Rumoured to be fixed in the next patch. Then all they need to do is make supersonic speeds possible...

 

Hi Stephen, is it just a rumour or has Ben stated it somewhere?

 

If this gets fixed in 10.30 I will parade in front of LR headquarters in my birthday suit.

Alternatively maybe I could mow Austin's lawn or something. What's his pressure point?   :lol:

 

 

X-Plane 10 is now LINUX for me ** only **

 

Out of curiosity, if you have a decent Windows gaming laptop, then why are you struggling with Linux. I've tried running X-Plane on Linux, and although it did ran, it was buggy, didn't perform as well and some of my addons didn't work. In the end it wasn't worth the effort, and I reinstalled Windows 7. 

 

 

 

Rumoured to be fixed in the next patch. Then all they need to do is make supersonic speeds possible...

 

I hope so, although I'm hoping they're clever about it, and it doesn't destroy performance (i.e. Because it needs to load more tiles)

Out of curiosity, if you have a decent Windows gaming laptop, then why are you struggling with Linux. I've tried running X-Plane on Linux, and although it did ran, it was buggy, didn't perform as well and some of my addons didn't work. In the end it wasn't worth the effort, and I reinstalled Windows 7.

 

Hmmm, I've been reading about it, and, in some cases  jcomm ' itis  can also have this OS swap/warp  effects... It only happens after a long exposure to "Windowsiella" a virtual bacterial infection that often plagues windowze users... but it's also known to happen to patients with  prolonged exposure to Linux ambients at work... ( Linuxitis Atypical ).

 

When the symptoms calm down, usually the patient either starts trying to use Android for flight simming or decides to fly for real for a while.

 

Laboratories in Columbia ( USA ) and France ( Paris? ) are working on a new drug with the code name "10.30". It has already been administered to a few volunteering patients, and the effects appear to be good and promising!

 

Let's hope for the best, this guy isn't really in need for yet another crisis, not now at least!!!!

 

 

Hi Stephen, is it just a rumour or has Ben stated it somewhere?

 

On Ben's developer's blog a while back he said fog and visibility were two areas they were looking at for 10.30, but as usual nothing concrete / confirmed.

Also, the dials/knobs inside in the Saab don't bind to the same key events as the standard X-Plane ones (So various plugins and iPad apps don't work) and I'm not going to continually redo my key/joystick binds everytime I switch planes.

 

Although it might not help with the Saab (I don't own it, so can't test), and for info for people who still don't know a great plugin called X-Assign:  for almost every other plane you can use X-Assign, as described in this posting.

On Ben's developer's blog a while back he said fog and visibility were two areas they were looking at for 10.30, but as usual nothing concrete / confirmed.

 

No illusion on that. It looked like ATC was deeply worked on but then Ben's interview showed minor fixes on it. There are so many things currently looked at that it seems 10.30 will turn into 11.

You have to admire the Laminar team.  Regardless of whether you love or hate 'how it looks' (and clearly it is not perfected yet), you should admire the thought and effort that goes into making XPlane as flexible as possible.  The fact that the data references are so transparent and relatively simple to work with, the fact that XPlane is already set up for networked displays for wider FOV, and (Imho) is more friendly to cockpit builders, coupled with 64-bits and a graphics system that is designed to take advantage of the monstrous VRAM options available on todays high-end cards means that in simple terms, XPlane offers greater flexibility and adaptability.  

 

XPlane is SCALABLE.  If you have the budget to split the displays apart and have each one driven by its own PC and dedicated graphics card, you can push render settings significantly higher and enjoy stellar frames at the same moment.  In FSX, it's a juggling act trying to drag cockpit gauges off to a separate monitor and tweaking all your ini files and render settings to try to avoid unacceptable performance. To me, XPlane is much more frames-friendly, and well-rewards additional PCs and GPU power.  

 

Arguably, FSX may be prettier and the highest-end payware airports and with products from vendors like PMDG.  It all comes down to choices and 'what floats your personal boat'.

 

Someone wrote complaining about the interior cockpit models of the payware X-plane aircraft.  I dodged that by investing in FlightDeckSolutions' Sim-Avionics software.  Sim-Avionics gives you the option for a full-blown stand-alone glass cockpit, which can be controlled by mouse clicks, programmed keypresses, and even interfaced with many of the popular brands of control surfaces by companies such as FDS, VRinsight and others.  When you run Sim-Avionics, you disable the internal X-Plane plug-in for your given airplane.

 

Sim-Avionics can drive the full-scale life-sized RW Cockpits of the wealthiest sim pilot, or you can network it to a spare monitor(s) and drag the various displays around to suit your personal desires.  Check my YouTube videos for a look at Sim-Avionics in action.

 

If you're serious about building a platform that will closely resemble the operation, look and feel of a real aircraft, I think X-Plane 10 deserves a look. The demo of XP is time-limited, and very difficult to transition to.  I highly recommend purchasing the software, so you will have the time to set it up and get used to how it flies.  

 

A wealth of freeware and payware airports, along with software like Garmin Pilot (which can run via UDP wireless connection on Android devices, or via an adapter cable on iPad), bring all the moving maps, airport taxi diagrams (again with moving maps), hi and low ifr plus VFR  charts a person could dream of.  Because Garmin Pilot is subscription-based, all of the data updates as revisions come out, including SIDs/STARS/Charts/Airports, etc, etc.  To me, Garmin Pilot raises the bar on your overall flying experience exponentially.  Same thing for Sim-Avionics software.

