To be more specific Andras, winter was my goal  

 

I have grown to love the default textures and see how they come full circle with your mesh......

 

 

When you can suspend the belief of sitting in front of a computer you will have a good all around simulation. Take me as an example, I am a casual simmer, I like the visual aspects of the simulation genre. Take the mecahnical and visual mix in some FPS and you will perform magic.

 

That's the hook for me too; a visually plausible world that gives me the feeling of being there.

 

Until now the pinnacle of this for me was MS Flight, but I've just had a flight taking off west from Telluride into the wind and rain in my Jetstream with raindrops, crisp visuals thanks to new NVidia Inspector settings, Sabach's HD cloud textures, AlpilotX's HD mesh, 10.25 textures, and had one of the most immersive flights ever.

 

And while I was enjoying the feeling of being there, I kept thinking with your new cloud / sky textures, Alpilot's new HDv2 mesh, and dsf recuts coming soon, it's actually going to get even better.

 

Getting happier by the day to have made the switch to XPlane.

Which brings up a good point scotchegg, there is plenty going on with X-Plane you just need to know where to look......

 

For instance there is a fix for the blurry textures at altitude:

 

http://isdg.com.au/scenery-add-ons/

 

(bottom of page)

 

I see people complaining about this often and I need to struggle to find it.......

 

 

Until now the pinnacle of this for me was MS Flight,

 

I hear you, how I do... :-(

 

MS FLIGHT was my biggest simmer deception ....

As you all know - by now are tired of knowing :-) - I also use ELITE. I was asked to prepare some demonstration for the use of navaids, approach procedures and ILS categories under adverse weather conditions for my colleagues at the met office working as aviation meteorologists.

 

I spent a few hours trying tho choose the best option. I have ELITE v8.6 with the EUR 1 Genview Database, and that includes Portugal. ELITE's weather menu is very complete, and specially suited for IFR training scenarios, but both ELITE and X-Plane 10 show a curtain when you set very low visibility, so, there is really no advantage of ELITE over X-plane here, and, no other simulator ( unless I spend money on an add-on ) provides such useful weather options like cat I, II and III, prec and non-prec approaches, and the placement of the aircraft on short or long final.

 

I will use X-Plane 10 for my demo, and I am sure they'll also like to see Lisbon in it ZL17 scenery version :-)

 

I also am happily experiencing the graphical benefits of using the graphics with HDR ON, since this morning after following Schotchegg's suggestion :-) without a big impact on my frames ( they're not great, but they're more than enough ...)

I don't see it as a danger, but rather as an opportunity to make great pressure on Laminar Research to make much needed improvements to X-Plane.

 

What do you think the switching "FSX'ers" would pressure for? We all know they'll primarily demand seasonal textures, better urban scenery, better weather/environment depiction, better AI and ATC, a better depiction of scenery from hi altitude.

 

These are all aspects where default FSX is still _vastly ahead_ of default X-Plane, and _all_ of them are of paramount importance in order to have a realistic immersion.

 

Take the infamous "torque bug": probably it's thanks to the increasing pressure of FSX'ers coming to X-Plane and complaining about it, that the discussion has became more urgent so that Austin has finally decided to tackle it.

I agree with your last line except find your comment of " pressure of FSX' ers" intersting and perhaps the same as the reaction to "froogle" who I also have never heard of.

 

I have owned every version of xplane since version 3, created freeware for various versions of it in its history, haven't really used FSX for 4 years except for an occasional look, and have used just about every flight sim since 1981 including beta testing several that we're not in the fs series. As far as I know, Larry, and jcomm and others who were in the torque debate likewise. How does that make us fsx'ers - other than at one time we used the sim, and perhaps still do. No one on any fs board ever labelled me an " xplaner" or a"flight unlimited" or a " flyer" even tough I used all of those sims concurrently at the time.

 

What I have seen since Internet boards for sims emerged is a willingness by some xplaners to always label those who found fault with anything about xplane as fser's-kinda the same defensive reaction some have to "froogle". Someone once said on a board, throwing a critic towards xplane is always taken as warmly as a stranger slapping your baby.

 

I agree with your post though-but critics of any sim are just a whole hearted attempt to make suggestions to make it better-and I've had plenty of suggestions for all of them, and yes when developers actually listen and make improvements it becomes a wonderful situation for all.

