From 1-10, How would you rate this Sim?

[LeeL 272]

 

 

Haha worth a try :lol: at least it would be domestic shipping

 

 

I'm running alongside the bandwagon...thinking about getting on but just not sure yet, there's just things I don't want to lose

 

 

I don't understand... There's no part of X-plane that forces you to uninstall FSX? You can perfectly run both on your computer. Have it available once something you want to check out comes out or when a new update arrives.

Yeah and I will use both Prepar3d and XP. It'll be good to have choice.

 

Lee

[jcomm 5,939]

Yeah and I will use both Prepar3d and XP. It'll be good to have choice.

 

Lee

 

Good choice - you'll have the best of two Worlds :-)  I've been doing the same with DCS World and LM p3d, but it's converging to a single sim install with DCS World...  I seldom start p3d, and each time I do it I can easily recall why I like DCS that much :-)

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

I give it an 8.37

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

.37 :blink:  :unsure:  :Thinking:  :lol:  :lol:

[FlyBaby 659]

Considering the $80 I spent and the expectations that came along with that price tag, I rate XP10 a 5 out of 10. I was not able to run it consistently for almost 6 months due to the issues with the software (i have a fairly high end machine). Beyond that, the product was (and still is) incomplete. IMO...having a consumer pay you $80 to be your beta tester is consumer fraud.

 

 

 

I give XP10 a 5 (instead of 0) because of the helicopter low level flying I can do now...after many updates. The plausible world (no popup scenery) works wonders for my Heli fix....I only use XP10 for helicopters. As for planes, thankfully, FSX still gets the job done.

 

[uwespeed 497]

Is realistic AI, ATC, default airports, realistic clouds, weather, seasons really worth 1-2 points.  It seems to me those things are about 40-50% of any good sim.  So realistically missing all those things how can XP be any more than a 5-6 right now?

 

Now, that’s a REALLY, REALLY good question. What is realistic? Realistic LOOKING or realistic BEHAVIOUR? As long as people are judging something only by the look, i.e. from screenshots (or photos, e.g. “this (real) car is rubbish, I have seen photos of it”), but not having tried it themselves intensively (e.g. test drive, test flying), a realistic rating isn’t possible, right?

Coming back to “What is realistic? Realistic LOOKING or realistic BEHAVIOUR?”. The one sim is more on the one side, the other one on the other side (guess which one is “the one sim” and which one is “the other” :lol: ). Would you care for some examples?

 

Seasonal textures

FSX has them - great. When you are landing and braking in winter with rain and temperatures below zero degrees Celsius (i.e. icy runway) - what happens? Nothing - insofar that the stopping distance is pretty the same as in dry conditions.

X-Plane doesn't have them (yet). But is has seasons. Huh??? When you are landing and braking in winter with rain and temperatures below zero degrees Celsius (i.e. icy runway) - what happens? Nothing - insofar that the braking effect is almost "nothing", i.e. you have a (very) slippery runway and the stopping distance is much longer.

Conclusion: In FSX it LOOKS like winter, but it isn't winter - in XP it doesn't look like winter, but it IS winter. Well ... each to his own :rolleyes:, I can only speak for myself - I prefer the real behaviour above real look.

 

Clouds

In FSX they look quite nice - agreed. When you fly into them (into a thunderstorm, red area in the weather radar) - what happens? Nothing - or let's say a little bit, the plane is rocking.

In XP they sometimes don't look so nice - agreed. When you fly into them (into a thunderstorm, red area in the weather radar) - what happens? Wooooo - you will fall from the sky.

Conclusion: In FSX the clouds look nice and maybe like real, the behavior within them is ... uhm ... suboptimal. In XP they might look not so extremely real, the behaviour within them is ... real. Well ... each to his own, I can only speak for myself - see above :rolleyes:.

 

 

 

 

A clarification about this "Beta" thingy: if someone is under the impression, that the current stage of XP10 (namely XP10.21) is still beta, then FSX is also beta since years. Huh?

Ok ... well, XP10.0 was released by end of Nov. 2011 as a beta. After some weeks in beta, it became stable. Some weeks later, XP10.01 was released as beta (XP10.0 was still stable) with some new features and bug fixes and became stable a little bit later. Then again, later XP10.02 was released as beta (XP10.01 was still stable) and became stable later on. And so on, and so on. I.e. there is always a stable release. No one is forced to use the beta.

Like with FSX. There, later on came SP1 and SP2 ... The only difference is the time between the so called "stable" releases.

By the way, no software is ever finished *, not X-Plane, not Linux, not, Windows - why else are there always updates?

