The "other" future is full of OOMs

[jcomm 5,890]

And, it will not take long for ELITE v9 to get available, with ELITE V10 already being under consideration :-)

 

Yes, I am yet to find a prop GA flight model that does such a good job as ELITE. I'm now on v8.6.

 

Can only regret their hardware being so expensive, and the TQ being required for proper B200 operation.

 

But, the good news is that the X-Plane 10 64 bit drivers are now available, so, owners of any ELITE hardware modules can now use it too in X-Plane 10 64 bit!!!

[Anxu00 176]

That's what I mean by lack of ambition. Contentment/acceptance with/of the status quo.

 

I am left, like many others I suspect, left with a quandary. Frustration with FSX and even P3Dv2 leads to a stronger willingness to explore alternatives.... only to find that the only obvious alternative is still too........ frustratingly quirky to be wholly attractive.

 

Fortunately you have people like Jspahn and others working on some of the issues, because honestly, things like no seasons after all this time is not even quirky. Its just plain old ridiculous.

I am speculating here as to why LR cannot offer lego brick airports to be auto-generated like FSX or to offer a similar AI model etc., and that is due to patent trolls.  Technologically it's not hard, but LR will be hit with patent law suit which they will be crippled.  There are literally hundred if not thousand of free airport in XPX, all you have to do is to search for them.  I don't know about anybody else, but I really don't care about the thousand of airports that I will never visit.  For those that I want to fly between, I find them and that's it.  There is some plausible AI that you can get by getting World Traffics program and you can get real ATC by flying online.  The point is what does XPX will offer you and whether you want to put up with some deficiencies or not.  I found spending 1-2 hr flying over Beti-X Stewart Scenery very satisfying with GA aircrafts and the scenery looks way more real than even the ORBX one.  Due to OSM data my home airport and area is way more realistic and with HDR one, much more real.  What I value the most was the smooth fly experience no stutters or hesitation.  I fly enough airliner in FSX to decide that I don't want a second virtual career as an airline pilot (LOL)  too much work!  But to each their own in looking and finding what each of us is looking for.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Anxu00

[EngineRoom 205]

 

 

I am speculating here as to why LR cannot offer lego brick airports to be auto-generated like FSX

 

My understanding is that the airport buildings in FSX are not auto generated. They are all hand placed.

[Robert McDonald 167]

Actually, I always believed so as well and said so. The question was, what type of future? Most companies strive to grow; yet the impression I always receive from Laminar is that they not only acknowledge nichedom but are relatively comfortable there. They seem to be on a mission of "realism" which while attractive in theory, has in practice been so focused on BET that other aspects have suffered.

 

Sound, visuals, interface/ui..... In fact, even in version 10 no real depiction of Airports was available. reminding me of a podcast with Austin in which he noted that for himself it was pretty much all about the plane and the runway, with other things apparently being optional, as in X-plane graciously offered users the choice of adding all those..... extras. (if they really wanted them)

 

It seems a fact that X-plane lags its major competition in market penetration. The obvious question to most companies might be... why; followed by an earnest attempt to define areas where users feel your product is lacking/deficient and then address those areas as aggressively as your resources allow. Instead, X-plane continues with its singular vision (which it has a perfect right to do!) that continually has failed to make impressive inroads into the FSX user-base over the long term, even as that user-base struggled with issues (OOM's and the like) that would ordinarily make them very open to other alternatives.

 

Again, another company might be very interested in why that was so, and what they could do to make their offering more attractive to a wider audience. But..... X-plane doesn't usually seem to respond to regular market forces. Instead we have calm statements to the effect that they are not pursuing as broad an audience as FSX. To me, it seems that you either come to X-plane on Laminar's terms or... have a nice day.

 

Not particularly a robust recipe for growth (or even to attract third parties, I suspect) unless your competition happens to fall off of a cliff, kinda of like the troubles that P3Dv2 is having right now, in which case you may have a nice opportunity to remind people that an alternative is available and what you perceive to be the advantages of your offering....

 

Yet from Laminar, as far as I can find, not a peep is heard.

 

That's what I mean by lack of ambition. Contentment/acceptance with/of the status quo.

 

I am, like many others I suspect, left with a quandary. Frustration with FSX and even P3Dv2 leads to a stronger willingness to explore alternatives.... only to find that the only obvious alternative is still too........ frustratingly quirky to be wholly attractive.

 

Fortunately you have people like Jspahn and others working on some of the issues, because honestly, things like no seasons after all this time is not even quirky. Its just plain old ridiculous.

 

Devon:

 

You're right- some of the warts that are STILL part of XP are discouraging to those of us that are hoping for a quantum leap and a final resolution to the long term major gripes (season, blur at high altitude, no Lego buildings).

 

My point is that given the smaller physical size of LR, plus the HUGE distraction of their battle with the patent troll (not to mention the drain on their financial resources), things appear to have slowed down substantially.  I myself have a feeling that the next iteration of version 10 will be substantially better, and I have a secret wish that we may see one or two of the 'gripes' go away when that release finally occurs.  I also think that Laminar is building on a quality product, and like PMDG over in FSX, they may have discovered the wisdom of waiting till something is completely tested and solid, rather than tossing virtual beta-ware out the front door (which can create havoc for users, damage the company's reputation, and ultimately drive pilots away).

 

Since moving to X-Plane, I have discovered a single truth that has made me feel like a new man.  I no longer spend interminable hours tweaking trying to eke out decent frames!!!  This cannot be overstated.  I think most flight sim pilots got into this hobby for one reason - it's much cheaper and easier to fly a 'virtual' plane than a real one.  Once you experience multi-screens and glass cockpits, you are forever changed.  Last night I saw my main PC solid at 30 frames, even in KSFO payware airport and also at McCarran.  The Wing monitors (driven by their own PC and own Graphics cards) produce insane rates, from like 40 on the ground to over 110 in the air.  I would put their average at 60 frames.  The wing pcs (1 on each side of the main monitor) are also running separate copies of Xplane via the network.  The point being is I have cobbled together some freeware and payware airports to handle 95% of my flights.  I obtained and installed the High-Definition X-Plane Textures.  I bought SkyMaxx.  Then I added a RW full-scale CDU from FlightDeckSolutions and the Jetmaxx version of the FlightDeckSolutions MCP/EFIS.  Connected it all up with Sim Avionics (also from FDS) software, and tossed in an HP all-in-one touchscreen for the glass cockpit.

 

Complicated?  Yes.  Astounding?  Yes.  And the frames/stuttering?  No longer an issue.  CTDs?  What are those?

 

Devon is right- the list of important improvements remains on the 'to-do' list - and lack of snow is an issue for pilots who live and fly in 4-seasons areas.  Can a Californian be totally happy with XPlane?  No question.  

 

For my part, I'm happy with X-Plane right now, and will be THRILLED when the items Devon mentioned come to pass.  My main concern, over anything else, is that Laminar persist and survive.  The Patent Lawsuit that is pending to me is like a cancer.  And like a cancer, those facing it go through the typical stages of grief.  Right now, it still looks as if Mr. Meyers is stuck in denial.  I worry that his ego may cost him dearly.  He believes that such trolls should never be submitted to, and fighting the good fight is the only way to go.  It has been suggested you can win the war (the suit) but lose the battle (tank the company) by virtue of being bled to death by attorney's fees.  I fervently hope that this will not happen to Laminar.

 

Once the suit is in the rearview, I think we will see substantive progress within X-Plane.  Since it already is a very high-quality product, I recognize that taking it up several notches does present some real challenges, and the reason is SCALE.  The small size of the company is definitely an issue, when ACES were up and running, the size of the FSX team over at Microsoft was MUCH larger than the band of brothers over at Laminar.  I'm willing to trust Austin, and give him all the time he needs.  I know that when he releases the 'improvements' they will be substantial and well-engineered.

[uwespeed 497]

Actually, I always believed so as well and said so. The question was, what type of future? Most companies strive to grow; yet the impression I always receive from Laminar is that they not only acknowledge nichedom but are relatively comfortable there. They seem to be on a mission of "realism" which while attractive in theory, has in practice been so focused on BET that other aspects have suffered.