 

Personally if I had to choose a label I would much prefer a " pro pilot'er" -still the most innovative sim of all times IMHO. So in the future when labelled I would much prefer that title:)

 

The we against them attitude is a culture which I personally hope can change in xplane because I really see no benifits by keeping such a posture, and never have. As more and more make it the sim of their choice this will happen of its own accord.

The we against them attitude is a culture which I personally hope can change in xplane because I really see no benifits by keeping such a posture, and never have. As more and more make it the sim of their choice this will happen of its own accord.

 

Geoff, completely agree with you! :smile: That's the reason I enclosed the word "FSX'ers" with " ", because it was not meant as an "us vs them".

 

Regarding the torque bug issue, with the word "FSX'ers" I was not referring to you, Larry, etc., but rather to the general public of FSX users coming to X-Plane.

 

Reading the forums, one of the most frequent complaints about the flight model from people coming from FSX (and real pilots) was indeed the torque issue.

 

Now, although we know it's been long discussed from a "hard core" of users (i.e., us!), I think the increasing pressure of more people coming from FSX to X-Plane 10 and complaining about it, gave the decisive thrust in the debate for Austin to finally tackle it.

Reading the forums, one of the most frequent complaints about the flight model from people coming from FSX (and real pilots) was indeed the torque issue.

And the "X-Planers" just kept telling them to read up on torque. Check out Newton's law of physics, and all that.

Learn that aileron trim is your best friend.... :smile:

 

Just throwing a bit of kidding around here. I think I'll label myself as a Pro-Piloter too. It was the first sim, that put me into that "WOW" feeling, as far as flight simulation goes. In the meantime, I think the FSX versus the X-Plane camps are a bit silly. What I want, is just best the representation of actual GA flying that I can get. Afterall, GA was a big part of my life. I know that I'll have to pick and choose from several sims to do so. Same goes with the older piston aircraft. Perhaps a A2A Boeing Stratocruiser for FSX, or the B-25 for X-Plane.

And the "X-Planers" just kept telling them to read up on torque. Check out Newton's law of physics, and all that.

Learn that aileron trim is your best friend.... :smile:

 

I knew you needed to do the usual remark, while it was really not needed. Here, the issue was always discussed very thoroughly and with open mind by everybody.

I knew you needed to do the usual remark, while it was really not needed. Here, the issue was always discussed very thoroughly and with open mind by everybody.

You're right. I think I'll stick to R/C for awhile. For just $49, and your own transmitter, you can get a little helicopter with a full cyclic and collective, along with a 3 axis gyro stabilizer. That's no flybar, and no double rotor. Uses the same forces as a "full size", torque included. For around $89, it's the transmitter too. Perhaps the new CPU may be far into the future.

One thing I would worry about (worry for lack of a better word, I am not losing sleep) is if xplane gets a lot of users for 'free'

 

    Without competition and not having to work for the new users I don't see how much pressure actually gets applied to LR to make some change.   At worst they actually think it endorses how they do things.

 

     On the other hand, it may just be perfect, it may get a lot of people to try things and think the gulf in features is too much.  Once LR has seen that potential user base give it a go that could be the pressure they need to keep those customers.

 

 

    Without competition and not having to work for the new users I don't see how much pressure actually gets applied to LR to make some change.   At worst they actually think it endorses how they do things.

I always hear the word pressure as If it only depends on the amount of pressure that people put on Laminar to get some features. Laminar is not Microsoft, so they simply can't change the number of people that are working on a certain feature as fast as some people are thinking. In fact a huge jump in number of employee is a sure sign of a failed software project.. It always takes time to integrate new people4 into a project, so that the productivity in fact decreases  when you add new people.

So they can only switch when they look at a problem, at the expense of other problems that won't be solved or improved in the meantime.

 

So customers are really in no position to force them to do anything, since we simply don't know where the real roadblocks are. .

 

 

He acknowledges the importance of P3D v2, but also suggests that lack of clarity around the entertainment license could be a limiting factor.

 

Is he on the Beta of P3D V2, if not, how would he know or not know it's importance?

 

With a few exceptions, I honestly don't think this "license" issue is an issue to 97% of the folks interested in Flight Sims (there is NO legal recourse against the end consumer on how they choose to use it).  As P3D progresses the product they could reach a position where they could legally challenge the agreement with Microsoft as the code has change significantly enough to warrant a "different" product (or at the very least a change in the licensing agreement) that is no longer under ESP.  I doubt Microsoft would challenge it in court either (they don't have the money or interest ... their mobile engagement is sucking them dry).  At that point LM can sell it however they like ... and this is probably why LM haven't pursued getting an "entertainment" license from Microsoft, just a waste of money when it's no longer going to be needed.

