First impressions of X-Plane.... not great

[Novation 534]

I sometimes wonder if having a demo is something of a downfall for XP. Obviously its nice to try something before buying it, but with a free demo there is no financial commitment and therefore no incentive to persevere if you don't like it at first, and lets face it XP is not the easiest of sims to jump into. Today, after several hours mucking about with the demo I removed it, and this is maybe the 6^th time I've done so over the past three years or so. I see some amazing screens and watch some vids, get inspired, install the demo, feel disappointed and remove it.

 

I hated FSX and P3D when I first bought them, but having spent the cash on them I had little choice but to keep going at it, and now I love them (well P3Dv3 anyway). I'm sure if I had more of a commitment to XP I would invest the time to get used to it and customize it in the same way I have done so with the other platforms.

 

For me the main turn offs are the VC camera, which seems to distort everything with small viewpint changes, and the clouds, which not only look terrible, but cripple performance. The generic terrain and autogen is also a turn off, as is the fact its not a very intuitive piece of software; my fifteen minutes are often up before I've even taken off, as I'm trying to configure the thing, so I give up in frustration.

 

I'll try again one day. Maybe even buy it.

[Jimmy RFR 406]

 

 

I sometimes wonder if having a demo is something of a downfall for XP. Obviously its nice to try something before buying it, but with a free demo there is no financial commitment and therefore no incentive to persevere if you don't like it at first, and lets face it XP is not the easiest of sims to jump into.

 

You're likely onto something there.  People are far more committed to persevering through to seeing a fully realized experience once they've spent money on something.  Or at least then come to a forum such as here, complain that they don't like it, and then barraged with good intentions. :wink:

 

 

 

For me the main turn offs are the VC camera, which seem to distort everything

 

I've noticed this in certain aircraft, but nearly no distortion at all in others.  For example, I find the AirfoilLabs 172 that everyone raves about to have significant distortion when I pan my view around, this having my FOV setup so that I can see the six pack. With the same FOV, I see much, much less distortion in the Aerobask aircraft I usually fly, nor the new VFlyteAir Cherokees.

 

 

 

The generic terrain and autogen is also a turn off, as is the fact its not a very intuitive piece of software; my fifteen minutes are often up before I've even taken off, as I'm trying to configure the thing, so I give up in frustration.

 

See, that's why you're onto something.  A 15 minute demo is just not worth the effort of installing HD Mesh or osm scenery, but in my opinion, that's what takes it to the needed level to a worthwhile environment to fly in.

 

I did much the same as you for some time.  Download the demo, muck around for a bit, get annoyed at the differences and the fact that performance seemed to be horrible, and then go back to FSX.  A sale on Steam finally convinced me to spend money on it, and once I did that and then read up on what was nearly mandatory to install and configure, I had no issues.

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

my fifteen minutes are often up before I've even taken off, as I'm trying to configure the thing, so I give up in frustration.
 

 

Pause "P" works for configuration. Then you'll still get the minutes.

[uwespeed 497]

... my fifteen minutes are often up before I've even taken off, as I'm trying to configure the thing, so I give up in frustration.

 

Try harder . While in the menues, the 15 min countdown is stopped. Apart from that, after the 15 min you can still fly. Only the controls input stops working, but you can use the autopilot.

[Desaix 235]

If it wasn't for the demo though, I would still struggle with FSX.

It let me enjoy the great lighting system of X-Plane and the, now unmissable, better deepness of field of view, at least for my perception of a 3D environment. I even bought PR3D but eventually asked money back after the trial period because of what I consider a more gamey view. It was version 2.3 IIRC and it could be that new version 3 is much better. Of course weather is still lacking realism in X-Plane, that should be the main focus of the LR team right now. Distance weather is still way inferior to Pr3D with ASN or OPUSFX addons

[Novation 534]

 

 

You're likely onto something there.

 

 

Well maybe, for me this is the case anyway. For others it might be enough to realize its just what they want, so I guess its swings and roundabouts.

 

Re FOV.. I did wonder if other aircraft would respond to the FOV in a different manner. I only ran the Cessna, which was horrible when panning around and instantly off putting. You do see this to some degree in FSX/P3D but only when going to a very wide view, so its curious why its so exaggerated in XP.

 

 

Pause "P" works for configuration. Then you'll still get the minutes.

 

Ah ha I didn't realize that. Oh well next time.

 

Try harder . While in the menues, the 15 min countdown is stopped. Apart from that, after the 15 min you can still fly. Only the controls input stops working, but you can use the autopilot.

 

I didn't give up after only one 15min session. I did try a little harder than that.

 

 

 

..... because of what I consider a more gamey view.

 

Funny that I had had the same thoughts about XP. It reminded me of an old PC game called Operation Flashpoint, mainly due to its very old fashioned depiction of clouds and the default terrain colour palette. Obviously all this can be changed, and make it look far less game like and up to date, but the default is very gamey, and again slightly off putting.

