PMDG position on Xplane 10

[saed45 38]

This thead caught my eye. I must admint, it is frustrating that Pmdg are so MICROSOFT-centric.

 

I saw a thread once, were somebody asked Pmdg, if they were able to produce a flight simulation program,themselves? Is it hard to do this? From somebody who has little programming knowledge?

 

Computers are computers, surely alot is possible, if the flight sim bench marks are changed?

first of all PMDG has answered questions about why they are not making a flight sim. not only does it cost alot of money but alot of R&D has to go to it. also you have to understand that there is alot of competition for making the next great flight sim. the CEO of PMDG has said that in 5 years we will all be glad for the fact that microsoft let go of ACE team and it seams like alot of companies are making their own Flight sim and we just havent heard from them. yet

[sadnane 0]

For me the main thing that would make an aircraft add-on successful in the XP platform is its flight model since (I guess) airplane systems' coding (FMC...) is platform-independent. Developers like IXEG had to code custom plugins for their upcoming 737 where Plane Maker is insufficient in order to take it to the next level! People should not judge X-plane by some poorly designed aircrafts of (unfortunately) by the default ones. Even FSX's ones have poor flight models.

 

 

Mohamed Adnane SALHANI

[Sigmar 5]

Sorry, my reply is somewhat late ... very well said, Edoardo, this echoes what I have been thinking over the past year or so. As XPlane is moving toward a 64bit version, the PMDG 777 will be definitely the last addition to my FSX, and it will be so only because of PMDGs quality standards, and in no way due to those of FSX. I have not forgotten the many hours wasted on trouble-shooting (inter alia) the MD11 - troubles resulting mainly from FSX's many flaws under current OS's. The next major change will be the change of the simulator platform, and it will be from FSX to XPlane, and once PMDG starts releasing products for XPlane that change will happen soon.

 

Sigmar Stadlmeier

(home-based in LOWL/LNZ, Austria)

 

 

[StarBlue 27]

I just wish M$ would either release the code to the community or sell it to a third party.  I personally like P3D better than XP but as many other posts on AVSIM have pointed out nobody really has direction so we keep flying FSX.  At what point does Lockheed get in trouble with Microsoft over P3D?  Remember P3D is a commercial use training software and was never meant to be sold to the general public.  I am just :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: at M$ for their lame attempt to make money with MS Flight, my personal thoughts are Balmer should be fired.  I will follow whatever PMDG goes to.

[xplanery 250]

X plane 10 most realistic flight simulator ????? you're joking right ?

 

Actually earlier the maker of that video said that he modified this 777 in plane maker, it's far from default. If I remember right it's using some kind of totally different landing gear & rocket motor and such stuff altough they are not visible.

 

Sure if you mess around with things you can make FSX do pretty much any unrealistic stuff you want.

 

 

Personally I won't be jumping to X Plane as long as it has bad sounds, especially that tire screeching sound is just horrible & I haven't seen X plane bird with particularly good engine sounds either...

[tonywob 4,770]

I'm really looking forward to seeing PMDG products for X-Plane. I recently bought the 777 for X-Plane, and although it's not quite PMDG quality it's brilliant non-the-less. It runs smoothly, doesn't run out of memory and flying at night is really quite immersive. I generally use X-Plane for night flying because that IMO is where it excels.

[Fabo 213]

 

although it's not quite PMDG quality it's brilliant non-the-less.

 

Oddly enough, this seems to be most to-the-point "review" of the plane in question I have read.

[AAN1718A 20]

All,

 

My position on X-Plane 10 is the same as others, It's graphics is far superior that FSX in every way, one problem, it 8 discs of nothing!, 60Gb of grass. 4 airports, are you serious? I paid $80 for this? I now use the 8 discs as drink coasters, I will gladly give my copy away to anyone that wants it. X-PLANE 10 is a joke. A rip-off if you ask me.

 

The site I purchased it from never mentioned that it only contains 4 airports. Oh sure you can download airports and aircraft for free made by amateurs or pay $30-40 for an airport, lets see 20,000 airports at $30 = $600,000 which FSX includes for free. Granted I will never fly into all 20,000 airports, but I sure use more than 4! Not to mentioned the canned ATC which sounds like a robot.

 

X-PLANE 10 no doubt is a big investment, but surely not worth it, it would take at least $10,000 just to have a fraction of the functionality that FSX has. FSX does need some scenery enhancements, true. I invested $250 in FSX for scenery and PMDG aircraft, that's it, been running it like that since the game came out. Nothing is better than FSX except FSX 2 or FSXI, whatever they may call it. 

 

I just hope they make one.

 

Michael

Madness Software

[Paul_Smith 92]

I find myself gritting my teeth, again. Please, let us try to avoid the FS9 vs. FSX type wars that have plagued this hobby for so many years.  

 

XP10, in particular, XP10 64bit, has the potential to be a superb simulator, and a stunningly good replacement for FSX...but... it is still only potential. FSX is still king. More then half a dozen years ago, FSX had the potential to replace FS2004. A potential that has only become reality in the last two years or less, and a potential that was seriously handicapped by BS claims made by fans of each platform over the other. Even a little bit of honesty will show that as far back as 2006, when FSX was first released, despite its gaping flaws, it had serious potential. Having both simulators on your desktop was not blasphemy, but for reasons I completely fail to understand, the vocal minority chose their corners and backed themselves into them.

 

Already, we see someone above complaining that XP10 only has 4 'detailed' airports out of the box, and expressing surprise? Why surprise? Did they really do absolutely no research before they bought? I wish I had their money to be so cavalier. The truth is that all the airports are there that you would expect, it is just that most of them don't have buildings associated with them. They daft thing is the complainer went on to explain exactly why there are so few detailed airports. An airport costs time (and so money) to do properly, and there are, as he correctly pointed out, rather a lot of them. With the FS series, Microsoft spent the money required (over many years and many versions) with the result that they ended up with a detailed database. Of course, the database had very limited functionality since the early airports they did were for very limited versions of FS. Sloping runways, friction surfaces, physical textures, even lights, signs and/or reflectors with a physical presence were just not possible within the constraints of FS7, FS8 - why change a good thing, FS9 - too many airports to change, FSX - must maintain backward compatibility.  

 

On the other extreme, we have someone singing the praises of a tailwind landing attempt into Seattle. Impressive as that is, and it really is, get the demo to try that if nothing else, does it really match the wonder of flying a micro-light over the African bush and watching wildlife moving realistically(ish) as we all did when we first got FSX? But then, how many of us have been back to the bush to try it again? Every package has its sales pitch and if it wasn't impressive, it wouldn't be the pitch.

 

All I ask, is keep an open mind. XP10 has potential, but it can't replace FSX yet. Try it anyway. Use it for the things it does better, use FSX for the rest. Form your own opinions based on your own experience. Don't let the vocal minority have their war again at the expense of your pleasure.

[3-2-1-Now 126]

At least XP attempts to use physics in its flight model, as opposed to whatever the hell it is MS use.

 

Why is it Rutgen used XPlane to prototype the Global Flyer and not MSFS? XPlane is also used in research whilst FS is not.

 

At the end of the day they are sims, and if anyone really understood what that means, they would realize that you can do silly things with all of them (multi-million dollar sims included).

 

Best regards,

Robin.

[xplanery 250]

My position on X-Plane 10 is the same as others, It's graphics is far superior that FSX in every way, one problem, it 8 discs of nothing!, 60Gb of grass. 4 airports, are you serious? I paid $80 for this? I now use the 8 discs as drink coasters, I will gladly give my copy away to anyone that wants it. X-PLANE 10 is a joke. A rip-off if you ask me.

Uhmm what, X plane 10 includes about as many airports as FSX does.

 

Sure, most of them don't have airport buildings and such stuff, but almost all of those in FSX are completely generic and thus not any better.

 

 

I invested $250 in FSX for scenery and PMDG aircraft, that's it, been running it like that since the game came out. Nothing is better than FSX except FSX 2 or FSXI, whatever they may call it.

 

I just hope they make one.

 

They will never make FSX 2 or anything like that, currently Prepar3d by Lockheed Martin is anything that could become something like that, but still after all for now it's just FSX with minor changes.

 

If there were just some more quality sceneries for X plane 10 I guess I would start using it more.

[AAN1718A 20]

Paul,

 

I understand your reply and for the most part I agree. The airports are there just not the buildings. I did do the research and found nothing that would indicate that everything was there. I had the website that I purchase my copy from add a disclaimer that there are only 4 airports. My response was from others above making unfair comparisons to both sims. I don't doubt XP10 can be what FSX is now, however it needs mentioning so others don't invest or waste their money on the current version.

 

Down the road there will be XP11, 12, etc. they may have what most aviation enthusiasts are looking for, just not now. Singing high praises for XP10 would be pre-mature regardless of flight dynamics or detailed scenery.

 

Michael

Madness Software

[Flamin_Squirrel 71]

Even FSX's ones have poor flight models.

 

 

Mohamed Adnane SALHANI

 

The default FSX Cessna 172 isn't bad. Too sensitive in pitch, but otherwise not a bad representation of the real thing IMO.

 

I've tried XP and found the flight models to be a complete joke. However, it is still being supported, while FSX is old, badly writen and slow. I'll certainly keep my eye on XP and wouldn't think twice about making the switch once they have ironed out the current issues.

[sadnane 0]

 

I've tried XP and found the flight models to be a complete joke

 

 

I do agree!! and to me it's the most "erratic" thing about X-Plane : great flight modeling process (Blade Element Theory) with many but poorly designed aircrafts that simply dont do justice to it! you can check out IXEG's blog and read about how they managed to write custom plugins to enhance the flight model. Of course this forum is about PMDG but the point to me is that they should emphasize on improving the flight model since the systems are already modeled (Roberts talked about converting an already existing airplane to XP platform).

 

Mohamed Adnane SALHANI

[AAN1718A 20]

 

Uhmm what, X plane 10 includes about as many airports as FSX does.



Sure, most of them don't have airport buildings and such stuff, but almost all of those in FSX are completely generic and thus not any better.

 

At least there are runways to land on