Looking to jump from the FSX ship

[Kattz 132]

Everyone keeps talking about OOM, but I've NEVER had an OOM. 

[jcomm 5,939]

Then again, Microsoft will probably pick up "Flight" again and make it what it should have been, before that happens ;-)

 

I ear you!!!!  MS FLIGHT started it all again (in flightsimming) for me last year, and I still hope it will get picked up by some wise guy / enterprise one day....

 

 

A real plane is able to slip (like in X-Plane, but not FSX), it may fall from the sky when entering the turbulences behind a 747

 

Nope, both can actually hapen in FSX. Slips for sure, as well as skids... Regarding wake turb, you can use one of the add-ons that simulates it ...

 

For the ultimate flight dynamics model, there's one and only one right now - DCS World! That one is indeed - ULTRA REALISTIC! I got tired of trying to find something wrong with that sim and particularly the p51d I use the most. It's simply AMAZING!

 

As far as using more than one sim, I am using DCS, FG 2.10 (far from being at the level of a commercial product... but it's for free!) and enjoying FSX Gold in DX10 compatibility mode, at almost full settings, with plausible World any place you go, great add-on aircraft with sophisticated systems if you look for it, better default ATC and certainly AI too, great weather effects using a good weather injector, including weather for soaring too, with more sophisticated thermal and orographic models than those used by XP10.

 

X-Plane's future can make me change my oppinion, but the present focus of attention for future development ruined my expectations for this sim. Apparently, none of the FDM, systems, weather, plausible World problems I identified and reported will get fixed / addressed... It will be great to have better autogen, and AI, but I have that already in FSX Gold, and it's perfectly suficient for me right now.

 

Yes, night fying looks great in X-Plane, and turbulence / windshear effects are better than in FSX too. I miss those...

[Anxu00 176]

Everyone keeps talking about OOM, but I've NEVER had an OOM. 

My OOM is caused by scenery add-ons and who knows what else add-ons.  You certainly can set FSX up to never have OOM, which is what I am now by setting the lowest setting for my sceneries, turn down AI etc.  My FSX is now very stable without having to go the P3D route, and I will look at add-ons with a very careful eye.  The FSX 3rd party developers are all testing their products in isolation, the problem happens when many of them are in use in the same area or close to each other.  I am using both XP10 and FSX.  I am waiting for XP10 to grow up.

[airlinejets 709]

 

As far as using more than one sim, I am using DCS, FG 2.10 (far from being at the level of a commercial product... but it's for free!) and enjoying FSX Gold in DX10 compatibility mode, at almost full settings, with plausible World any place you go, great add-on aircraft with sophisticated systems if you look for it, better default ATC and certainly AI too, great weather effects using a good weather injector, including weather for soaring too, with more sophisticated thermal and orographic models than those used by XP10.

 

So, you don't use X-Plane any more?

[jcomm 5,939]

So, you don't use X-Plane any more?

 

That's right :-/  

I kept the box, just in case something, some miracle, happens before XP11 is announced.

 

I have to accept the oppinion of those who think that my requests aren't really important, Austin included, who - I have to be honest about and recognize as an example of good user support - has allways replied to all of my emails. The only problem is that his replies weren't satisfactory to me, and the focus of attention is far from including any of the issues I have reported and really spoil my experience with XP10, just as some did with XP8... (well, two got considered - the turbulence and wind shear effects due to incorrect interpretaion of some METAR strings, fixed by 10.11, if I'm not wrong, and now some rw lighting systems at some airports which I believe will reappear in the next beta...)

 

I can't really get accustomed to using unrealistic control inputs while taxiing / taking off under faint winds, when changing power on a prop aircraft, etc... Unless I use artificial stability, and I have posted here in other threads possible solutions to somehow overcome / lessen  these unrealistic behaviour, I can't find a feel that makes more sense to me,  because using AS rises other problems unfortunately... I don't like to feel that my control are stiff and not affected by the forces acting on them during flight or even while not airborne, unless I am flying an F-22 or an Airbus.... This, even if one takes care to configure control sensitivity, makes control inputs allways cause abrupt / irrealistic changes in your flight path, unless, again, you use control phase-out, which isn't meant to be used for that purpose...or huge RoGs... I don't like to start a flight from an aerodrome, choosing the date and time knowing that daylight is still visible there in RL, and find a pitch dark night waiting for me in the simulator... I don't like going to the Map view and finding that I can't see beyond the current scenery tile... and I don't like someone to suggest me that I could do the job using an external device (an  iPad or something I really can't and don't want to spend my money in, even more if just to be able to do things that should be possible within the simulator itself...), etc...

[airlinejets 709]

 

That's right :-/

I kept the box, just in case something, some miracle, happens before XP11 is announced.

I certainly hope positive change comes along by the time 10.30 is released. Who knows, maybe Austin will have a change of heart and reconsider his position on your (probably many others too) feature/issues requests.

[Gypsy Pilot 29]

When comparing FSX without the addon's to XP10-64 I have to give the nod to XP10-64 just because of the door that a 64 bit system opens.  It ends the OOM problem for developers.

 

Let's face it, FSX without addons looks like a piece of crap video game and not a flight sim.  It takes several hundreds of dollars to make it look good and then another couple of thousand in equipment to make it all run right.  After spending all of that money and time tweaking my system, once again, I am running into that dreaded OOM message that only dumbing down my scenery/weather addons will cure.

 

I finally got my frame rate to be acceptable but now I am running out of memory only because FSX/P3D are 32 bit systems.  A new computer will not solve this, only a new sim will.  

 

Looky here, there is a new baby in town called XP10-64 bit that will allow all of my installed memory to be used.  At long last, hope.

 

I hate change. I really hate to abandon something that I have spent so much time and money on but sometimes it is forced upon us.  If it wasn't for FTX/Orbx and Misty Moorings I wouldn't be suffering from the pain that my decision to migrate to XP10 is causing.  My fervent hope is that John V and the crew at Orbx will start to support XP10, it really needs it.  If they don't I am sure that somebody just as talented will step in.

 

I am sure that given time XP10 will have scenery packages that will equal FSX in quality and they will run without memory problems.  The platform is there, all it needs is the developers to use it.

 

The thing that solidified my decision was the following interview.  Please watch both part 1 and 2 to get the full story.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_471823&feature=iv&src_vid=KmdiQcybhLw&v=goY_QEkBow0

 

Well now all I have to do is save my pennies, purchase a fast hard drive to mount it on, buy the sim, learn a new UI, Blender, Plane Maker, and I will be set to go.  I am just 76 now so I should have enough time left to do it.

 

Wish  me luck.

 

Dale "Gypsy Pilot" Evans.

 

[jcomm 5,939]

Well now all I have to do is save my pennies, purchase a fast hard drive to mount it on, buy the sim, learn a new UI, Blender, Plane Maker, and I will be set to go.  I am just 76 now so I should have enough time left to do it.

 

Dale,

 

1) As far as the machine part goes, what makes you think that your machine, capable of running FSX, won't run XP10 64 bit? What OS are you running?

2) As far as getting XP10 goes, you pay the postal charges (from Portugal) and I will be glad to offer you my Global Edition metal box - Aerosoft edition!  

Use PM should you be interested ;-)

[CarlosF 1,241]

jcomm, on 12 Mar 2013 - 08:42, said:

I kept the box, just in case something, some miracle, happens before XP11 is announced.

I have always found your posts very interesting jcomm, very rich in terms of technical information. But don't get discouraged, I too hope Austin and his team DO integrate all those much needed technical goodies you would like in it as these will benefit all of us simmers.

 

I too would like some of them addressed, like seasons, land class, ATC and autogen among others, but being a programmer myself (manufacturing and medical market) I can understand the priorities LR may have on their lists (I'm pretty sure it's a BIG list) that is based on customer feedback.

 

So again, don't get discouraged and hang on, XP will get better and better.

 

Keep those rich tech comments coming, I've learned a few things just by reading them.

 

Carlos

[airlinejets 709]

 

My fervent hope is that John V and the crew at Orbx will start to support XP10, it really needs it. If they don't I am sure that somebody just as talented will step in.

 

Hi Dale,

 

I doubt Orbx will be making the switch but as you pointed out, there are other talents out there. My sincere hope is now that 64 bit XPX is out, we'll see an influx of new add-on developers surface. The need is there and hardly any competition.

 

The real problem with the X-Plane franchise is that they never release a finished product. This could explain why developers are reluctant to join the party.

[jcomm 5,939]

Thx for the kind words Carlos!

And I will try to keep in touch with it - there is allways the demo version to test!

 

I'm sure XP10 will get better, but, for the time being I am not being able to give it the best use... Dale, OTOH, might really find it smoother, and in some ways better than his FSX + Add-ons platform. 

 

I mantain my offer of course ;-) Dale 

[Gypsy Pilot 29]

Dale,

 

1) As far as the machine part goes, what makes you think that your machine, capable of running FSX, won't run XP10 64 bit? What OS are you running?

2) As far as getting XP10 goes, you pay the postal charges (from Portugal) and I will be glad to offer you my Global Edition metal box - Aerosoft edition!  

Use PM should you be interested ;-)

 

My computer is quite capable of running XP10.  My machine is an i7 running at 3.2 Ghz and holds 30fps over most scenery.  I want the HD because I like my sims on their own drive.  

Thanks for the software off but I'll have to pass.

~~ Dale ~~

[ryanbatc 12,857]

Hello... I think I can comment because I'm using both (but using FSX more).

 

I bought the regional pack (North America only) about a month ago.  I've got my controllers all setup fine but still tinkering with scenery/rendering settings.  Mainly I'm flying XP10 x64 at night.  I feel the night atmosphere is far superior to what FSX has to offer me.  And that's about all.  I've found myself going back to FSX for the daytime flying, addon scenery/planes.  XP10, in the day doesn't feel right.  Lots of random blocks of buildings and too much "green" areas in big cities.  There are some nice addons at Simheaven.de that add photobackdrops which help eliminate the green areas.  But then the autogen doesn't match up.