 

PMDG isn't the only company producing high quality aircraft -- I don't see this as much leverage/influence to anyone supporting P3D's on going work.  And there is nothing to stop PMDG from providing a "professional" version of their products, or a "student" version of their products -- this is done by many other companies with no legal repercussions.

 

X-plane (LR) is trying to support 4 platforms with "a few" (I think 6 from last reports) developers ... good luck with moving that forward in a timely manner.  If LR's business plan (or lack of one) is the same, I'm willing to bet I'll be saying the exact same in 10 years from now ... XP has the potential to be better than P3D V7.0

 

As far as who Froogle is (never heard of the guy until now) -- 4000+ views isn't going to make much difference in the world of flight simulation.   But he either hasn't used FSX with 3rd party add-on or is blind ... FSX clearly has the visual advantage over X-plane ... why, because of 3rd party support (even 7 years after it ended).

 

I've tried to make many simple A to B flights in X-plane 10 be as good both visually and overall immersion as I could and I couldn't do it - FSX always was the better experience from start to end (GSX airport services, A2A C172, Traffic 360 AI, ATC, REX, GEX, FSGRW weather, MSE, and FSDT airports).  

 

XP does have promise, but I've been saying that for the past 10 years (and have kept supporting Austin's efforts and will continue to do so).  But XP is moving forward at a snails pace and they just aren't getting huge 3rd party support (for many reasons).

 

Given no more development from Microsoft in FSX for over 7 years and XP is still missing much and had the luxury to catch up yet didn't (again I think this is all about trying to support 4 platforms)?  Austin has no business strategy, he's admitted that in YouTube interviews -- he only plans a few months ahead.  I can only conclude Austin does his "own thing" and doesn't really care what anyone thinks and how he needs to plan in order to grow XP and make it become the future we all would like to see from a flight simulator.

 

Rob

 

 

Have you been living under a rock?!?!

 

I guess I must have been!

 

 

 

Froogle is only the cooliest FS genius out there!

 

I guess I'm the type who doesn't need to follow "cool" internet people. I prefer to form my own opinions.

I don't do Facebook or Twitter either.

 

X-plane (LR) is trying to support 4 platforms with "a few" (I think 6 from last reports) developers ... good luck with moving that forward in a timely manner.  If LR's business plan (or lack of one) is the same, I'm willing to bet I'll be saying the exact same in 10 years from now ... XP has the potential to be better than P3D V7.0

The number of plattforms isn't such a big problem. The use of OpenGL and its different use under MacOsX is a slight problem but everything else works more or less by itself in a suitable workflow. And in fact their small number of programmers simply mean that they don't need much money to operate.

If you want to really compare X-Plane to FSX You would have to install FSX without any plugins, otherwise it would be ridiculous. Simply look at the amount of money that you have to put into FSX to reach this level!, especially since X-Plane was never build to compete with FSX.

 

Instead the real problem for4 P3D will be how many plugins will remain compatible now and in the future? Every big improvement will more or less mean that you loose compatibility to FSX and you can bet that the plugin designers will charge youz for these changes!

The real business of P3D is in a military environment. P3D isn't such a huge project for LM either. While the enduser licences are a small bonus I am not really sure if LM is interested in the entertainment market that is rather small.

 

In fact one of the problems that X-Plane 10 really had was that they changed with X-Plane 10 many fundamental features so that they lost several capabilities of previous versions To make a useful comparison you have to look at what you get for your money if you start  new. And in this case X-Plane is in a much better swituation with its free HD mesh, photosceneries and OSM maps.

But wouldn't you agree that in order to grow or stay stable it should be competing with FSX? Something they've had ample time to do, XP should be head and shoulders adobe FSX by now both in a vanilla install and with addons but it simply isn't. Time will tell if LM missed an opportunity to create a monopoly.

 

I have XP, it has potential but right Noe can't take me away from FSX. Live the rain effects though. When the new SkyMAXX clouds come out I'll think I'll get those, JRollons jetstream and urbanmaxx (sp?)

 

What I think would really do it is if REX came out with an XP10 version

 

Lee

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk