The simulation engine is completely different to that of FSX, a quick google will show you that. X plane is the perfect canvas for developers to create a whole new world which will blow FSX out of the water.

What exactly do people expect? its a desktop version of a simulator, it CAN simulate navigation perfectly but we need to stop expecting much more. Learn to navigate properly without an FMC and the real value of this software becomes apparent.

Try landing an airliner with a tailwind real life v fsx. 

4GB is enough for majority of the modern games out there which are almost always 32 bit programs and many of them include quite large areas in high detail, thus the answer is yes.

 

It's some faulty / inefficient code which causes memory load to build up and leads to OOM problems... With new efficient code the memory usage should stay well below the  4GB limit. 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

 

 

GTA 5 is 64 bit and takes advantage of all modern hardware advances. This is where we are.

4GB is not enough. Just take a look at the Prepar3D forums, whenever someone says they're having OOM problems, Lockheed Martin recommend that they lower the settings. If that's so, when will Prepar3D 2.0 be maxed out? Never. Even in a few years when hardware will be much better, you'll still have to turn down the settings to prevent surpassing the 4GB limit. Lack of proper multi-threading is going to make matters even worse when heavy aircraft like PMDG get on Prepar3D 2.0. All that AI and physics are still hammering Core1.

 

They should have gone with 64-bit from the start. This would destroy pretty much all backwards compatibility, but so what? This would show which add-on developers are really committed to fully supporting Prepar3D. I'm sure that developers like Orbx and Carenado would recompile their add-ons, since they seem to be close to Lockheed Martin. And then there are others who just slap a triple installer and call their product "Prepar3D 2.0 compatible".

I've given XPlane a shot for the last several releases and it just remains really not ready for prime time.  The use of OSM data for streets, buildings and traffic is impressive, but the barren airports just do not cut it.  The default aircraft more or less do not cut it.  The ATC options do not cut it.  It always remains feeling somewhat unfinished - STILL - even though they've had about 2 releases since 2006/2007 when FSX came out.

 

To be fair, FSX is just as bad, if not worse in all those areas without the 3rd party add-ons, and that is really where P3D has the advantage over X-Plane with the easier portability of add-ons from FSX to P3D, even though X-Plane is arguably a superior platform.

The simulation engine is completely different to that of FSX, a quick google will show you that. X plane is the perfect canvas for developers to create a whole new world which will blow FSX out of the water.

 

It probably does blow FSX out of the water, but a large core of simmers have a huge investment in FSX add-ons that are more easily ported to P3D.

Exactly Troy, that's where the rub comes.

All of us here have $o much wrapped up in FSX/FSD/P3D to make the sim what we want and yet we fall short.

Does anyone here think I was happy when I gave XP10.25 the time it deserved with an open mind only to have a sick feeling in my stomach that all I had in FSX was suddenly obsolete for what I've been looking for all along?

Mixed feeling to be sure as I was also blown away by what I was seeing as I flew into this "undiscovered country".

For me the sole purpose in flight simulation to make it as real as it gets regardless of what is required.

When I see what we have now and the sheer potential of XP10 I can't help but be excited and I wanted to share this with my peers in the FS community now and to call your attention to it.

Take a leap of faith and try the demo but don't take take the demo at face value.

It will plop you at the end of a runway at KSEA on an ugly day and it it's kind of blah.

I installed the XP10 demo when it was first released and I promptly deleted it after a few tries.

I never gave it a chance and I never wanted to as I was hanging on too tight to FSX and all that I was familiar with.. the interface was weird and I didn't understand what I was looking at and I didn't want to.

One must go into the settings and get it set up properly and take the time to read and learn how to work it.

 

Last night I purchased the Carenado C90 and V Tail Bonanza for XP-10.

I took the C90 out and I have never in all of my FS hours have been so completely immersed and dazzled but what I was seeing hearing and feeling.

The sounds of the engines syncing as I moved the props forward was hyper realistic waa waa waa waa..

I cracked open the little pilot side vent window and the exterior sounds flooded the cockpit, I could almost smell the jet fuel.

I took her up and the totally realistic handling of the airfile gave me a new sensation as I was convinced that I was now flying a real King Air. I could feel the weight the speed and the power.

As I turned final to Orcas Island Airport I was somewhat concerned as I actually now had to really fly the airplane. It was not flying me in on rails, I was flying it, through the gaseous medium of air, and I hoped the bird wouldn't get away from me or else it would be a very bad day at Orcas..