 

One thing I did try that I love is the Real terra haze app. That makes a huge difference to the atmospheric rendering and you're instantly notching up the realism.

 

 

 

 

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

Funny that I had had the same thoughts about XP. It reminded me of an old PC game called Operation Flashpoint, mainly due to its very old fashioned depiction of clouds and the default terrain colour palette. Obviously all this can be changed, and make it look far less game like and up to date, but the default is very gamey, and again slightly off putting.

 

This is why I switch between sims. I prefer mountain & desert country, especially around the western USA, where I'm used too. For instance, I once did a flight using default XP-10 from Salt Lake City to Jackson Hole, Wyoming. The mountains & lakes looked incredible, even without 3rd party mesh.  As I crossed the mountains westward at Jackson Hole, the XP10 scenery became rather drab & repetitive.  Bring in Orbx scenery for FSX here, and it's much better, including rural areas at dusk, when XP is excellent for city night lights. On the other hand, I prefer the first part of the trip to Jackson with XP-10 mountains.  

 

Another example, is Mr. X's freeware  PAJN (Jeneau International, Alaska) for XP-10.  The first time I fired that up, the evening dusk weather settings were perfect!   I felt like I was there.  Mr. X freeware, is without doubt, a high class payware type of scenery. I actually prefer this over my Orbx PAJN scenery for FSX.   At other times, I'll simply prefer Orbx/FSX  over XP-10.  Just too many areas out there to explore, and I don't like being limited.  This morning's flight was out of KSLC with real weather, high winds, and full overcast with rain in XP-10. Using the new Cherokee 140, it was quite the deal. Had to do a go-around, because the cross winds were just too much for this little plane. Very authentic!   Reminded me of a cross country solo flight to Nevada for my PPL, in which the flight school had called the airport to tell me not to try landing. I didn't get the message, and after several go-arounds, pulled it off.

[mdavis 10]

The sensitivity issue was addressed way back on the first page of this thread and bears repeating.  Real life controls have a much longer "throw" or axis of movement than our cheap yoke and pedals and joystick.  In order to incorporate the entire effective range of movement in our controllers, it is necessary to increase the linear sensitivity.  So there are two choices - learn to use the more sensitive controls (which comes with practice), or de-sensitize the settings which then causes non-linear response which is also unrealistic.  That's not an excuse, just a limitation in hobbyist grade controllers and a fact of life.  As others have said, flying FSX after X-Plane is like flying an aircraft on rails.  One is not necessarily better than the other, just different.

[LAdamson 240]

The sensitivity issue was addressed way back on the first page of this thread and bears repeating.  Real life controls have a much longer "throw" or axis of movement than our cheap yoke and pedals and joystick.  In order to incorporate the entire effective range of movement in our controllers, it is necessary to increase the linear sensitivity.  So there are two choices - learn to use the more sensitive controls (which comes with practice), or de-sensitize the settings which then causes non-linear response which is also unrealistic.  That's not an excuse, just a limitation in hobbyist grade controllers and a fact of life.  As others have said, flying FSX after X-Plane is like flying an aircraft on rails.  One is not necessarily better than the other, just different.

Of course, I've always said, for the last ten or fifteen years, that those "others" don't know what they're talking about.  :smile:   

 

Speaking of sensitivity, for the heck of it, I did go through a few default X-Planes yesterday, as compared to the newer offerings; and some were quite sensitive, considering my control settings are the same.  Take a plane such as the vFlyteAir Cherokee 140 or AirFoil Labs Cessna 172, which trim very well, don't bounce all over the sky with a puff of air.................and you'll almost think they Fly on Rails, if people think that's what Flying on rails is, as I don't.  Some of defaults I flew yesterday, jut give an impression of no air loads on the flight surfaces, and happily bounce around in concert with the joystick. Blah!

 

It is a fact, that people using sims need to adjust to sensitivity and smaller throws of desktop equipment.  My pilot friends who've tried my sims, are all over the place to begin with. Same with a real pilot trying R/C aircraft for the first time.  However, we can all get use to it. I got use to all kinds of long & short sticks in full size aircraft, as well as R/C. It makes simming easy, but there are still some models out there, that are not very believable flight dynamics wise. They simply don't give a sense of feedback, when you consider air loads from flight surfaces, that transfer back to a stick or yoke.

 

Note:  IMO, Flying on Rails is basically following a heading and altitude without much user input. FSX planes will just drift off heading & altitude like the real thing will.  Others believe that Flying on Rails, is the smoothness that FSX defaults too. They think this is incorrect, and that planes are always moving in different directions due to constantly moving air, and that real pilots are always making small corrections. That assumption..................is very untrue.  Fly little planes long enough on those good days, which I could, as I kept a plane at the airport next door, and you'll find plenty of calm air, in which the plane seems to sit still. My (ex) airplane is considered very sensitive by regular Cessna/ Piper pilots, yet it trimmed exceptionally well, and felt still, as the ground drifted underneath at 200 mph. My wife, often made that "sitting still" remark. Of course, other times, it bounced like crazy, dropped the wing nearly 180 degrees, and all of that.   

