I fly X-plane, P3D, and FS2004 still so I'm absolutely not blindly loyal to any particular format. I use different sims for different things...X-plane for mountainous or bush flying...P3D for regional stuff, and FS2004 for if I feel like going to LA or London without ending up at 10 FPS.

 

The problem with X-plane and something a lot of people are ignoring in this thread is the fact that X-plane is NOT NEW! Everyone keeps talking as if it's the new kid on the block and to "give it time" and wait for all these additions.

 

I can't say for sure but I have to guess that it's been at least 10 years since I first ordered X-plane (it came on several DVDs via snail mail). There wasn't any seasonal changes back then...and no airport buildings. Weather was also poorly depicted. 

 

But it's ten years later and the sim still has exactly the same issues. Why? This isn't some open source simulator that is entirely volunteer driven. Yet, most of the X-Plane community seems to talk about it as if it is. This is an expensive product (when not on sale). The last time I bought X-Plane (recently) I just assumed that after what I'm pretty sure is more than 10 years that there would be a whole slew of improvements and they absolutely were NOT there. I felt (and still feel) pretty burned as I payed a good chunk of money for it and I don't know that I could tell you one single difference between it and the version I loaded from DVDs a long time ago.

 

And that's a shame because it's stable...64 bit...can mostly keep up graphically etc. I'd love to replace it as my sim of choice but without some simple airports and not having to look at green grass in January the entire aspect of realism is just out the window. I don't need to have every aspect of flight simulated...but it's insane to fly into a Midway Airport with no buildings. It's just laughably inept...and way overdue...to still not have simple buildings. And I'm not going to try to start collecting scenery for 20,000+ or whatever airports. I just downloaded something that was supposed to take care of a huge number of airport scenery's all at once but they are just randomly strewn about the airport facilities and mostly not even connected to a tarmac.

I fly X-plane, P3D, and FS2004 still so I'm absolutely not blindly loyal to any particular format. I use different sims for different things...X-plane for mountainous or bush flying...P3D for regional stuff, and FS2004 for if I feel like going to LA or London without ending up at 10 FPS.

 

The problem with X-plane and something a lot of people are ignoring in this thread is the fact that X-plane is NOT NEW! Everyone keeps talking as if it's the new kid on the block and to "give it time" and wait for all these additions.

 

I can't say for sure but I have to guess that it's been at least 10 years since I first ordered X-plane (it came on several DVDs via snail mail). There wasn't any seasonal changes back then...and no airport buildings. Weather was also poorly depicted. 

 

But it's ten years later and the sim still has exactly the same issues. Why? This isn't some open source simulator that is entirely volunteer driven. Yet, most of the X-Plane community seems to talk about it as if it is. This is an expensive product (when not on sale). The last time I bought X-Plane (recently) I just assumed that after what I'm pretty sure is more than 10 years that there would be a whole slew of improvements and they absolutely were NOT there. I felt (and still feel) pretty burned as I payed a good chunk of money for it and I don't know that I could tell you one single difference between it and the version I loaded from DVDs a long time ago.

 

And that's a shame because it's stable...64 bit...can mostly keep up graphically etc. I'd love to replace it as my sim of choice but without some simple airports and not having to look at green grass in January the entire aspect of realism is just out the window. I don't need to have every aspect of flight simulated...but it's insane to fly into a Midway Airport with no buildings. It's just laughably inept...and way overdue...to still not have simple buildings. And I'm not going to try to start collecting scenery for 20,000+ or whatever airports. I just downloaded something that was supposed to take care of a huge number of airport scenery's all at once but they are just randomly strewn about the airport facilities and mostly not even connected to a tarmac.

 

I'm in the same boat (or airplane).  When X-Plane 10 came out, I bought it and uninstalled FSX.  To me, one was dead and one was alive.  But, and it was my fault for not researching well enough, I thought that the barren airports and the other issues were a thing of the past.  I learned a rather expensive lesson and went back to FSX.  That is, until I made the move to P3D and it's the only sim that I have installed now.

 I just downloaded something that was supposed to take care of a huge number of airport scenery's all at once but they are just randomly strewn about the airport facilities and mostly not even connected to a tarmac.

 

I've not bought XP yet, the whole barren landscape is too much for me to justify the cost. But, with the tool you mentioned that I heard about from Flightsimcon I'm hoping that with a bit of time, this will be great. But, saying that, I don't know how long this tool has been around so maybe it's been a while and things still are not great

I've not bought XP yet, the whole barren landscape is too much for me to justify the cost. But, with the tool you mentioned that I heard about from Flightsimcon I'm hoping that with a bit of time, this will be great. But, saying that, I don't know how long this tool has been around so maybe it's been a while and things still are not great

 

While my quote is somewhat of a criticism...I will say that the addon did definitely add something needed...I just wish that at least the buildings were *kind of* in the right places and that I could actually taxi up to them.

 

I really do hope X-Plane gets it together...I enjoy everything about the sim minus the points I raised.

