Is it worth it?

[mdavis 10]

If you're talking about the UHD Mesh stuff or roll your own ortho w/g2xpl, fine, but most of us need more than the mesh of mountains to look good.

 

And when you're simultaneously complaining about "small fortune to bring FSX/P3D" to that level you are actually highlighting the exact problem Laminar is having!  (they apparently can't make money on anything but mobile)

The point is that, comparing the two, you can bring XP10 to a level with freeware that only payware can come close to achieve in FSX.  Orbx is expensive, and if you fly in one region all the time, that's OK.  I fly all over the globe following the 750 dangerous airports in Michael Doherty's list from FS2004, not just in circles over my own backyard.  I'd have to sell my house to be able to populate the world in Orbx.

[flyerkg 62]

I think it adds up to whatever you want in your Sim experience. Make a choice based on your own interests, desires, perception, and budget. I have XP10 days, FSX days, P3D days and yes even FS9 days.  FSX for me has more or less become somewhat of a test environment. I almost can't turn it on without modifying something or learning scenery with SBuilderX, ADE, 3D buildings with Sketchup and Blender,  and sound mods for AI traffic. And occasionally I might fly something. FS9 has become something exclusive for retro AI and scenery for me.

 

XP10 - I am getting acquainted with World Traffic and will soon try the plugin for Radar Contact 4. Ryan mentioned a few of the nice addon planes by X-Aviation and I would also look into the JRollon stuff like the CRJ-200 and helicopters by DreamFoil. And whenever I get tired of flat airports I turn on XP10.

[alulekk 3]

 

 

The point is that, comparing the two, you can bring XP10 to a level with freeware that only payware can come close to achieve in FSX

 

...which is exactly what feeds into LM needing to make mobile apps to keep making money and very little 3rd party support for XPX to grow the user base.

[mdavis 10]

There are two reasons for a lack of 3rd party scenery for XP.  One is that the user base is smaller than FSX / P3D, although that gap is decreasing now that FSX is dead.

 

The other reason is that XP comes with outstanding tools intended to encourage users to create accurate replicas of their own home airports rather than the fake autogen in FSX.  There are several outstanding programs, all free - WED, W2XP, Planemaker, Overlay Editor, thousands of free library objects.  There are thousands of user created custom airports, many rivaling anything that a commercial firm can put together.

 

LR has continued to update XP10 so far into version 10.35 without changing version number and charging for a new product.  Money isn't the main object for XP as it was for Microsoft, which is what killed FSX.

[LAdamson 240]

IMO, it's a waste of time, to argue against the benefits or Orbx, if you like detailed GA flight.  Besides the payware airports, Orbx changes the look of default airports within it's regions. The default FSX autogen buildings are replaced with Orbx hangars, administrative buildings, chainlink fences, moving vehicles with lights at night, etc. All of this adds character and life.  For myself, there is plenty to like about XP-10, but as I mentioned before, there are limitations.  For example, the Teton's out of Jackson Hole Wyoming look great in XP-10. I even have Jackson Hole Orbx for FSX. But when I fly to the Idaho side, it's the Orbx  scenery that puts XP-10 to shame. Much more colorful, along with autogen that looks photo-real from above. For these country areas, the night lighting from Orbx is much better too.

 

As I do my cross country travels across the western USA, just as I often did in the real plane, I'll always find areas where either XP-10 or FSX is the one looking better.  There is no such thing as one sim blowing the other out of the water!

 

An addition, a disagreement against a new reply, while writing this. FSX isn't even close to dead. I just purchased brand new A2A planes, and new Orbx scenery the other day. The fact that Microsoft pulled the plug, means little.  So many of these third parties have greatly improved the platform over the years. If anyone is counting on FSX being dead, don't hold your breath.  Not only that, money has always been a priority in Austin's mind. It hasn't just been for the love of the hobby (as I'll often read on various forums). I've kept up with his real life toys..............cars & airplanes for many years. He never buys the cheap ones, just to get by.  And yes, I do get a bit jealous. I don't blame him.  

[Paraffin 2,197]

Also, show me a full region pack for XPX that does anything like an OrbX pack.  One example with commercial products for the same area would be the PNW USA.

 

Closest thing for XPX to OrbX would be Inside Passage/Boeing Country pack and that simply pales in comparsion (I have them all), so really, no matter how much you spend on XPX you can't even get feature parity with an FSX or P3D product at all.

