize on that and go for the money, I would develop for FSX. But I saw things in X Plane that were lacking in FSX and I decided to go for, what I consider, the better platform.

But you're wrong about my use of FSX/FS9 in the last 4 years. I haven't used either sim recreationally in 4 years, but I have tested between sims on many occasions.

 

As to myself, I'm still actually neutral about flight models. IMO, they can both be "rather" good. Of course, I haven't yet used DCS yet..............in which all else is put to shame, or so I've heard. :lol:

 

L.Adamson

 

edit......a bunch of mis-spelled words in the original. Just terrible!

 

I have yet to see you mention one positive thing about X-Planes flight model. If you could show me a link where I am wrong in that observation, I would be happy to look at it.

Because that is actually a true statement. FSX NEEDS accurate figures to provide an accurate flight model. X-Plane doesn't. That has been stated and proven.

 

Yes, FSX doesn need accurate figures. XP doesn't, but it's not a replacement for a real live wind tunnel either. It's well known, that XP's accuracy depends on the programmer..............and not just what plane maker comes up with.

 

I have yet to see you mention one positive thing about X-Planes flight model. If you could show me a link where I am wrong in that observation, I would be happy to look at it.

 

I bought the Carenado XP Bonanza, based purely on thoughts written by Geoff Applegate. He said it was one of the best single engine flight models he has used. Considering he owned a Bonanza, and has been a long time simmer...............I think he offers very worthwhile advice. He also said that the Milviz Baron for FSX is also exceptional for a twin. Since he also owned a Baron, I'd be respecting that advice too. As to many other "real life" planes, I've flown quite a variety. Therefor, someone is NOT going to persuade me, that blade element is superior in any way or form. Both methods work, and most realism depends on the abilities of the programmer.

 

L.Adamson

I bought the Carenado XP Bonanza, based purely on thoughts written by Geoff Applegate. He said it was one of the best single engine flight models he has used. Considering he owned a Bonanza, and has been a long time simmer...............I think he offers very worthwhile advice. He also said that the Milviz Baron for FSX is also exceptional for a twin. Since he also owned a Baron, I'd be respecting that advice too. As to many other "real life" planes, I've flown quite a variety. Therefor, someone is NOT going to persuade me, that blade element is superior in any way or form. Both methods work, and most realism depends on the abilities of the programmer.

 

L.Adamson

That's all well and good. But I'm not interested in Geof's opinions on X-Plane at this present moment. I'm interested in YOURS. Can you actually pay it a compliment.

 

If you don't think blade element is any better than lookup tables, that's your opinion. And that is all it is. An opinion.

Others share your opinion, and others have different opinions.

Maybe when you can respect that, without challenging it, we may be able to move forward instead of hanging around the same, pointless debates.