The $24 I spent on XP-10 North America regional and at Carenado was the best money I've ever spent in FS, by far. If you only ever get those two things you will be happy but it won't stop there.

There will be mobs at the doors of PMDG and ALL developers screaming for XP content.

Carenado sees the light and they see where the future is and I applaud them on the new C90.

Just an incredible package when coupled with XP10.

 

I'm not here to attack or argue with anyone, I am here to share my experience with my brothers and sisters in the FS community. Some will listen and some won't, all I ask is just for you to give it a chance and try it.

Go into it with an open mind.

 

There are some great birds that come with the demo, the little C172 is superb as is the Columbia 400.

The B-52 is incredible handling and sounding, It fly's like you wouldexpect a B52 sim to fly like. 

You can even install the freeware sceneries for the PNW area the demo covers and even install aircraft.

There are massive amounts of freeware scenery that cover the globe.

 

Please see the XP10 posts by Avsim members hollow1slo (whom I thank for showing us what XP10 can do in his Switzerland post) and Comanche and also myself in the Screen Shot Forum here to see what we're trying to get across.

 

Clear skies!

 

Gene

 

 

 

GTA 5 is 64 bit and takes advantage of all modern hardware advances. This is where we are.

 

Is it really? So far it's not even released on PC and I'm not all that sure if it ever will. 

 

Anyway Skyrim isn't 64 bit, yet it models a huge beautiful world in great detail.

 

 

 

Even in a few years when hardware will be much better, you'll still have to turn down the settings to prevent surpassing the 4GB limit.

 

That's just because Prepar3d shares same inefficient coding with FSX, it doesn't mean one couldn't make a completely new high detail 32 bit sim without OOM problems..

 

I think most scenery addons that don't involve custom DLL's and such would be compatible with 64 bit Prepar3d, that would be a major advantage over X Plane in my opinion... Sure I think they should make the 64 bit version. 

 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

There is often the argument that many FSX users will move to X-Plane 10 once PMDG release for it, however what a lot of FSX user may not realize is PMDG may be late to the party. There is a company called IXEG producing what may just be the most complex study level airliner made on any home platform.

 

http://www.ixeg.net

 

2014 may well be the year when people start asking when will IXEG develop for FSX, not PMDG for X-Plane.

 

I think many fail to realize how important 64 bit is. If it is not important why are so many P3D users asking when their platform will go 64 bit. There is no doubt that the ingenuity of FSX developers has breathed life in to the product, but there is only so far that you can go, you can't put a quart in a pint cup, 64 bit opens up a virtually limitless world of possibilities now and way into the future

 

Since the release of X-Plane 10.25, the move to X-Plane from FSX has accelerated by some amount. A quick look through the X-Plane forums will reveal that. I have no beef with FSX, I have used the FS platform since the Bruce Artwick days, but Microsoft's decision to "let it go" was a major nail in the coffin. Yes P3D is a good replacement, but as has been said Lockheed is a defense company not an entertainment company. What better way to beta test their new commercial level simulator than to offer a license to it to anyone (for educational purposes of course)

 

X-Plane is not perfect, but it is being developed, third party products such as Skymaxx Pro are rapidly changing the feel of the sim, aircraft such as the FF757 and the Saab 340, are coming very close to PMDG levels and sometime this year IXEG may surpass it. If you tried the X-Plane demo a year ago, forget your misconceptions of it from then and download the current 10.25 demo. Use, it, play with the less than stella interface, get use to the lack of usable ATC, live with it's other foibles and most of all don't delete it. If at first it doesn't float your boat, come back to it. Slowly and surely it will start to play with your emotions, tearing a rift between you and FSX. Then one day, as you fly into your local field at sunset, the lights of the cars and trucks spilling onto the highways below you, your landing lights slowly revealing the runway beneath you and the last rays of sunshine gently casting shadows across your instruments, you will finally say, "yes, I get it"

I think all of you are correct here, within a point. FSX has no future in the long term unless mr Gates comes back and revive it. There are three options available:

1. P3D
2. X-plane
3. Other

Starting with P3D, LM is a big company with big resources. However, P3D is not intended for entertainment. They will listen to us in some expects because we have a lot of experience. But they have customers who pay big bucks for their product and they will listen to them first. That we must have in mind. A company always want as much bang for their buck as they can get. Future here is very uncertain.

 

Then it comes to x-plane they have learned a lot from earlier mistakes. They listen to users what they need and want. For now there are many limitations however. Virtuali in FSDreamteam wrote a very informative post about this (sorry for lack of link, I live in China now and it's really hard to access their site from here). I think if we one day will see x-plane 12 it will be a very interesting alternative.

 

Then it comes to others I cannot see much hope. I love flight simming by all my heart but I am realistic and this is a small community. Writing an entire sim from ground up using 64-bit and get a profit, well, selling refrigerators in Antarctica is probably easier. Besides from that the actual sim must work flawless, you must also consider other developers who makes airplanes, airports, sceneries, weather, efb aso aso. Making an interface that everyone can use and handle bad coding that may occur, that is some serious programming.

 

64-bits would be nice and a necessary in the future, but no sim is ready for being "the next big thing" yet. FSX will live on for quite some time yet, but it will be interesting to see what future brings us.

 

Sorry for my bad English, it's my third language.

 

 

I think all of you are correct here, within a point. FSX has no future in the long term unless mr Gates comes back and revive it. There are three options available:

P3D
X-plane
Other

 

Yet it far outpaces both X-Plane and P3D. Take a look at the latest survey again. Yes XP10 has gained some support, but only a very small percentage of those who own it, state it's their primary sim. A whooping 61% of 761 X-Plane users state, it's their least used sim, while only 9% of that number says it's their primary sim, P3D's numbers are similar, but slightly higher, while FSX is the polar opposite, with a much greater number of  number of users, about 3.5 to 1 than X-Plane or P3D and a massive 78% of them state FSX is their primary sim. Even FS2004 has a larger user base, by a 2 to 1 margin and that sim is over 10 years old. We've been hearing the FSX is dead line for years now, and it's still going very strong, and continues to be strongly supported by the 3PD's so I think it's going to be some time yet, before FSX's epitaph gets written.

 

X-Plane users love to compare against FSX default, where it clearly has some advantages. People though are not going to compare XP to FSX in the state it was 7 years ago. They are going to compare it to the state of FSX they currently own. This is where X-Plane shows it's weaknesses. Little to no airport scenery out of the box. Although 3PD's are doing a good job at filling the gaps, it's still going to take some time.Environment. While major advancements, most notably SkyMax Pro, has made clouds and sky much more realistic looking.  (No more clouds that look like they're smoke from a forest fire.), it lacks a good online weather engine, the default one leaves a lot to be desired. Even FSX's default is better. It really needs a weather engine like Active Sky or REX. It's biggest Achilles heel is it's AI/ATC system. With a large number of tubeliner users, and only a fraction of them using online ATC, a good offline ATC system is a must! The default one is pitiful . While FSX default ATC has it's own problems, it' still much better than XP's Add to that the limit of 20 AI aircraft, when FSX users are use to real world levels, and XP's going to lose out on a large percentage of users.That said, XP10 has come a long way, it has more complex models then was ever available for it's predecessors and scenery  is greatly improving with the help of the 3PD's many of which are freeware.

 

 

 

       SIM                1-Least Time            2                 3                4                  5          Respondents

Microsoft FS 2004     43% (653)    11% (173)    8% (125)    7% (118)    29% (445)       1514
Microsoft FSX              8% (212)      3% (90)      4% (100)    5% (137)    78% (1916)     2455

X-Plane 10                61% (469)     13% (102)    9% (73)      5% (44)        9% (73)        761
P3D                          55% (407)      11% (83)    10% (79)      7% (57)      14% (108)      734

Time to redevelop Flight Gear me thinks.

That's just because Prepar3d shares same inefficient coding with FSX, it doesn't mean one couldn't make a completely new high detail 32 bit sim without OOM problems..

 

I think most scenery addons that don't involve custom DLL's and such would be compatible with 64 bit Prepar3d, that would be a major advantage over X Plane in my opinion... Sure I think they should make the 64 bit version. 

 

And this is why Prepar3D 2.0 should have been 64-bit, because it shares the same, inefficient memory management system with FSX. Lockheed Martin claim to have made improvements in the releasing of resources (which I really doubt) and blame the new effects for causing OOMs. But if that's so, Prepar3D 2.0 will never be maxed. Same with the poor multi-threading, with a new GPU you will be able to turn on more effects, but the core performance will still be the same because CPUs will get more cores, not higher speeds.

 

I can only see Prepar3D 2.0 having the same fate with FSX.

The simulation engine is completely different to that of FSX, a quick google will show you that. X plane is the perfect canvas for developers to create a whole new world which will blow FSX out of the water.

The X Plane engine always has been different to FSX, what else has changed? For airliners, blade element is not much better than the FSX overall coefficient approach. When you sum the blade elements you end up with a total coefficient in each axis, just like FSX. FSX is weak on asymmetric effects though due to the simplifications made. That can be improved internally in P3D or with an external FDE.

