I'm also noticing those clouds.

 

oh, finally back on topic… ?!?

 

I really don't get what you guys are up to. It already adds up to several YEARS of discussing the same boring debate in any thread available for venting.

 

No new argument ever arose since putting it on the stage for the first time. Where does one find the time for it?

 

And don't you guys feel when it's enough, as in: "done. over. out"?

 

If you do not yourselves, I am pretty sure that a majority of Flight Sim Users thinks exactly that: Why on earth do they regularily damage their reputation an make fools of themselves?

 

I think that's pretty sad.

 

Boy did I have fun times on Avsim back in the days of FLY. But this X-Plane forum really is to be avoided.

A couple of FSX cloud shots with old versus new clouds from AS2012.

 

Hook

Removing OpenGL would be a crazy move and would stop us Mac and Linux users from using XPlane. I personally have a Mac and don't like Windows for various reason, especially Windows 8. OpenGL is very capable, e.g. Have a look at Outerra.

 

I do agree on the rest of your points though, especially the GUI

Removing OpenGL would be a crazy move and would stop us Mac and Linux users from using XPlane. I personally have a Mac and don't like Windows for various reason, especially Windows 8. OpenGL is very capable, e.g. Have a look at Outerra.

 

I do agree on the rest of your points though, especially the GUI

 

OpenGL is what makes XPlane what it is - a crossplatform sim. It has many Mac and Linux users and removing OpenGL would be a biggest mistake Laminar can make.

What I need is some in-depth discussion of various features, plus what is present and what is missing that I might require. I don't care what a reviewer thinks of a product, all I want to know is why I might want to buy it, and what I need to know before I do. The advantage of LAdamson is that he's telling me things I need to know. GoranM isn't.

 

The problem is that LAdamson's commentary is based on a substantial negative bias against X-Plane.

 

And I'll be frank, the fact that you're so quick to defend LAdamson's (I believe unwarranted) negativity while dismissing those with a positive opinion makes me suspicious of your motives here.

 

Most people looking for something new aren't looking for okay when they've spent thousands...

 

So are you saying that X-Plane 10 default is inferior to FSX with thousands of dollars worth of add-ons?

 

Can we just say, "Well, duh!" Seriously, there's no way a $70 program can even begin to compete with a $2000 program and the dozens of third-party developers who worked on it. I don't even know how you can think this is a fair comparison.

Having read the intervening posts since I originally posted this, I've come to the conclusion that I'd respect LAdamson's opinion over anyone else's. No matter how much I might want to like XPlane, people like GoranM are making it very difficult.

 

I only just saw this post.

I find it baffling that 1 person (me) can somehow dissuade you from getting X Plane. I've had 1 other person say that to me about 3 years ago and it's really strange to think I have any influence whatsoever in that area.

 

If you want to know what X-Plane has and doesn't have, download the demo and see for yourself. You don't have to listen to anyone in the X-Plane community. But listening to someone who has never had a positive word to say about it is a little strange. LAdamson does not know the intricacies of X-Plane and Planemaker. He was a beta tester for MSFS for many previous versions. His experience in X-Plane,judging from his posts, is, by his own admission, flying 3 or 4 payware add ons that are several years old. If he can use FSX and X-Plane equally with such a limited library of add ons for X-Plane, but many more for FSX, then my hat's off to him.

If I wanted to know about a product, I would talk to someone who knows as much about it as possible. Preferably, an independent reviewer.

But that's just me.

The problem is that LAdamson's commentary is based on a substantial negative bias against X-Plane.

 

If there is negative bias on a reviewer's part, I know how to filter that out. I filter out overly positive bias as well. Gushing posts like, "This product has changed my life, and may well change all of humanity forever" or something similar are totally worthless to me, even as a statistic.

 

I prefer to see both the highlights and the failings. When the failings don't concern me, then I'm still interested in the product. If the failings are something that are likely to be fixed in the future, then I wait and watch. Right now, I'm waiting and watching.