[60North 120]

LA, I think the expression "flying on rails" best can be related to Phugoid Oscillations (long term), Short period oscillations (short term), Roll subsidence, Dutch roll, spiraling etc.  XP handles most of these very well out of the box (if the aircraft is well designed)

[mikealpha 266]

Speaking of sensitivity, for the heck of it, I did go through a few default X-Planes yesterday, as compared to the newer offerings; and some were quite sensitive, considering my control settings are the same. Take a plane such as the vFlyteAir Cherokee 140 or AirFoil Labs Cessna 172, which trim very well, don't bounce all over the sky with a puff of air.................

 

Just wondering, how to you have the sensitivies set up in XPlane, e.g. for the Cherokee ? I'm also relatively new to XPlane. I have a FFB Yoke with probably the longest travel I ever came across. I barely need e.g. 10% aileron travel in any XPlane Addon, also the vFlyteAir Cherokee 140, no matter if using real weather or not.

If you look at the Yoke in the vFlyte Addon itself, e.g. to put the plane in a 30 Deg bank, it also barely moves. I know the real Cherokee, it's definitely not so in the real plane. Same for Rudder sensitivity.

That's at least something much more convincing in P3D.

 

Mike

[Tom Wright 438]

Just seen the vFlyteAir Cherokee, looks rather nice. Anyone have any idea how it compares to the A2A one?

[MarioDonick 752]

Just seen the vFlyteAir Cherokee, looks rather nice. Anyone have any idea how it compares to the A2A one?

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/488679-new-vflyteair-cherokee-140s/

[Tom Wright 438]

http://www.avsim.com/topic/488679-new-vflyteair-cherokee-140s/

 

Doh! Thanks!

[LAdamson 240]

Just wondering, how to you have the sensitivies set up in XPlane, e.g. for the Cherokee ? I'm also relatively new to XPlane. I have a FFB Yoke with probably the longest travel I ever came across. I barely need e.g. 10% aileron travel in any XPlane Addon, also the vFlyteAir Cherokee 140, no matter if using real weather or not.

If you look at the Yoke in the vFlyte Addon itself, e.g. to put the plane in a 30 Deg bank, it also barely moves. I know the real Cherokee, it's definitely not so in the real plane. Same for Rudder sensitivity.

That's at least something much more convincing in P3D.

 

Mike

I've left my settings where they are. Sensitivities are full left (realism) The three settings in the right column are at 30% linear response.  Null is at 10%.  I do believe I read where a manual suggests certain settings, but then I seldom read the full manuals.  As to looking at animated yoke or stick

travels, I've never cared. I just do what it takes to make the plane do what I want..............if the flight model is capable of it.   Take the Van's RV6 I owned for example.  I hardly ever moved the stick (for ailerons) through full travel. I'd have to move my leg to do so. Even a quick climb wouldn't use near the rearward travel, that a flare will. In fact, for almost anything, the stick travel was small.  I flew a Stearman with a much longer stick, compared to the RV, and maneuvering used a lot more stick movement. Sims are a compromise, when it comes to displaying the amount of yoke/stick  travel, versus actual airspeeds, and how they effect movement, and the feel of inertia, weight, and all of that.   

 

But.....................since the title of this thread is "First Impressions of X-Plane, not that Great"...................................... I'm actually going to say, that a real weather flight through passes and over parts of the Rocky Mtn. range, was truely awesome!  It was in the Airfoil Lab C-172SP.  The weather sucked. Rain, lightning, no visibility 3/4ths of the time, up drafts, down drafts, and a sense of terror!  You see in real life, I'd wouldn't have tried that ever!  Almost all of my real life flight time was around these mountains. Anytime a Cessna 172 lifted off the runway and flew over my house (under the pattern), it would remind me of the animated train cartoon, where the locomotive is saying "I think I can, I think I can".  In other words, a 172 isn't a real climber by any means. The RV6 had three times a 172's climb performance, and density altitude was never a real issue. 

 

However, thanks to this new 172, and Cherokee 140, I'm really getting into X-Plane again...........even though I've used it on & off, since the mid 90's. I'm not even a real life fan of these slower planes.  These models  just have believable single engine flight modeling, as well as panel graphics, and when combined with X-Plane 10's superior mountain rendering, it makes it all work!  Note: There are many sim flights, in which I enjoy those Orbx mountain scenarios for FSX too.  I beta tested three versions of MSFS, as well as testing 3rd party flight models over the years.  I made numerous complaints about X-Plane at the same time. Today, the scale is actually tipping into X-Planes favor. Just took a long, long while, and some good riddance to engine torque.