 

I don’t want to start again one of these fruitless XP vs. MSFS discussions, but rather a Ferrari vs. Toyota discussion :lol:. I was always wondering why Ferrari is still able to sell cars. We have 2014 and nowadays cars have to meet customer expectations, e.g. 5 seats, a luggage compartment of over 500 liters, a gas consumption of less than 7 liters/100 km, … There are car manufacturers who are able to do so since decades – why not Ferrari??? They seem to be on a mission "we build sports cars", which while attractive in theory  ...

I was also wondering why Ferrari doesn’t undertake efforts to grow and eventually become the market leader of the world like Toyota. If Ferrari would build a car like the Toyota Corolla, they would sell many, many cars and earn much more money, but obviously they aren’t willing to do so – what I absolutely can’t understand …….. wait …….. unless … uhmmm …. their focus is totally different than Toyota’s and they are quite comfortable in their niche. Not everybody in the world wants to drive a Toyota (don't get me wrong, they don't build bad cars), but I am glad that there are still manufacturers like Ferrari (or Porsche, or Lotus, or ....).

 

 

Fortunately you have people like Jspahn and others working on some of the issues, because honestly, things like no seasons after all this time is not even quirky. Its just plain old ridiculous.

 

Although I stated above that I don't want to start again one of these fruitless XP vs. MSFS discussions, but I have to ... up to a certain point. It depends how you are interpreting "seasons". You probably know WYSIWYG . With that said, neither X-Plane nor FSX are WYSIWYG - XP is WYDSIWYG, FSX is WYSIWYDG. What??? :lol:

 

WYDSIWYG (XP): What you don't see, is what you get. You don't see seasons, but you feel them: e.g. icy runways with a (much) longer braking distance and you can fall off the sky due to icing on the wings.

 

WYSIWYDG (FSX): What you see, is what you don't get. You see seasons (through the textures), but you don't feel them. What is plain old ridiculous :ph34r: for a serious flight simulator.

 

I for myself prefer the XP way. Enough ranting ...

[MSFS Ralf 149]

I always like your car comparisms. ;-)

[HiFlyer 9,343]

@Robert

 

I guess just remember when XPX was still in the "Coming soon" stage. Vendors seemed excited and on board, Aerosoft was announcing full support, forums were abuzz, and leaked screenshots made people go "Ohhhhh" and "Ahhhhhhh!"

 

My experience with X-plane 9 Was spectacularly nasty, but this time it seemed Laminar was going to come out swinging. Sure, there would be fumbles, but they were serious this time! World domination or bust! 

 

So.

 

Time has passed, the excitements faded, the third parties didn't come (not really) and Laminar was/is still..... Laminar. (in its own pocket universe)

 

Whose fault? Mine, probably. The company never changed at all. What changed was that with this release I swallowed the hyperbole about seriously pursuing the FSX market and doing the things necessary to get it, or at least a respectable chunk. I expected more, and now its up to me to acknowledge the facts on the ground. Doing that, I can adjust my own expectations accordingly. Downward.

 

Not all that much so, since people like Jspahn and others seem determined to take up the slack, but its hard to realistically expect all that much from LM itself anymore given the record thus far (good job on 64bit, though) so I'm moving back a tad, as have others I'm sure, and will just keep a hopeful eye on the subject from a slightly greater altitude of expectation.

 

Which leaves P3D; a program that keeps striking me as FSX's troubled sibling. (And not all that an attractive one with the issues so far)

 

Maybe it will clean up well!  :lol:

[jcomm 5,890]

WYSIWYDG (FSX): What you see, is what you don't get. You see seasons (through the textures), but you don't feel them. What is plain old ridiculous

 

uwespeed, FSX doesmodel the variability of the friction scalars with water and ice-contaminated runways.

FSX does have a better icing accumulation algorithm than X-Plane 10 has, which is plai ridiculous as it is right now ( but Austin told me  he would try to modify it for 10.30 !!! )

Good aircraft for FSX, just like good aircraft for X-Plane 10, or Flight Gear, have specific code to recreate, properly, the effects if icing conditions...

[greggerm 312]

 

 

My understanding is that the airport buildings in FSX are not auto generated. They are all hand placed.

 

Just to clear up this misunderstanding - there are about two dozen or so airports in FSX which are truer-to-life representations of themselves that are hand-created and placed, but all the other airports throughout the FSX world were automatically created using sources such as government and Jeppesen airport databases. This very item was raised almost two years ago over on the .org. I had to seek out Phil Taylor, one of the development leads on FSX, to get an answer "from the horses mouth".

 

Microsoft didn't hire an army of artists to hand draw and place buildings at all the airports in the world. They simply used technology to generate them from available data, a method Laminar Research opted not to pursue for their airports.

[LAdamson 240]

Yes, yes, and yes..................I do bring up the FM issue a lot. Just little things set me off, such as a notion that XP-10's flight dynamics were possibly dumbed down, for the FSX users that may be migrating to X-Plane. And perhaps as suggested, that's why XP-10 might seem more boring to some. And yes, those quotes were not from this forum. But that doesn't really matter, since it's a thought process that does exist in many XP users minds. They have no real idea about the evolution of FSX, or it's addons. They admittally haven't used the product for years, or very little at most.

 

 

 

P.S... I'm not particually fond of snow anymore. But all of those mountains around here are white for a good part of the year. It's essential to have "seasons". I have flown many hours of real life in the winter. If nothing else, the air is usually calmer for a longer part of the day. If it's icing conditions, we don't fly. If it's a blizzard, we don't fly. Runways may have some snow or not. In reality, there always seems to be a lot more aerodynamic braking, than what we see in sims. Small airplanes slow down a lot faster, than a simulated one, that seems to coast forever, sometimes. Snow on the runway just isn't a big deal, unless you're in a situation, where heavy braking is mandantory. It usually isn't.

Just to clear up this misunderstanding - there are about two dozen or so airports in FSX which are truer-to-life representations of themselves that are hand-created and placed, but all the other airports throughout the FSX world were automatically created using sources such as government and Jeppesen airport databases. This very item was raised almost two years ago over on the .org. I had to seek out Phil Taylor, one of the development leads on FSX, to get an answer "from the horses mouth".

 

Microsoft didn't hire an army of artists to hand draw and place buildings at all the airports in the world. They simply used technology to generate them from available data, a method Laminar Research opted not to pursue for their airports.

Thankyou. I was going to mention that earlier. But forgot too.

Edited February 23, 2014 by LAdamson

[Murmur 3,941]

You ALWAYS take the time to bring your FM rant EVEN in threads where NOBODY had been mentioning or comparing FM's (like this one).

 

But, whatever...

[Christopher Low 5,333]

 

Whose fault? Mine, probably. The company never changed at all. What changed was that with this release I swallowed the hyperbole about seriously pursuing the FSX market and doing the things necessary to get it, or at least a respectable chunk. I expected more, and now its up to me to acknowledge the facts on the ground. Doing that, I can adjust my own expectations accordingly. Downward.

 

Don't beat yourself up. I made the mistake of purchasing every version of MSFS from FS5 to FS2002, and they were all rubbish.

[wolke85 150]

 

 

WYDSIWYG (XP): What you don't see, is what you get. You don't see seasons, but you feel them: e.g. icy runways with a (much) longer braking distance and you can fall off the sky due to icing on the wings.



WYSIWYDG (FSX): What you see, is what you don't get. You see seasons (through the textures), but you don't feel them. What is plain old ridiculous :ph34r: for a serious flight simulator.

 

With all honest respect to X-Plane - seriously - but ...:

If add-ons of a kind such as A2A's 172 or the AS DA-20-100 Katana (just to mention two examples here) plus a proper 3rd party weatherengine are in use, icing for instance appears very realistic in FSX!

 

uwespeed, FSX doesmodel the variability of the friction scalars with water and ice-contaminated runways.

FSX does have a better icing accumulation algorithm than X-Plane 10 has, which is plai ridiculous as it is right now ( but Austin told me  he would try to modify it for 10.30 !!! )

Good aircraft for FSX, just like good aircraft for X-Plane 10, or Flight Gear, have specific code to recreate, properly, the effects if icing conditions...

+1

[EngineRoom 205]

 

 

Just to clear up this misunderstanding

 

Thanks, it would appear I stand corrected!

[peppy197 165]

Starting to develop a 64-bit platform must be a lot like quitting smoking:

 

        Always waiting for the right moment  to begin_____

                               (which never comes)___________________

 

 

             and was actually due to begin yesterday

Edited February 23, 2014 by peppy197