OK, I`m shocked...

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Thanks for the reply... what the bollocks is all that about! 10 minutes, then there's no point in me downloading the demo...

 

There is one trick after your stick disconnects, is to click on Let AI control aircraft, and then observe more Sim flight time. Not a perfect situation, but will allow for more observation time...

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Thanks for the help fellas, appreciated. I have to say, I've seen some great stuff from Xplane and have to hold my hand up and say, what I have seen, is erm, better IMO than SOME of what FSX offers. But then again the eye candy is just  a small part of the whole simming experience and I don't want to be seduced purely on nice graphics and eye candy.

[CarlosF 1,241]

 

 

10 minutes

 

I think its 15min

[Murmur 3,944]

Thanks for the help fellas, appreciated. I have to say, I've seen some great stuff from Xplane and have to hold my hand up and say, what I have seen, is erm, better IMO than SOME of what FSX offers. But then again the eye candy is just  a small part of the whole simming experience and I don't want to be seduced purely on nice graphics and eye candy.

 

Since you're on the fence, I think it's wise to wait a couple of months. The new big release (10.30) should be out Q1 2014, we'll see what it brings to the table.

[Anxu00 176]

Can anyone who has experience with both the AXE and JarDesigns get more specific on the pros and cons of each?

jcomm is the best qualified to answer this.  I have used the AXE, now I only fly the NEO, but that's just my preference.  I don't have technical insight like jcomm.

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

I would use xplane 10 all the time, the only thing putting me off if the lack of airports. I just can't fly out of bare airports, especially my local EGNT. Also the lack of AI traffic. If those two things have been improved, ill load it back up. And then purchase sky max. Until then, I just can't bring myself to do it! (Also, track ir working better, like in fsx)

 

Ian

[horani 43]

Try these freeware for EGNT:

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=21015

or

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=20956

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

Wow! Thanks for that! At last!

 

Now I just need some good AI, and I will be VERY tempted to reinstall.... Is 10.25 better?

[RWFeldman 159]

Can I fly anywhere in the world to any airports with full textures? I may give i a try if so>

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I would use xplane 10 all the time, the only thing putting me off if the lack of airports. I just can't fly out of bare airports, especially my local EGNT. Also the lack of AI traffic. If those two things have been improved, ill load it back up. And then purchase sky max. Until then, I just can't bring myself to do it! (Also, track ir working better, like in fsx)

 

Ian

Ian, I think you might need to take a look at what I have installed in my copy. It would take you weeks to months to add all the great freeware and payware that is out there..and beleive me, it can look as good as anything ORBX puts out for FSX! Here's the link:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/428142-a-sampling-from-my-scenery-pakcfg-for-those-on-the-xpx-fence/

[hollow1slo 246]

Ooops donationware, sorry about that. I`ll sort it out later today :-) Such a quality work has to be respected...

 

While talking about the scenery, I actually have a couple of questions:

- is there a way to improve a scenery visibility distance when flying up high? It`s not a biggie, I can always inject some cloudy weather, but still...

- are there any known issues when combining Urbanmaxx and OSM data?

 

Thanks for any kind of info.

 

Regards,

Matej

 

Oh, and sorry about my poor English, I`m clearly not a native speaker.

Donated as promised...

 

Your work really is something special. It does the magic touch to XP10.

[uwespeed 497]

Unfortunately most of the people are first after eye candy and not what is really inside. I have seen (very) often - not only in the flight simulation universe, but other games, too - "Oooh, this looks so good, I must have it", "Looks fantastic, where can I get it?", etc.

 

The biggest turnoff for me in xp10 is the ai traffic, I wish there was more. But the biggest thing is no winter textures, or season change at all. If at least they put seasons into future updates, I would make the switch right away.

 

You're right insofar that you can't SEE seasons. But you will FEEL them, when flying XP.

What???  How? If you forget to turn on the anti-ice switches, you will fall from the sky. And you will have a much longer braking distance due to icy runways. Unortunately this can't bee illustrated in screenshots or videos - but seasons are definitely there ...

 

This is a general "problem" of X-Plane: there are many, many things you can't see in screenshots or videos, thus people believe they are not there - although they are simulated (but not visually). E.g. wake turbulences of the planes flying in front of you (try the air refuel "mission" in XP and you will see what I mean), slipping, ... and most important: it somehow feels like flying in the air and not on rai.. .

At least for me, it is more important having things simulated (even if not visible) than having things which are visible, but not simulated.

 

And some more (in my view) important features: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/411867-the-one-thing-i-want-from-x-plane-at-this-time/#entry2704551

 

[LAdamson 240]

Unfortunately most of the people are first after eye candy and not what is really inside. I have seen (very) often - not only in the flight simulation universe, but other games, too - "Oooh, this looks so good, I must have it", "Looks fantastic, where can I get it?", etc.

 

You're right insofar that you can't SEE seasons. But you will FEEL them, when flying XP.

What? How? If you forget to turn on the anti-ice switches, you will fall from the sky. And you will have a much longer braking distance due to icy runways. Unortunately this can't bee illustrated in screenshots or videos - but seasons are definitely there ...

 

 

This is a general "problem" of X-Plane: there are many, many things you can't see in screenshots or videos, thus people believe they are not there - although they are simulated (but not visually). E.g. wake turbulences of the planes flying in front of you (try the air refuel "mission" in XP and you will see what I mean), slipping, ... and most important: it somehow feels like flying in the air and not on rai.. .