 

Level D sims use same modelling technique as FSX, but with more detail of course. Blade element style modelling is only used for helicopter sims.

 

There is no whole new world to experience, just a slightly better, but very empty, one.

 

The most logical way forward is P3D 64 bit. X Plane is too big a paradigm shift for most users.

Yet it far outpaces both X-Plane and P3D. Take a look at the latest survey again. Yes XP10 has gained some support, but only a very small percentage of those who own it, state it's their primary sim. A whooping 61% of 761 X-Plane users state, it's their least used sim, while only 9% of that number says it's their primary sim, P3D's numbers are similar, but slightly higher, while FSX is the polar opposite, with a much greater number of  number of users, about 3.5 to 1 than X-Plane or P3D and a massive 78% of them state FSX is their primary sim. Even FS2004 has a larger user base, by a 2 to 1 margin and that sim is over 10 years old. We've been hearing the FSX is dead line for years now, and it's still going very strong, and continues to be strongly supported by the 3PD's so I think it's going to be some time yet, before FSX's epitaph gets written.

 

X-Plane users love to compare against FSX default, where it clearly has some advantages. People though are not going to compare XP to FSX in the state it was 7 years ago. They are going to compare it to the state of FSX they currently own. This is where X-Plane shows it's weaknesses. Little to no airport scenery out of the box. Although 3PD's are doing a good job at filling the gaps, it's still going to take some time.Environment. While major advancements, most notably SkyMax Pro, has made clouds and sky much more realistic looking.  (No more clouds that look like they're smoke from a forest fire.), it lacks a good online weather engine, the default one leaves a lot to be desired. Even FSX's default is better. It really needs a weather engine like Active Sky or REX. It's biggest Achilles heel is it's AI/ATC system. With a large number of tubeliner users, and only a fraction of them using online ATC, a good offline ATC system is a must! The default one is pitiful . While FSX default ATC has it's own problems, it' still much better than XP's Add to that the limit of 20 AI aircraft, when FSX users are use to real world levels, and XP's going to lose out on a large percentage of users.That said, XP10 has come a long way, it has more complex models then was ever available for it's predecessors and scenery  is greatly improving with the help of the 3PD's many of which are freeware.

 

 

 

       SIM                1-Least Time            2                 3                4                  5          Respondents

Microsoft FS 2004     43% (653)    11% (173)    8% (125)    7% (118)    29% (445)       1514

Microsoft FSX              8% (212)      3% (90)      4% (100)    5% (137)    78% (1916)     2455

X-Plane 10                61% (469)     13% (102)    9% (73)      5% (44)        9% (73)        761

P3D                          55% (407)      11% (83)    10% (79)      7% (57)      14% (108)      734

 

I don't disagree. But you are talking today. I'm talking about 5-10 years from now. In the end FSX will loose unless MS do something drastic. X-plane today is not an replacement, that's why I wrote "if we will see x-plane 12 it can be interesting".

I'm talking about 5-10 years from now.

 

Predictions:  Five years from now:

 

P3D will be where FSX is today.  They may be considering 64 bit by this time as more and more third party developers come on board and will be able to convert to 64 bit.

FSX will be where FS9 is today.

FS9 will still be in the same place.  These people aren't going to give up their sim, and have no real reason to.   Lay off 'em.

XPlane will still be a hobby that makes the developer money;  may be behind FSX/FS9, may be ahead.  It MAY have seasonal textures built in by then.  It may have buildings at most airports, at least in some areas.  Heck, it may even have real world weather, depending on third party developers.  And so it goes.

 

Ten years from now:

 

The market will be divided between XPlane, which will have been acquired by a big developer by this time, and a yet unknown effort coming out of Eastern Europe or Russia by people who aren't afraid to take on niche products.  Don't underestimate these people.

P3D will be second, but you probably won't recognize it.

FS9 will be in the same place with FSX about the same.

 

PMDG?  Well, let's hope they don't go the way of the board wargame, making more and more complicated products until they can no longer sell them.  (Example: Campaign for North Africa from SPI:  estimated over 2000 man-hours to play to conclusion).  This complexity in wargames was driven by the demands of a few vocal customers, and the more casual gamer, who bought the majority of the games, kept quiet.  This could happen to PMDG just as easily.  Be careful what you wish for.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_North_Africa <-- Their estimate is 1500 hours and 10 people, making 15,000 man-hours total.

 

Hook