 

I find it baffling that 1 person (me) can somehow dissuade you from getting X Plane.

 

It was the arguing that was making it difficult to like XPlane, especially when LAdamson was pointing out things I really needed to know. Don't worry, you couldn't dissuade me.

 

Edit to add: I generally don't bother with demos. They tend to show all the good stuff and hide all the bad. Remember the demo for FSX?

 

Hook

The problem is that LAdamson's commentary is based on a substantial negative bias against X-Plane.

 

And I'll be frank, the fact that you're so quick to defend LAdamson's (I believe unwarranted) negativity while dismissing those with a positive opinion makes me suspicious of your motives here.

 

 

 

So are you saying that X-Plane 10 default is inferior to FSX with thousands of dollars worth of add-ons?

 

Can we just say, "Well, duh!" Seriously, there's no way a $70 program can even begin to compete with a $2000 program and the dozens of third-party developers who worked on it. I don't even know how you can think this is a fair comparison.

 

+1 I am always astonished , that here and in many other posts, people are saying that DEFAULT Xplane is inferior to FSX with these and those add-ons worth hundreads of dollars. Really? Let's compare apples with apples. Default FSX is inferior to default XPlane, by my opinion. The advantage of FSX is a long history of developers support and many quality add-ons. However XPlane is and will be catching up - load XPlane in 64bit with quality payware aircraft, add-on airport and scenery and see what you get. And you know what? No tweaking necessary...

 

It is also sad that any post here about XPlane turns to battle FSX vs. XPlane. There are many people here with negative motivations against XPlane and share their view at every opportunity. Well guys, enough! We get it. Does FSX really need your defense at any time?

I have both XPLane and FSX and enjoy them both. Do the same while it is still possible.

I am an Xplane user so am always puzzled by the "FSX" mindset that is continually used against those who don't want to put their head and the sand and talk about relativity.

 

As for FSX-I have always found autogen cartoony, popping autogen distracting, the landing/takeoff phase rather unrealistic. Needed improvements are true icing modeling, tstorm and true cumulus clouds. The roads look like a had drawn line, and the shadowing effects are not as good as xplane default.

 

I thought this thread was about how xplane's cloud rendering is superior to FSX. They both leave a lot to be desired, and have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

I still find it astonishing that it was the op who stated xplane's rendering of clouds is superior to FSX yet somehow the "negative bias" people who largely seem to be xplane users have turned it into an FSX battle. Didn't the compare start with the very first post from an xplane user? Then when the challenge is taken, somehow we are negative?

 

I don't become negative until I see things like justifying the burnt clouds as shown in the shot above as being the normall in reality or being told a ga aircraft can't fly in over 12 kt. Winds. ....

 

 

_{all my fsx friends and family that bought xp10 this holiday season and all of last year have not even booted up fsx since their purchase, some have converted 100% with no care in the world for new fsx scenery releases. I use all of them but prefer xp10 for civ simming and DCS for causing trouble on innocent civilians :lol:}

I prefer to see both the highlights and the failings.

 

The problem, again, is that LAdamson has a long history around here of unfairly exaggerating X-Plane 10's failings, so my advice is to take his comments with a grain of salt. The fact that he has never had one positive thing to say about X-Plane 10 should certainly be enough for you to question his credibility.

+1 :-) They did from the start, because FSX and FLIGHT simply do not model asymmetric slipstream effects (just p-factor, torque and gyroscopic effects), but before that patch it felt better indeed... XP10 apparently models all of these effects, only it does not do it correctly :-( ... Well :-(...

 

I'll actually challenge that comment. Slipstream effects from the propeller, actually have more effect on the airplane wanting to move to the left (with prop turning clockwise from the cockpit view), than do P-factor, & torque. There are models in both FSX & X-Plane that portray this effect well........on the takeoff roll & climbout. It's the first thing I observe with any flight model. I'm just a real life "rudder" fanatic. If the model requires a constant right rudder pressure to counter the effect, and still requires pressure to maintain runway center-line in the initial climb, then I'm okay with it. If it constantly wants to roll in flight, then it needs some attention.