 

* Sorry, there is one software (amongst others) which is "finished", you know which one I mean :lol:. "Finished" or "stable" doesn't mean perfect or bug free, though ... "Stable" can even be very bad in some cases, if this software isn't developed further .

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

Considering the $80 I spent and the expectations that came along with that price tag, I rate XP10 a 5 out of 10. I was not able to run it consistently for almost 6 months due to the issues with the software (i have a fairly high end machine). Beyond that, the product was (and still is) incomplete. IMO...having a consumer pay you $80 to be your beta tester is consumer fraud.

 

 

 

I give XP10 a 5 (instead of 0) because of the helicopter low level flying I can do now...after many updates. The plausible world (no popup scenery) works wonders for my Heli fix....I only use XP10 for helicopters. As for planes, thankfully, FSX still gets the job done.

almost every payware is a beta nowadays:  captainsim, blackbox Airbus, aerosoft Airbus, etc. etc.  Everything gets updated or patched after we buy it :good:

[jcomm 5,939]

@uwespeed:

 

I take my hat of to your observations regarding the weather effects in X-Plane vs FSX (although I've just "arrived" LPPT in an airbus (AXE) under stormy weather, with as2012 feeding rw weather, and it's a lot better than default, also because LM p3d is already better than fsx for a start, but both far from XP10!!!!)  You are right on everything you wrote, and I sometimes forget about some of it, and I really shouldn't!!!

 

Thx for reminding me ;-)

[LAdamson 240]

I'd most likely stay out of the red weather area anyway. Used satellie weather for real flight for many years.

 

Will have to see if XP10 builds up those winter snow banks along the runway edges to prevent landing there........like in Wild Alaska:)

 

I do like the looks of snow. Must admit I'm not thrilled about XP clouds. Perhaps they'll becoming along later.

[airlinejets 709]

 

 

Perhaps they'll becoming along later.

 

I'd really be surprised if Tim (REX) hasn't taken a look at the clouds and weather in X-Plane 10. He'd have absolutely no competition and he's mastered the technique.

[uwespeed 497]

@uwespeed:

 

I take my hat of to your observations regarding the weather effects in X-Plane vs FSX (although I've just "arrived" LPPT in an airbus (AXE) under stormy weather, with as2012 feeding rw weather, and it's a lot better than default, also because LM p3d is already better than fsx for a start, but both far from XP10!!!!)  You are right on everything you wrote, and I sometimes forget about some of it, and I really shouldn't!!!

 

Thx for reminding me ;-)

 

I'd most likely stay out of the red weather area anyway.

 

Well ... that's what I call "real realism"  :wub:  - simulating reality.

[Geofa 108]

My rating just went from 5.5 to 7.5. After Pirata gave me a hint on how to get 32 bit not to immediately crash, finding I could program my hardware desktopaviator garmin 430/540 software painlessly and easily to work (unlike fsx that took me 10 days to figure out) I am happily training with a stable good performing fm (since 10.2) and flying ifr gps approaches on a rw gps unit in the sim-what I need right now in my flying career. This is the best it has ever been in a sim for this and for my needs I am more than a happy camper and now xplane will be for sure taking 95% of my time.

 

If only I could get good high res photoscenery for Southern California, and of course the above mentioned missing features it could get near a ten. If 32 bit is not continued at some point and there is no rw working gps such as Reality Xp's though that will always be a deal breaker for me-but for now I am ecstatic!.

[MdMax 233]

My rating: 8.8

[CyberMike 18]

Flew yesterday Carenado's SR22 GTSX in FSX and it looks much better than anything in xp10.-

 

Well. I suppose because Austin is sitting behind an ancient Mac that still uses OpenGL 2.0 we all have to cope

with graphics from 10 years ago.

 

2 years ago I'd have rated 8 now only 6 also because the new villages, roads etc. mostly look completely displaced

and eat all of my GPU. If I disable it also my airport buildings are gone.-

 

Also I don't think the new clouds look any better etc....

[GoranM 3,772]

Flew yesterday Carenado's SR22 GTSX in FSX and it looks much better than anything in xp10.-

 

 

Does that include your own payware, Michael?

http://x-plane.sgier.com/

[Geofa 108]

I'm just gonna make a comment on IMac-since I bought my first one in January (imac)and was expecting lots.

It crashes many more times than any pc I've had-and it is slower than my almost 4 year old pc.

 

On the plus side it looks very space age-wish pc makers had the same esthetics.

 

I haven't had it on in a month-guess  should probably boot it up so it can crash again.