Oh my, what have I done ... *sigh*

 

 

X-Plane is obviously profitable enough for development to continue, but don't you think it would be a bigger success if the development team focused more on features the users are asking and accessibility?

Sure, it may be true that they would be even more successful, but my point was that only they know best (for technical reasons, etc.) what they can and can't do, and how and when they can implement changes.  

 while X-Plane development is not focused towards solving the deficiencies

 

Of course not why should they, XPX is quite efficient, unlike FSX/P3D, XPX has the capability to maximize your hardware. Like I have said in my previous post, P3D forums is full of performance complaints from people with very expensive setups.

 

P3D/FSX = Deficiency. This is a fact!!!

Of course not why should they, XPX is quite efficient, unlike FSX/P3D, XPX has the capability to maximize your hardware. Like I have said in my previous post, P3D forums is full of performance complaints from people with very expensive setups.

 

P3D/FSX = Deficiency. This is a fact!!!

 

You don't even know what I'm talking about.

 

 

You don't even know what I'm talking about.

 

I do know, you are confusing Deficiencies with features. 

 

Think about it, what is the point of having lots and lots of features if you cant have performance/smoothness. LR priority is comparability and performance.

The fact is, we DO NOT represent the biggest market, this is Austin answer to a interview question:

 

XPR: How else is X-Plane applied in everyday life rather than us flying desks!?

"oh, NASA, scaled composites, gulf stream, Garmin, countless branches of the military… TONS of large organizations use x-plane to see how airplanes will fly for all manner of projects… far too many for me to list"

 

Do yo think Nasa, gulf stream, garmin and countless braches of military care about eyecandy....I don't think so. Some features us flying desks want will come from LR but most others will come from 3rd party devs, 

I do know, you are confusing Deficiencies with features. 

 

I was talking about deficiencies, which means missing features. Not inefficiency. You are the one confusing the two.

I was talking about deficiencies, which means missing features. Not inefficiency. You are the one confusing the two.

 

LOL, I guess you can't read between the lines: XPX has no deficiencies, it may have some missing features, features that are mainly based on our own desires. XPX is a perfectly working sim, at least on my setup and perfectly meets my own expectations. Who are we to judge what has/needs to be part of XPlane, most complaints are based on our own personal wishes and thus are not XP's deficiencies. 

 

XP development is focused on the engineering side of flight not leisure, is for the big boys (big companies, Nasa, Garming, etc.) Austin could care less about your wishes and mine, he has his own vision and agenda........and you know what, he's done right, that is why he's the one making the big bucks. 

 

now back to the original topic!!!

LOL, I guess you can't read between the lines: XPX has no deficiencies, it may have some missing features, features that are mainly based on our own desires. XPX is a perfectly working sim, at least on my setup and perfectly meets my own expectations. Who are we to judge what has/needs to be part of XPlane, most complaints are based on our own personal wishes and thus are not XP's deficiencies. 

 

XP development is focused on the engineering side of flight not leisure, is for the big boys (big companies, Nasa, Garming, etc.) Austin could care less about your wishes and mine, he has his own vision and agenda........and you know what, he's done right, that is why he's the one making the big bucks. 

 

You mean that it's not a deficiency when a simulator has seasons but no textures for them?

You mean that it's not a deficiency when a simulator has seasons but no textures for them?

 

It all depends on who you ask and their point of view . Lets see: From an engineering stand point, as long as it simulates seasons then no, its not a deficiency, but if you look at it from the leisure side then yes, its a missing feature.

It all depends on the point of view and who you ask. Lets see: From an engineering stand point, as long as it simulates seasons then no, its not a deficiency, but if you look at it from the leisure side then yes, its a missing feature.

 

+1. That's what I'm saying all the time.

 

Apart from that, because I know what would be the best for them, I told Porsche hundreds of times, if they would build a VW Golf, they would sell many many more cars, but stubborn as they are, the refused to do so.

I thought about it and came to the conclusion that they probably still want to continue to build and sell fantastic sports cars. Different audience ... Quite simple, isn't it?

 

And apart from that, I like the C195 and probably will get it.

It all depends on who you ask and their point of view . Lets see: From an engineering stand point, as long as it simulates seasons then no, its not a deficiency, but if you look at it from the leisure side then yes, its a missing feature.

 

You're right, it depends on who you ask. So stop downplaying X-Plane's efficiencies because there are plenty of people who wish they'd be fixed.

 

 

And apart from that, I like the C195, and probably will get it.

 

Me too!