 

Many of these same features are also available for FSX, but here is where the rubber meets the road:

 

64 bits /  GPU Vram / Multi-Core  X-Plane vs FSX

1. XPlane can use ALL your system ram (up to the limits of your operating system) while FSX cannot.
2. XPlane will take full advantage of maximum VRAM on Gaming cards (example 6GB on nvidia GTX Titan).  FSX doesn't.
3. XPlane can use any number of CPU cores, without limit.  FSX is designed for 4 cores max AFAIK.  *note: multiple CPU motherboards may limit you on operating system choices.

I grant that FSX has a much more mature infrastructure backed by a longtime cottage industry of third party developers.  I admit that the barren default airports (by and large) in XPlane are a buzz killer.  I also admit that the lack of view to the horizon at altitude is another weakness.

 

That said, XPlane with Skymaxx weather add-on, a sprinkling of payware/freeware airports, and an investment in a setup where each monitor is powered by it's own PC and Graphics card will produce resolutions and frames rates that blow FSX apart.

 

I have achieved a level of fluidity in views (day and night both) in XPlane that I was never able to realize in FSX, particularly when at complex airports and flying complex payware aircraft (e.g. PMDG).

 

For that reason alone, I find XPlane is my sole solution, and I have a LOT of add ons on FSX (which is still on my system).

 

Both VATSIM and PilotEdge can now provide ATC in XPlane in 64-bits.  The long-awaited 64-bit Vatsim client for XPlane has finally been released.  So that stumbling block has been knocked down.

 

Ai aircraft are built into PilotEdge - when connected, you will be confronted with a significant amount of both military and civilian aircraft on your TCAS (Traffic) display.  Having a real human being controlling you from blocks to blocks with no sudden disappearances for meal breaks (PilotEdge vs. Vatsim) or without-warning shutdowns of all ATC services is priceless compared with the FAUX ATC of either product IMHO.

 

With XPlane (or FSX) and PilotEdge, if you fail to follow ATC instructions, you will be notified.  This forces you to LEARN how to obtain and read the charts for the SIDS and STARS and the nuances of LOCalizer vs. ILS approaches, yada yada yada.  PilotEdge has a limited coverage area, but there is nothing to stop you from using them at one end or the other of your flight, provided Southern California, San Francisco International and Las Vegas fit into your flight plan somehow.

 

There is no "wrong answer" with regard to sim platforms.  You simply fly one or more and decide if any or all of them are suitable to your hobby goals.  This of course brings up the 'better and better' scenario.  That's when flight sim A looks and flies great, and a developer offers some other new add-on (airport ground vehicles, super high resolution RW weather, etc).  You add that one more item, and then UGH!  The problems start.  Stuttering, crashing, blue screens, you name it.  Even rogue flight behavior!  Where I prefer XPlane over FSX is the fact that the entire simulation resides ONLY in the XPlane parent folder, which can be backed up or copied to multiple destinations.  Thus, if you add product X, Y or Z to XPlane and find  out you have 'issues', it's a cakewalk to put it back to a previously good state (assuming you made backups).

 

FSX operates in an FSX folder, but also puts some files and settings in many other locations, scattered across your PC and registry (assuming Windows environment).  Something causes a problem, it may mean reverting your ENTIRE PC to a known good backup from days prior.  This to me is a significant difference in platforms.

 

Some pilots eventually migrate to the real-deal hardware (in various forms).  This could range from $10,000 JetMaxx (from FlightDeckSolutions) to $100,000+ full-scale cockpit shell, flooring, inner panels, and all the trimmings, including rudder pedals, throttle quadrant, radio stack, glare shield and mip from FDS or even up to recycled rw airplane parts from the actual aircraft.

 

That level of simming is an ultimate goal for many in our hobby.  To some degree or other.  What we all try to do (I think) is obtain the highest level of realism that our pocketbook and assembly skills permit.  What I like to call "Better and Better".

Same here .

Although I mostly use X-Plane now, I still have both installed. There are many things that one sim does better than the other. For VFR and simple IFR flights below 10,000 feet, X-Plane can't be beaten, and at the moment it's here where I spend most of simming time.

 

For tubeliners, nothing on X-Plane (as of yet IMO) comes close to what is available on FSX. I find the VC inside X-Plane for complex aircraft too difficult to use, e.g. I've given up using the Saab , as I find it impossible to tune the radios or adjust the autopilot without pausing the simulator and it's incredibly frustrating, especially when it is so easy and natural in FSX. Also, the dials/knobs inside in the Saab don't bind to the same key events as the standard X-Plane ones (So various plugins and iPad apps don't work) and I'm not going to continually redo my key/joystick binds everytime I switch planes. At the moment though, I'm quite impressed with Carenado's C90, the cockpit and manipulators work quite well, and I'm able to do approaches/departures without pausing at every waypoint :-)

 

Tony, we deliberately coded most of the cockpit in the Saab with "commands" so you can assign the various functions to a key press or button press for exactly the reasons you are describing.  No need to pause the sim.

If you are having trouble with this, please PM me and I will help you set it up.

Rumoured to be fixed in the next patch. Then all they need to do is make supersonic speeds possible...

Hopefully. BTW I just found out that turning per pixel lighting on turns this flat blurry distant scenery into a bumpy blurry distant scenery, which looks a lot better. Mountains don't suddenly disappear, they're just blurry. Earlier, even if there were huge mountains behind, they would become flat. I would never figure out that it has something to do with lighting method.... But you all probably knew it already