I hear what you're saying, taxiways are a big thing. I always just fall back on the "with time" remark, but as stated, that's been going on for a very long time

I'm in the same boat (or airplane).  When X-Plane 10 came out, I bought it and uninstalled FSX.  To me, one was dead and one was alive.  But, and it was my fault for not researching well enough, I thought that the barren airports and the other issues were a thing of the past.  I learned a rather expensive lesson and went back to FSX.  That is, until I made the move to P3d and it's the only sim that I have installed now.

Perhaps the renewed interest in FSX thanks to the Steam edition will cause Larimar to step up their game. What most people are asking for isn't a lot and should have been coded into the sim a long time ago. I know I've read that X-Plane is a one-man project but c'mon already Austin, some of your customers have been waiting for a LONG TIME for some very basic and simple features. 

And Dovetail releasing a new sim, DFS, that I am sure will suck up a lot of existing and new customers as well.

 

That video from Austin at FlightSimCon sort of told me one thing in that XP may be better then FSX/P3D at modelling, which he has stated, but the question needs to be asked, if it was that much better, then why is it not the biggest out there? Well, some reason as people have described, I'm sure there are others too. But what that tells me is marketing is the issue.

 

You can bang on about blade theory all you want, but if users see big holes, then they will continue turning to competitors. There is a tonne of FSX/P3D users who don't seam to be all that bothered about blade theory, but are bothered about the issues that effect them. Enough anyway to use competitors more or exclusivly.

 

I've always thought that the mobile improvements was a great long term strategy. Money and increasing the audience. I think that's a great long time goal. But since that isn't, at this moment, turning in to improvements people ask in the desktop version, a lot of that is meaningless for desktop users. I would just hope that will change at some point and a re-focus happens

To me it feels as if the flight modelling is more realistic in X-Plane, however I've only had a few flight lessons and never completed my license. I'm no expert on the subject. But it definitely feels more like flying a plane in my very humble experience.

You can bang on about blade theory all you want, but if users see big holes, then they will continue turning to competitors

 

The other key point that Austin just seems to gloss over is that 3rd parties can code in very accurate physics for individual aircraft in FSX/P3D just fine, thus making the blade element stuff really make no difference to the average sim user and their experience.  Most of us aren't "testing out new airfoils" - an area where X-Plane would obviously excel.

 

Additionally, a whole ton of people simming, like IFR in real life, are simply on auto pilot doing procedural stuff most of the time.  A computer flight simulation experience is not where one goes for "feeling like flying" - Even with control loading yokes and the best physics/aerodynamics engines, so many visual and tactile clues are missing that it's always going to completely trail behind a real flight experience.

 

What *does* make a difference for flight simulators is a vibrant 3rd party development landscape.

And Dovetail releasing a new sim, DFS, that I am sure will suck up a lot of existing and new customers as well.

 

That video from Austin at FlightSimCon sort of told me one thing in that XP may be better then FSX/P3D at modelling, which he has stated, but the question needs to be asked, if it was that much better, then why is it not the biggest out there? Well, some reason as people have described, I'm sure there are others too. But what that tells me is marketing is the issue.

 

You can bang on about blade theory all you want, but if users see big holes, then they will continue turning to competitors. There is a tonne of FSX/P3D users who don't seam to be all that bothered about blade theory, but are bothered about the issues that effect them. Enough anyway to use competitors more or exclusivly.

 

I've always thought that the mobile improvements was a great long term strategy. Money and increasing the audience. I think that's a great long time goal. But since that isn't, at this moment, turning in to improvements people ask in the desktop version, a lot of that is meaningless for desktop users. I would just hope that will change at some point and a re-focus happens

 

The blade theory, in my opinion was always a lot of horse crap. When CAE makes a simulator that the airlines pay over $30 million dollars a piece for, do you think they use the "blade theory"?    I have flown the blade theory C 172 in X plane and a real C 172  for hundreds of hours, and there is no comparison. In my opinion , X Plane will be an almost made it, but just wait for the next version...type sim.  

As I said earlier, apparently PMDG sees something worthwhile in X-Plane, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the time and resources to develop for it. We'll see if that's enough to drag a few more simmers to that platform. I own FSX, P3D, and XPX. I also bought FSX-SE when it was on sale although I've never installed it. I use them all as each has its'own pros and cons. None of them are perfect by any stretch.

 

 

apparently PMDG sees something worthwhile in X-Plane, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the time and resources to develop for it

 

The DC-6....

 

Yay....I guess?

 

Super odd choice to go all in on 

Rob Raz did explain why they chose that plane for XP and his reasons sounded good enough, for them anyway. It's coming to other platforms at a later date. I'm pretty excited to have it, it's something different from them

They said the DC-6 was strictly a test bed aircraft to learn the intricacies of X-Plane. The amount of sales won't have any effect on their next course of action. It's not necessarily my thing but I'll buy it just to see what they're able to do.

The amount of sales won't have any effect on their next course of action.

 

That's good to hear...

Hopefully the 2nd effort is already underway (and is a more popular choice) or it won't be out until XP11 is 3/4 the way through its life cycle.