At least for me, it is more important having things simulated (even if not visible) than having things which are visible, but not simulated.

 

And some more (in my view) important features: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/411867-the-one-thing-i-want-from-x-plane-at-this-time/#entry2704551

Looking back at your prior post with the link...........

 

We're back to the FSX "flying on rails" thing. IMO, it's still a bunch of bull. FSX defaults to a smooth flight. Some will get the impression that this is "flying on rails", after they start the X-Plane experience. I'll often see statements such as "FSX was apparently too easy. X-Plane is more challenging, it's more slippery, you have to stay on top of it," etc, etc.

 

What they're really experiencing is the incorrect X-Plane flight dynamic, which requires constant attention to trim out a left banking force. Better known as the "torque bug". A trimmed plane "should" feel like it's flying on rails. It should feel as though it's hardly moving, and the ground just drifts slowly by. It should have a lot more positive stability, than you'll often find in the incorrect X-Plane experience.........that will hopefully be fixed sometime in version 10.30. It's been wrong for years, and is somewhat removed by hidden trim and wing sections....when incorporated.

 

 

When encountering turbulence, it's different of course. In real life, we go out of our way to avoid thunderstorms. We don't try for the X-Plane scenario, that might shed a wing in imaginary flight. X-Plane also overdoes the icing effect for GA airplane engines. Much too often, it says carb ice, and it can't differenciate (spell?) the difference between Lycoming and Continental engines, in regards to carb ice. I suppose X-Plane needs the wet runway look, like FSX, and FSX needs those slippery runways like X-Plane.

 

 

The seasons are not really there.........unless you stretch the imagination. Out here in the mountain west, it's well known that you'll most likly encounter ice, when you really need to file IFR. At the same time, everything in this mountainous country is now covered with snow. It's very white outside. I'd prefer actual simulated seasons, instead of just wildly stretching the imagination.

 

As to wake turbulence, it's what ever the author creates. X-Plane doesn't actually have air molecules flowing from the wing ahead of you in blade element theory. It's just a programmed effect, the same as ground effect.

 

BTW--- I love "eye candy". It's the reason I took up real flying, and maintained, and owned, my own airplane. My wife and friends enjoy eye candy too. The Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and so many other great scenic and panaramic areas are close by. In my book, eye candy is just as important as flight dynamics. So....it's exciting to see new and refreshing "eye candy" for X-Plane.

[Murmur 3,944]

When encountering turbulence, it's different of course. In real life, we go out of our way to avoid thunderstorms. We don't try for the X-Plane scenario, that might shed a wing in imaginary flight.

 

As to wake turbulence, it's what ever the author creates. X-Plane doesn't actually have air molecules flowing from the wing ahead of you in blade element theory. It's just a programmed effect, the same as ground effect.

 

Larry, can you gently explain me why do you feel the need to belittle every feature of X-Plane that is missing in FSX? :smile:

 

Let me make an example. In the past you have repeated over and over, that X-Plane over-sensitive flight dynamics could give flight simmers the wrong idea that real aircrafts are more sensitive than they really are. Ok, that's right. It's good you say that.

 

On the other hand, lacking weather effects could give flight simmers the wrong idea that real aircrafts can enter a cumulonimbus without consequences.

 

Or: missing wake turbulence could give flight simmers the wrong idea that a C172 can trail behind a 747 without consequences.

 

I don't see the difference between the three. And yet, you don't stop at pointing the missing features in X-Plane (that is fine). You always feel the need to go a step further and also belittle the things that it does a little better than FSX. It's like you can't bear the fact that X-Plane does some things better than FSX.

 

EDIT: another analogy, regarding your example of thunderstorms. You say in real life pilots have to avoid thunderstorms. Right. In real life, pilots also have to avoid unintentional stalls and spins (for example on final), or have to avoid going below VMCA on OEI scenarios.

 

So, if we follow your reasoning, simulating stalls, spins, or loss of control below VMCA, is useless too. This invalidates your reasoning that modeling turbulence effects is useless...

[LAdamson 240]

Larry, can you gently explain me why do you feel the need to belittle every feature of X-Plane that is missing in FSX? :smile:

 

Let me make an example. In the past you have repeated over and over, that X-Plane over-sensitive flight dynamics could give flight simmers the wrong idea that real aircrafts are more sensitive than they really are. Ok, that's right. It's good you say that.

 

On the other hand, lacking weather effects could give flight simmers the wrong idea that real aircrafts can enter a cumulonimbus without consequences.

 

Or: missing wake turbulence could give flight simmers the wrong idea that a C172 can trail behind a 747 without consequences.

 

I don't see the difference between the three. And yet, you don't stop at pointing the missing features in X-Plane (that is fine). You always feel the need to go a step further and also belittle the things that it does a little better than FSX. It's like you can't bear the fact that X-Plane does some things better than FSX.

I have no problem with X-Plane doing some things better than FSX. Effects of wake turbulence can be done in either sim. FSX also has some of the best "slip" features ever created for a desktop flight sim, a point that seems to be missing in the above link. It was RealAir (FS9 and FSX), that produced some of the most authentic plane slipping possible. IMO, they're still the best with slips. It's not an XP advantage.

 

 

But..............it's that "flying on rails" garbage that gets me everytime. And then you seem annoyed that I'm annoyed. At least I don't get as carried away, as in the XP org. thread.

 

 

Do I not have the right, to point out those certain mis-statements about the competition? Should I just be banned again? Nevermind, I'm on one of those....... goodbye