 

I'm also not having a good time with the horrible click spots in XP addons.  Even the really good ones, where you can click and drag the knob, leave much to be desired compared to FSX.  It's so frustrating I recently attempted to use my iphone as a comm panel with some success.  I really miss how FSX did clickspots in comparison with XP.  If I had a hardware radio stack it would help oodles.

 

The weather in XP is about on par with FSX, but only if I'm using my payware OPUS module.  Against stock FSX it easily wins.

 

Finally like I said above I've had to tinker and tinker (no tweaking in XP whhhat?) with rendering settings:  Do I want fps or eye candy?  At night sometimes my fps drop to single digits and I don't know why.  A lot of guys are getting smooth 60 fps.  But any time I go to big cities, they drop, sort of like how FSX used to with older PC's.  Hopefully I can find a happy medium some day.

 

And the night flying scene.  Yes, it's just as good as it looks in the screen shots and YT videos.  It feels like real life flying.  I even got lost on a recent VFR flight hehe.  So, I'll be using XP10 at night-only for now.  Maybe they can fix the land use tiles and populate cities better in the future.  And fix those clickspots.  If the clickspots were fixed I'd be flying it a lot more often.

 

For now I'm using both and I suggest you do too until you can part with your FSX addons.

[uwespeed 497]

Same procedure as every .... Meanwhile I think LAdamson is a bot :lol: . (Almost) every time after a positive post about X-Plane, he jumps automatically in (probably triggered by some keywords). Did you ever hear of ELIZA?

As to "slips", RealAir simulations (10 years or more,ago & for MSFS) became well known for their aircraft slipping ability, much before X-Plane could even roll or loop inverted & not totally loose it.

Well ... you're right .... insofar that there is one single plane in FSX that can do such "magic" things which more or less every real plane can do, like as well in XP - because that's a feature of X-Plane (for all aircraft) and not of this one and only aircraft which was tuned to do so in FSX.

From what I've heard, X-Plane doesn't model wake vortices (turbulence) beyond the model itself. Will it really knock a following airplane out of the sky. I've seen a video of a X-Plane Cessna 172 towing a 747 around the sky. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of...

I have heard from the uncle of my girlfriends father neighbour that ...
Ok, first of all you aren't really able to fly with a Cessna behind a 747 (for a longer time) because of their different speeds. I only wanted to describe, that there are wake turbulences in X-Plane.
When I tried for the first time the built in air-to-air-refuelling in XP (to be honest, I don't remember if it was XP9 or even XP8, which is around 7 or 8 years ago), I thought something is defective. I restarted XP but the fighter plane still bounced behind the tanker. After some thinking and research I found out that this is the effect of the wake turbulences.

And I have not only seen, but experienced myself in FSX: flying with an ultralight in the worst thunderstorm, and nothing happended - it bounced very little around like a sailboat on a lake with almost no wind.

Anyway, I'm a pilot, ...

Me too. Ok, I must admit, I was a pilot (abandonned it due to lack of time)

 

 

Regarding the "wrong" landuse data, which some people are complaining about: some months ago I did a flight in a region where I have photoscenery (Germany). At the edge of the photoscenery - inevitably  - the default XP landuse data begins. And I was impressed how correct the data is - see screenshots below.

 

 

I assume that the available landuse data in Germany (and Western Europe in general?) is quite good, what might not be the case in some other regions of the world. Nevertheless the default XP landuse data is far superior to default FSX landuse data. Without having a fully pimped and accordingly expensive FSX to hand, I still think that the default XP data is not worse than in a pimped FSX, although the pimped FSX might look nicer and more correct (due to the textures?) but not necessarily be more correct.

As an FS user for many years before switching to XP, I think FS (in many, but of course not all, aspects) is really good in giving the impression to be correct, without really doing so. Well ... that's my opinion ... others might have a different view :rolleyes: .
When you think about how many people were involved into development of MSFS and for how many years (around 25, 1982-2006), the default FS is really horrible. XP has fewer manpower and "only" about 20 years of development (1993-2013). Nevertheless many aspects (of course not all) in default XP are on par or even superior even with a fully pimped FSX (lets think about mesh, roads, weather/turbulences, slipping a plane, icing conditions, ...). On the other hand ATC in XP is not so good in XP, AI as well, ... If you want to have really good and realistic ATC and AI, you have to fly online, in FS as well as in XP.

 

By the way, about one year ago I was in a full flight simulator for a full hour, and there was no ATC, no AI at all, the scenery was very very very poor. Only a few airports have buildings, the cities are only a texture, no buildings, no trees, ... Still it is a fully "perfect" flight sim - of course the motion compensates a lot.
Furthermore, the menus in XP resemble in many aspects to a full flight sim, e.g. you are able to be placed in the correct position some miles away of a runway to practice landings etc. etc.

But in the end, every user has to decide for him-/herself which features are more important to him/her.

And ... finally, according to John Maynard Keynes, "In the long run we are all dead", so ... no reason to worry too much about this flightsim thingy. Spring is coming soon with nice warm weather ... one reason more to go out, breathe some fresh air ...

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

Great post uwespeed ! :lol: