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

[CyberMike 18]

Goran, I meant the environment reflections etc. Not sure if OpenGL 2.0, which apparently Mac users are still stuck to, could handle that.

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

Goran, I meant the environment reflections etc. Not sure if OpenGL 2.0, which apparently Mac users are still stuck to, could handle that.

FSX has no HDR but it still looks ok......sometimes :lol:

[glida 4]

As a "as real as it get's" fanatic I rate it with 8.81657 , especially after I've read about the "seasons" and the icy runways (I didn't know about this). I also like the behaviour of the aircraft within the clouds (I was aware of this, though). Not to mention flying at night with HDR and a lot of other good features.

 

I bought XP10 around half a year ago, and also tried FSX afterwards, because "everyone" says, it is far superior - but I was disappointed about its lack of realism regarding the flying features/parameters.

[anthony_d 32]

When I bought x-plane at version 10.02 I'd have rated it a 6

 

At the present time, I'll give it a 6.5.  I think that gives a measure of progress for you.  Most of that progress I'll say can be measured in 3rd party contributions like the Triple7 and DC3.

 

What do I think is missing to give it an 8 or 9?  A living, breathing crowdsourced ecosystem that gives us user contributed airports, landmarks and the like.  Now I'm thinking that the latest WED program will help with that.  The ability to export direct to Robin Peel could be the key to igniting this ecosystem.  What X-plane needs is a tremendous pace of change and expectation.

 

That, and the ability to see a far distance from high up.  Though I'm not holding my breath on that.

 

On balance though, I'm getting less excited and spending less time on it.  Things on my to-do list like upgrading my system to the latest and greatest GTX640 and purchasing that 727 just get put off.  The reason?  That air of expectation and excitement just seems to be getting thin.

[Tierborn 188]

Thanks Michel, best advice yet!!!!  Don't rate just enjoy

 

This would be a first ... everything else in our world is rated, so why not XP10.   Sounds to me like you guys don't really think it would rate well, so lets just say don't rate it.  When XP11 is what we are all looking for, I guarantee folks will be sayhing rate it against any sim on the market (past or present)!

[evanbanalian 8]

I would say 6 for now,  I have top of the line PC and still can't get a decent FPS, ground effects on GA airplane is way over done they need to be more stable. I tried it in LA area where I do my real flying and FSX but the scenery is not accurate and as nice as FSX, empty airports.... never tried ATC, don't know about traffic. I hope it gets better soon.

[jcomm 5,939]

I'm keeping it at 7, I'm affraid...

 

The TorqueFix was a great happening, but it just revealled other flaw to me :-(

[MarkSC 122]

I've only used the demo, but I give it a 5. It took over an hour to set up my yoke, and there were still issues. Too many CTDs on start up (way more than FSX--I don't get why so many users brag about the stability) and the graphics still strike me as computer generated and not realistic. I really want to like it. I like tinkering and technology and would be willing to spend if the sim were good. I'll keep monitoring the progress in this forum.

 

 

[jcomm 5,939]

Mark, CTDs on X-Plane10 it's a really rare thing to happen :-/ , just as in P3D, at least for me...

 

My rig is a simple i5 2500 @ 3,3 GHZ, GTX 650 Ti 1GB DDR5 graphics card, with 16GB DDR3 RAM, running win7 home premium 64 bit, and I run P3D, X-Plane 10 and DCS World ( and ELITE, but that one is really light... ) without experiencing crashes.

 

Regarding the configuration menus, it's clearly personal because I find it a lot more intuitive and powerfull than P3D, and DCS is a nightmare for me :-/

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

I've only used the demo, but I give it a 5. It took over an hour to set up my yoke, and there were still issues. Too many CTDs on start up (way more than FSX--I don't get why so many users brag about the stability) and the graphics still strike me as computer generated and not realistic. I really want to like it. I like tinkering and technology and would be willing to spend if the sim were good. I'll keep monitoring the progress in this forum.

no CTD's for me, your xp setup and pc setup were off. 

[ryanbatc 12,865]

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.

.

So do tell... Because I already told myself if I'm going to stay with XP that I'd go entirely 64bit.

 

32bit OOMs like crazy and I'm not about to turn down sliders while making SoCal look like a rural city.

 

That being said I give XP10.22 a 6. It's got some great things it brings to the table.

HDR at night

Constantly developed sim

64bit

Addons just starting to have their hay day

 

The GUI doesn't bother me... It did at first but it's pretty simple once you use it. It did take me a long time to set things up for the first time. If we had a YT tutorial it would help people become acclimated.

 

The biggest frustration is the damn clickspots. I fly with TIR so essentially everytime I want to click in the VC I must pause TIR. A minority of addons have the click and drag which helps a lot. Along those lines most planes autopilot ALT button scrolls in units of 1's.... Which means reaching a target takes forever.

 

Since clicking is important to me (I don't have physical knobs and switches) I deduct at least 30% for this major inconvieince. The other 10% is no seasons, poor land use data implementation, poor weather engine and cloud textures.

 

Flying is decent but still not realistic to me in certain planes. Others do extremely well.

[PingPong 60]

Right now I give it a 7.5 , it does what I want from a sim very well.  Specifically GA simming VFR mainly, with some IFR sessions for practice.

 

I like:

 

G2XPL --- make photoscenery as detailed as you want for any place you want, add some autogen on top and the world outside the cockpit looks great.  No Blurries.

 

GA addons are getting really good.

 

The new airport design contest is really filling out some parts of the world, I fear it will be at least a year before the contest fills out the majority of the US or Europe, but at least it's progressing.

 

Access to the programmers, I have had direct communication with Austin and Ben, they have both responded to my questions, and the answers come straight from the horse's mouth.

 

I don't like:

Crashes: I still get them from OpenGL timeouts and in the nvidia driver itself, primarily because I use high settings and high resolution photoscenery

 

Saitek Flight instrument panels are not fully functional, some one is working on a driver

 

The GPS: seriously, this needs to be updated visually, it's completely unusable.

 

Clouds still kill my performance, I have a GTX titan, and it still gets stymied by them.

 

I am neutral about:

 

The UI, it's different sure, but people the same who will go and learn how to program an FMC still complain about this interface...seems kind of silly to me.

 

ATC,  No "hard-core" FSX simmers use the default ATC.  If you want realistic ATC, just go on Vatsim. 

 

Heavy Jet Operations, I don't do any of it, so I can't comment about it.

 

On the whole XPX is really good FOR ME, for what I do, but obviously others will differ.

[Airfighter 150]

The GPS: seriously, this needs to be updated visually, it's completely unusable. 

 

Tom Kyler who works with Laminar, posted this: http://forums.x-pilot.com/topic/5529-possible-to-integrate-kln90b-into-the-mu2-panel/?p=57694

[anthony_d 32]

My vote would be to replace the rather poor GNS430 rendition with a much better rendition of a more upto date model (e.g. GTN650).

 

The excellent and customisable AI traffic in the other simulators were major features that I very much miss...... well,  actually that part is addressed by the ClassicJetSims "World Traffic" addon.  

What I meant to say that what I miss was the enormous amount of support for the AI traffic system.  My airports were alive and thriving whereever I went with the actual local airlines that visited that particular airport.  So what I would like to see would be a strong industry/community build up around the world traffic tool..... but that doesn't look like happening soon.

[pryoski 84]

8.5 for me  ... and I feel very positive about the future of the GPS and hte future of my hobby.