They also have a big lawsuit on there hands, and if it goes south, I don't think they will be able to operate. I think Austin even mentions this on his site.

 

http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/ I just googled it and it sounds disgusting. It is possible to support Austin in this by making a small donation.

Yes sascha it does. I am an indie developer too, and it scares the willies out of me, but it also helps prove my point. The flight sim community is too professional and too dedicated for any one developer.

A sim that has no real eye candy but a vastly more dynamic flight model simply isn't what we want and thus X plane's USP doesn't appeal to us, whatever the sim is modified to provide in addition to that.

 

 

 

I don't know that it is a hundred percent agreed upon that Xplane has the greatest flight model.  I think that honor might go to DCS, actually.  FSX has it's problems, but it really isn't that bad, especially when developers go in and add their own auxilliary flight dynamics.  Eyecandy/lots of switches does not have to play a zero sum game with things like the flight model.  One can have them both if a developer is willing to do the work.  A plane that looks good and has lots of fiddly things, but has a poor flight model or poor operational realism is not something I would consider using, be it FSX/P3D or any simulation...I don't want visuals to be lacking, but they don't make up for a plane that doesn't hand-fly with characteristics close to the real deal, to the extent that it is possible on a flight simulator.  I have never used X-plane but I've not heard a truly universal opinion that XP has a decisive edge.  It sounds like they could all stand for some improving.

 I see after my above post someone mention they are using PMDG 777X in Prepardv2. I thought this was not so according to PMDG website. Did things changed and I missed the boat? Any feedback please.

 I see after my above post someone mention they are using PMDG 777X in Prepardv2. I thought this was not so according to PMDG website. Did things changed and I missed the boat? Any feedback please.

He didn't word it great, but what I think he meant, was he uses P3d instead of FSX except to use FSX when he fly's the PMDG T7, which he finds hard to do now! (I don't agree)

Was going through an electronics store today.

They sell software too, Xplane 10 64bit for 59€....I swear I almost bought it!

 

A good price. Not a bargain, but even Amzon is more exspensive.

 

But as before, I decided I just dont have the time to learn to understand another flightsim.

Interesting debate. :good:

 

Flightgear.

+1

 

FlightGear will be a great alternative in the future, and it (or forks of it) will still be available and improving in more than 20 years because it's not only free and open source, it's a community work under GPL, so there's a warranty for freedom for the users. Everyone is allowed to build modifications. No individual, no shareholder, no company or government will be able to stop this. The current "Git" version or soon to be released "version 3.0" is already a very good base to build nice planes and sceneries. It was 64-bit flight simulator years before Laminar Research released a 64-bit version for X-Plane 10.

http://www.flightgear.org/info/a-preview-of-features-for-flightgear-3-0/

 

But if this topic was in the PMDG forum, don't forget, PMDG is not a only community of users and freeware livery artists, but a company trying to make a living by selling licenses for their products. They'll go where they'll find cash and customers accepting DRM. So I don't think they'll be interested in FlightGear.

 

X-Plane 10 is my favorite flight simulator. It's already developed, available right now, has awesome add-ons, very accurate default mesh and vector data, Laminar Research is still improving this product (10.30 soon), you can find more and more 3rd party developers every month, and it's compatible with modern operating systems.

http://forum.avsim.net/tags/forums/ubuntu/

 

Prepar3D is not for me. I'm not allowed to use it because it's "only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment" (see the EULA).

 

Outerra ? It's looking great, but for me this is still science fiction. Awesome sceneries and graphics, but is it a flight simulator ?

 

Aerofly FS ? Why not, if a future version will no more be limited to default planes and only one country.

Interesting debate. :good:

 

 

+1

 

FlightGear will be a great alternative in the future, and it (or forks of it) will still be available and improving in more than 20 years because it's not only free and open source, it's a community work under GPL, so there's a warranty for freedom for the users. Everyone is allowed to build modifications. No individual, no shareholder, no company or government will be able to stop this. The current "Git" version or soon to be released "version 3.0" is already a very good base to build nice planes and sceneries. It was 64-bit flight simulator years before Laminar Research released a 64-bit version for X-Plane 10.

http://www.flightgear.org/info/a-preview-of-features-for-flightgear-3-0/

 

 

X-Plane 10 is my favorite flight simulator. It's already developed, available right now, has awesome add-ons, very accurate default mesh and vector data, Laminar Research is still improving this product (10.30 soon), you can find more and more 3rd party developers every month, and it's compatible with modern operating systems.

http://forum.avsim.net/tags/forums/ubuntu/

 

Prepar3D is not for me. I'm not allowed to use it because it's "only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment" (see the EULA).

 

 

 

Yeah FG is coming along nicely and hoping 3.0 will be awesome. I fly FG on vatsim and pretty cool, the ALS is nice.

 

X plane 10 -   What exactly is a mesh and vector data as I am still confused about it.

 

P3d "EULA" -           Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don't get into it or mention it.

 

 

For me it's X plane.

X plane 10 -   What exactly is a mesh and vector data as I am still confused about it.

Mesh: Elevation data (shape of mountains, valleys, ...)

Vector data: Motorways, highways, roads, streets, tracks, railways, power lines, coastlines, rivers, lakes...

Mesh: Elevation data (shape of mountains, valleys, ...)

Vector data: Motorways, highways, roads, streets, tracks, railways, power lines, coastlines, rivers, lakes...

 

Hey thanks man.

 

Prepar3D is not for me. I'm not allowed to use it because it's "only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment"

 

It can be used for simulation purposes, so you're OK. Look, if LM didn't want you or I to use it, then they would have made sure that we couldn't use it.

It can be used for simulation purposes, so you're OK. Look, if LM didn't want you or I to use it, then they would have made sure that we couldn't use it

 

 

 

Yep .

Prepar3D is not for me. I'm not allowed to use it because it's "only for purposes other than personal/consumer entertainment" (see the EULA).

 

The EULA v2.0 different is very from the old one.

It can be used for simulation purposes, so you're OK. Look, if LM didn't want you or I to use it, then they would have made sure that we couldn't use it.

:lol: 

X-Plane versus whatever?

 

 

I'm still somewhat ticked. I'm ticked at X-Plane, and especially it's creater, Austin Meyer. X-Plane has had a certain flight dynamics "problem" for many years now, which never seems to get fixed. Although, it's now supposeably being addressed. It's had developers believing it, as well as much of the X-Plane simming community.

 

 

 

In fact, just in the last week, there is a three page thread dealing with this problem at the org. Almost 750 views worth. Yet, as the thread ends, it's once again stated, that Austin is probably right, and it doesn't need fixing. But what the heck, when you market a desktop flight sim, as having the most realistic flight dynamics possible, then who is not to be convinced?

 

 

 

As most know (as I never let it go), this particular unfavorable subject to some, is known as the "torque bug". It's the fact that X-Plane's blade element theory can't account for forces that minimise and basically counter the roll from torque while in flight. That means that you're forever trimming roll with aileron trim, even if the modeled plane doesn't have it. Or, you have a choice of hidden aileron trim, hidden re-worked wing surfaces, reversed props, hidden second prop, or the Carenado method of limiting simulated torque in the first place. I think I prefer the Carenado method at the present time.

 

 

 

But never the less, Austin never admitted the problem, or perhaps didn't totally understand it, considering he has owned numerous aircraft over the years. A couple of months ago, he put out a video taped in his own airplane, to show that torque was real. He went from slow flight just above a stall, then applied full throttle. It was in his nice new high performance Cessna low wing single. The plane did start a roll to the left. Problem was, he didn't have any feet on the rudder pedals. It first starts to yaw to the left, as expected, and then of course you'll get roll from unattended yaw, when you have dihedral in the wings. This was pointed out by a few pilots, who have closer connections to Austin, than I do. He is now working on a fix.

 

 

 

That's fine with me, but then I always end up reading something current like I did at the org. 750 views, and the thread still ends up, as if there is no problem. In fact, it's even insinuated that the "fixes" are just for those "newbies" who will never get into the simulated air without them. What it really means, is that a bunch of well meaning simmers, are totally unaware of the problem, and that FSX has just been too easy and wrong all these years. I've felt much differently. I've always felt that X-Plane has had an irratating problem.

 

 

 

Perhaps someday I'll think differently...