Edit to add: I generally don't bother with demos. They tend to show all the good stuff and hide all the bad. Remember the demo for FSX?

 

In the case of X-Plane, the demo leaves nothing behind the curtain. While you can't fly in all regions of the world, it is not like the FSX demo (St. Maarten) where they dressed up the local area above and beyond normal conditions.

 

The X-Plane demo is the same simulation code, same graphics capability, and same scenery capability as the full product... just in an area based around Seattle with a 15 minute flight limit. You can even drop in freeware/payware airplanes if you'd like.

 

Unlike the FSX demo, if you like how the demo presents itself, you will likely enjoy X-Plane as it is more of the same. If you don't like how the demo presents itself, you will not likely enjoy X-Plane, as it's more of the same.

 

I strongly recommend the demo for anyone considering X-Plane - it's updated in lockstep with the full product, and is a good tool for making an informed decision.

The problem, again, is that LAdamson has a long history around here of unfairly exaggerating X-Plane 10's failings, so my advice is to take his comments with a grain of salt. The fact that he has never had one positive thing to say about X-Plane 10 should certainly be enough for you to question his credibility.

 

I think I have some credibility. Afterall, I did build & fly the aircraft in these two pics. The FAA database has my name on it.

 

As to negative comments, let's go back through this thread and see where I am negative. Unless of course comparing FSX (as to being more than an arcade game) is somehow being counted as a negative for XP. I'm not like the poster at the org. yesterday, who told a newcomer to get rid of FSX & start thinking "real aviation" now. I'd never tell anyone to dump XP for those reasons. If you read my posts. I actually take a more neutral stance between FSX & X-Plane. I fully understand that there are both good & poor models with either sim, and that it's up to the programmer...........rather than just comparing lookup tables & blade element.

 

L.Adamson

n the case of X-Plane, the demo leaves nothing behind the curtain. While you can't fly in all regions of the world, it is not like the FSX demo (St. Maarten) where they dressed up the local area above and beyond normal conditions.

 

Actually it does! The demo includes a detailed KSEA, for the uninitiated, who may not read the forums, using the demo for the first time, may then buy the full product, only to find all other airports are completely barren. Then they'll feel like they were given the old bait and switch!!

 

...and what are you talking about the FSX demo, The full version includes many detailed areas, NY, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seatle, Las Vegas, Miami, London, Paris... I can go on. Not to mention the detailed airports. Even the airports that are not as detailed, has buildings in the correct relative positions, including GA. In that respect, FSX demo is much more a representative of the full product, then XP10 demo is to it's full version.

Can the same be said about FSX:

 

From X-Plane's website

 

X-Plane is used by world-leading defense contractors, air forces, aircraft manufacturers, and even space agencies for applications ranging from flight training to concept design and flight testing.

 

For example, X-Plane has been used in crash investigations to depict the view pilots experienced moments before a mid-air collision, or to graphically present to juries and judges the forces that impact an aircraft in flight. Scaled Composites used X-Plane to visualize Space Ship One’s flights to the edge of the atmosphere in their pilot training simulator. Kalitta has used X-Plane to train their pilots to fly freight 747s in the middle of the night. Northwest and Japan Airlines use X-Plane for flight review and training. Cessna uses X-Plane to train new customers in the intricacies of the Garmin G1000. Dave Rose has used X-Plane to optimize airplanes for his many wins at Reno. NASA has used X-Plane to test the re-entry of gliders into the Martian atmosphere, and the list goes on. These customers serve as perhaps the most significant endorsement of the incredible capabilities of this simulator.

 

Furthermore, X-Plane has received certification from the FAA for use in logging hours towards flight experience and ratings. This experience can provide credit towards a private pilot’s license, recurrence training, hours towards instrument training, and even hours towards an Airline Transport Certificate—it’s that good.

 

 

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2