 

I've been flying a lot lately in New Zealand, doing FSEconomy assignments. I won't claim it's the same as an Orbx scenery pack, but man... combine the following and I can't find anything to complain about: 

 

1) Free/Donationware HD scenery mesh for New Zealand.

2) Free user-created airports for most of the places you'd fly in NZ. Quality varies, but it's pretty good overall.

3) W2XP for even more realism, if your system can handle it.

 

Did I mention that it's free?  ^_^

 

In the Pacific Northwest USA we now have HD Mesh v3 as an amazing terrain base to work with. We're getting more free user-made airports in that area that will eventually supersede the Inside Passage stuff (unless he updates it, and it's still worth buying until then).

 

The scenery for flying at low altitude and small regional airports is coming along with the Gateway project, and integration (one way or another) with OpenStreetMap data.

 

And don't just focus on what's available for the USA and other popular flying areas. It's an international community interested in this. Check out user-created airports in South America, Australia, or the rest of the world. There is some great work being done out there.

 

 

 

 

[alulekk 3]

@Parrafin:

 

I'm not against what you're saying as I use both sims, but you just described so much "hope" and cobbling things together that it just still is a long ways from being the "product" that the FSX/P3D sim offers people

 

Also, can we *please* stop talking about free everything being good?  If free was good, XPX would have dominated the world by now and LM wouldn't be making mobile apps to make money.

 

 

IMO, it's a waste of time, to argue against the benefits or Orbx, if you like detailed GA flight. Besides the payware airports, Orbx changes the look of default airports within it's regions. The default FSX autogen buildings are replaced with Orbx hangars, administrative buildings, chainlink fences, moving vehicles with lights at night, etc. All of this adds character and life. For myself, there is plenty to like about XP-10, but as I mentioned before, there are limitations

 

Absoultely.

 

I use XPX and P3D and both have features on each side

 

 

I'll always find areas where either XP-10 or FSX is the one looking better. There is no such thing as one sim blowing the other out of the water!

 

So true

[scotchegg 4,199]

Yeah, after years of seeing them I'm getting more and more tired of these XP vs FSX/P3D debates. They definitely should be compared as that's what drives competition and improvement, but there's no way that any one sim is going to cover everything that several hundred thousand simmers individually prioritise in a cost-effective manner, at least not to the degree that it 'blows the others out of the water'.

 

I'm currently using XP alone because it offers the best cost to immersion balance at the moment, but there's still an awful lot I'm unhappy with in XP (although the list is getting smaller over the years), and P3D going 64bit would probably get my investment as well.

 

In the meantime I'm sure the good people at DTG have cottoned on to the fact that if they can get a reasonable balance between depth and accessibility, and full Rift / Vive etc. support, they're going to make a flippin' killing.

[Mossyfly47 18]

IMO, it's a waste of time, to argue against the benefits or Orbx, if you like detailed GA flight.  Besides the payware airports, Orbx changes the look of default airports within it's regions. The default FSX autogen buildings are replaced with Orbx hangars, administrative buildings, chainlink fences, moving vehicles with lights at night, etc. All of this adds character and life.  For myself, there is plenty to like about XP-10, but as I mentioned before, there are limitations.  For example, the Teton's out of Jackson Hole Wyoming look great in XP-10. I even have Jackson Hole Orbx for FSX. But when I fly to the Idaho side, it's the Orbx  scenery that puts XP-10 to shame. Much more colorful, along with autogen that looks photo-real from above. For these country areas, the night lighting from Orbx is much better too.

 

As I do my cross country travels across the western USA, just as I often did in the real plane, I'll always find areas where either XP-10 or FSX is the one looking better.  There is no such thing as one sim blowing the other out of the water!

 

An addition, a disagreement against a new reply, while writing this. FSX isn't even close to dead. I just purchased brand new A2A planes, and new Orbx scenery the other day. The fact that Microsoft pulled the plug, means little.  So many of these third parties have greatly improved the platform over the years. If anyone is counting on FSX being dead, don't hold your breath.  Not only that, money has always been a priority in Austin's mind. It hasn't just been for the love of the hobby (as I'll often read on various forums). I've kept up with his real life toys..............cars & airplanes for many years. He never buys the cheap ones, just to get by.  And yes, I do get a bit jealous. I don't blame him.  

Must agree absolutely on this point - sorry FSX is far from dead the the beat up ol vehicle may be rusty and fickly at times but its weathered some storms /// regardless that its  is 32bit it has got a new engine in it so its still got some  nautical miles to go before its taken to the scrap yard............

clocked up  73324 nautical miles since the beginning  of the month using FSX:SE on virtual airline.

[tonywob 4,770]

 

 

I remember Froolgesim stating that he saw an estimate that Euro Truck Sim 2 had more players then the Flight Sim community.

 

This wouldn't surprise me at all. It has a big community of users, and lots of very passionate and talented modders. I sometimes wish we could get some of the passion over into the flight-simming world.

 

 

Are you aware that there is an FAA-certified "Pro" version of X-Plane?
 
Quoting from the web site: "The certified software is available for $500 to $1,000 per copy from PFC and Fidelity and the hardware runs from $5,000 to $500,000."

 

Yes, people forget that there is also a Pro version of X-Plane that can be used for training, a recent example I remember reading about is this http://asn-xp.aerosoft.com/?p=13972

[tonywob 4,770]

 

 

One is that the user base is smaller than FSX / P3D, although that gap is decreasing now that FSX is dead.

 

I'd disagree. FSX is anything but dead and it's still the way to go in scenery/aircraft development if you want to make some money (Granted, it probably isn't much). There are certainly some payware sceneries and planes coming out for XP10, but a lot of the sceneries are just conversions (e.g. Drzewiecki design and some of Aerosoft's stuff). In fact, I remember Aerosoft having a lot of interest in XP10 a few years ago and now that seems to have calmed a lot, whereas they are still going strongly with FSX addons.

 

I've also watched several projects grow and fade over the years, e.g. FranceVFR who wanted to port their incredible scenery to XP still haven't (but continue to release FSX products), Czech VFR project which was a very enthusiastic group of users has all but disappeared, and I often see FSX products being updated/expanded and the XP versions being left in the dust (e.g. PolandVFR's photoscenery and autogen). I think this speaks volumes about why very few are touching X-Plane (Lack of users and interest), and I don't think it has anything to do with the availability of some good freeware in the areas they want to develop.

 

However, I do predict we will see another surge of users on XP10 when PMDG and IXEG finally release their products. A renewed interest will boost interest amongst other developers, and as much as many people here don't like to admit, PMDG's reputation and cult-following is going to really boost interest from the FSX/P3D crowd which translates into more development. We just haven't reached that point yet.

[soaring_penguin 428]

What I don't understand in this discussion how Orbx making money on the FSX platform (which has been discontinued by Microsoft because of finances) means that LR needs to make mobile to earn some more cash.

 

A 3rd part developer does not bring in extra cash for the platform creator, unless maybe it means a few more copies are being sold (which I doubt, the market is really small compared to other games).

 

So it makes perfectly sense for LR to : 

- develop a mobile app, which in return attracks new users to the PC platform, and on top of it creates a steady stream of income

the other choice would be :

- create a new version every so many years (lets say every 2 years) and charge the existing user base fully, which will put people off (I would be, my finances are limited for this kind of toy (at least in the eyes of my wife)). 

I think LR choice is the wiser one, for the long term (maybe this should go into the other thread about the mobile version :-) ).

 

 

So discussing which platform is the best, or which one is dead or alive, is mute. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

- X-plane is still being developed, and this does not seem to being halted in the near future. 

- FSX is not developed anymore (as a platform), and is limited to 32 bits and windows, but has a thriving 3rd party community.

Just my 2 cents.

[tonywob 4,770]

A 3rd part developer does not bring in extra cash for the platform creator, unless maybe it means a few more copies are being sold (which I doubt, the market is really small compared to other games).

 

I'd somewhat disagree in the case of X-Plane. If X-Plane had better addons (scenery, weather, ATC, study-level planes), it would likely mean increase in sales as not only veteran MSFS simmers purchase XP, but also new sales. This I think is the case for X-Plane and not necessarily other sims/games. In my case at least, I've often bought a game because of the mods/addons available for it, and not the other way round. 

 

As an example, if you're browsing YouTube or watching one of the gamer channels (Such as Froogle, or even NerdCubed), and he is using default XP10 with default planes and scenery (The video actually exists for NerdCubed and it's painful and funny to watch), then you'd likely think "Nah, move along, that looks terrible!!", but if the person was showing of something like IXEG 737 or flying a small Cessna into a detailed GA airport with animated people, you'd be much more likely to say "Wow, that looks nice, I'm going to pick that up".

 

Another thing is that the UI in XP10 is just too complicated for new users. I watched a Polish Youtuber who was thinking of doing a series on X-Plane (He's big into sims), but said it was just too complicated and he couldn't work it out without a lot of time. Lost sales there as well, as many of his followers buy the games/sims he reviews :-)

 

I think the demo for XP10 does a fairly good job and looks good (In Seattle), but since XP costs a lot of money compared to FSX-SE and isn't generally an impulse buy, a little bit or research on the Internet will show that in fact, out of the box, XP10 isn't that good and needs addons to give the stunning visuals often seen.

 

Also, the mobile platform does work to get users to try out XP desktop (It worked for me and got me back into simming after many years break), although funnily enough it also made me buy FSX again :-)

[alpha12125 213]

@Alpha:

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

 

Not sure if you meant to, but you're making a really compelling case for being all in on Prepar3d since they actually have a viable commercial business model around their product and us small end users get to tag along and reap the benefits.

 

They will go 64 bit at some point which will just further cement XP to the niche I'd imagine.

 

Yes P3D is a compelling product but i still dont see it nesecarily as the future. I know this has been discussed forever but i see it as LM entry into the professional training market, we reap the benefits but for instance 64bit is not something that they necessarily need. They want a simulator to train their military equipment not fly 8h over the atlantic. I think it was on the OrbX or some other forum where a add on developer vented some frustration of LM's hesitation to go 64bit. Because in reality you dont run out of memory if you train for one hour a specific scenario.

 

Also one thing is always that for Laminar XP is the core of the company, for LM its a niche, a very small niche. There is always the possibilty that the company has a 2 billion minus from some government project and an executive decides to axe the entire department, just like MS did when the numbers didnt suit them anymore. I know this is all theoretical but my main problem with P3D is that it has never been marketed to me, only me desperately looking for reasons that it will suit me. Again just my feelings.

...which is exactly what feeds into LM needing to make mobile apps to keep making money and very little 3rd party support for XPX to grow the user base.

But it is also what keeps the game alive, FSX or P3D can only dream of the community of dedicated Freeware Developers and other people that will make things happen. The move to more payware addons will come gradually from the community. Not by Laminar saying develop now for us, because noone will.  And it is moving, PMDG start developing, Active Sky Next said they are currently evaluating if its possible to make it work etc.   FSX has had 20 years to develop an ecosystem of thrid party companies and P3D is directly benefiting from that because it started out very similar.

[mdavis 10]

The OP question posed was "Is it worth it?"  There are valid arguments both ways on the realism of the scenery.  The European user community of freeware has done a far better job in that regard than the U.S. so it depends who you ask and where they fly.  My earlier point is that for nothing, you can bring XP far beyond FSX for the same amount of (no) money.  What happens after you spend the Orbx fortune is debatable, but it certainly should be expected to be a fair representation of reality.  Better?  Depends on where and how you fly and how deep your wallet is.

 

I agree that XP is somewhat more complex than FSX.  Some see complexity as a plus - the ability to customize and fine tune everything if you want to.  Others just want to push the throttle with engines running and fly and can't take the time to learn the AP, GPS, quick views, etc.  I personally left FSX after installing hundreds of dollars worth of add-ons over the years to the point where my 3.21GHz CPU couldn't push it any longer and I was getting multiple lock ups and freezes due to inadequate RAM.

 

My add-on list for FSX is long and expensive, and while FSX runs at unbelievable framerates on my new Devils' Canyon build, it isn't loaded down with a fortune in add-ons, and it isn't much fun to fly anymore in its "out of the box" condition.  Add to that the nightmare in getting complex files scattered all over the HD moved to a second computer and it just got beyond the effort - sort of like those who complain about the complexity of learning XP.  My add-ons are all pre-Orbx so that comparison probably isn't fair, but I'm not about to start over and empty the wallet in search of the Holy Grail.  It's not worth it to me.

 

So, yes, it's worth it if you understand the limitations of each sim and make your choice accordingly.  Do you want to spend an endless amount of money populating the earth with Orbx scenery, or are you happy to limit yourself to a few small areas?  Do you want to invest in big money on an old 32-bit program, or do you run a 64-bit sim on your 64-bit computer?  Are you willing to bet your 32-bit add-ons to a promised 64-bit version of P3D or will a 64-bit sim cause your 32-bit add-ons to become obsolete?  There's no right or wrong here, but to address the original question - yes, XP is worth it because of the potential and the freeware community.

 

Why are we asking these questions on an X-Plane forum, anyway?