Has anyone moved from FSX to Xplane?

GoranM · September 14, 2016

Marketing 101 teaches you that the more accessable/user friendly you make a product, the more people will use it. People want to fly virtual aircraft, not fumble their way through a clunky, unintuative interface first.

So what you are contextualising is that Austin is saying to his potential userbase: 'Hey simmers, I have the best flightsim on the market! But you'll only be able to get to the good bits once you've figured out the REALLY difficult bits first (which have nothing to do with flying an aircraft at all). And by the way, you may become bored figuring out the difficult bit first, in which case, you lose.

You are in fact totally correct. That's precisely the situation. That's exactly why the uptake is so slow and the aftermarket backing so sparse.

But I guess, the beginnings of Xplane started with a man who became so fed up with the lacking features in MSFS, that he created a flightsim all by himself. There is alot to be said for that.

To you, it's obviously difficult. To people who have had X-Plane for a while, it can take as little as 30 seconds to a minute to configure hardware and get flying.

Let's take your example a little further. Marketing. Boeing has been around for decades. Then, decades later along comes Airbus. They did EVERYTHING differently. They did it to how THEY thought was best. Soon, Airbus was accepted and welcomed by airlines and customers alike. Airlines still like Boeing. But they also like Airbus.

X-Plane isn't difficult to operate. It's just different.

ErichB · September 14, 2016

To you, it's obviously difficult. To people who have had X-Plane for a while, it can take as little as 30 seconds to a minute to configure hardware and get flying.

Let's take your example a little further. Marketing. Boeing has been around for decades. Then, decades later along comes Airbus. They did EVERYTHING differently. They did it to how THEY thought was best. Soon, Airbus was accepted and welcomed by airlines and customers alike. Airlines still like Boeing. But they also like Airbus.

X-Plane isn't difficult to operate. It's just different.

I was being dramatic. I agree with you.

Scramjet333 · September 14, 2016

I'm possibly one of the few people here who've never used FSX. I started with X-Plane 9 in late 2009, and went straight on to 10. I gave FSX a cursory couple-hour-long attempt, but somehow it just felt... old. Forget the flying - I felt like I was wresting with the very simulator itself to get it to do what I wanted, from installing an add-on to tweaking graphics.

With X-Plane, literally everything is accessible and editable through the file system, and this is a virtue of it being developed on OS X, which has Unix roots. Even the object files for scenery are simply text files (which can be edited by hand, provided one is brave enough).

It's also a reason why I was so vehemently against developers hard-coding directories into their add-ons and using installers (ahem, IXEG and PMDG) instead of archive files as is tradition with X-Plane add-ons. But this is a dead horse, so I don't want to bother flogging it, given the fact that most of X-Plane's new user-base is likely to be from FSX migrants who are all used to clicking through installers rather than unpacking archives.

As for graphical depiction of weather, ground textures and the dreaded ATC - I can't say for sure to what extent these will be improved in X-Plane 11. The key weakness in weather appears to be in two main areas - the 'three layer' depiction, and the fact that the weather only loads in tiles. These are glaringly obvious when flying at FL350-400, and one I sincerely hope the developers will fix. Not to mention the terrible performance that we get if the skies become remotely overcast.

Seasonal textures appears to be asked for frequently, but I'd rather a fixed AI+ATC.

Next, autogen ought to be a little less resource-hungry. Something like W2XP + HD Mesh v3 can easily kill performance on slightly lower-end systems, even with 16 GB of RAM.

All in all, I hope X-Plane maintains its open character, with key improvements made in the simulator. Vulkan + Metal is another part where the devs might focus on (Ben Supnik has already hinted that they may move on from OpenGL in V11 in some of his comments in the developer blog).

CFIJose · September 14, 2016

What's missing for me in XP 10.50 is a better weather rendering system, AI traffic, ATC (VFR & IFR), and a moving map with terrain awareness. I have plenty of planes & choppers and scenery.

If XP 11 doesn't address these important features, then I and many others will be extremely disappointed.

MarioDonick · September 14, 2016

Next, autogen ought to be a little less resource-hungry. Something like W2XP + HD Mesh v3 can easily kill performance on slightly lower-end systems, even with 16 GB of RAM.

The buildings you get with W2XP are not autogen. Default autogen can be shown in parallel (depending on which kind of W2XP scenery you use), but where OSM data is good W2XP draws its own buildings.

With X-Plane, literally everything is accessible and editable through the file system, and this is a virtue of it being developed on OS X, which has Unix roots. Even the object files for scenery are simply text files (which can be edited by hand, provided one is brave enough).
It's also a reason why I was so vehemently against developers hard-coding directories into their add-ons and using installers (ahem, IXEG and PMDG) instead of archive files as is tradition with X-Plane add-ons.

I completely agree with these points. Having low-level access is a VERY big plus and I really don't like the way how scenery and aircraft are managed in FSX/P3D. That's in fact the main reason I do not want to use these two. I want to control my installed custom scenery and aircraft on the file system level, not with dozens of installers or in cumbersome GUIs.

captain420 · September 14, 2016

Just take it for what it is, some people just don't like X-Plane for various reasons. This is a subjective matter. I can speak on my behalf, I've used XPX since 10.0.0, and I've put many hours into it. I've probably used XPX more than P3D, and in my opinion the latter is just a better flight sim because of all the add-ons. Without add-ons, either sim would be pretty much be extremely dull. I'll wait to see what XPX 11 brings. I'm sure I will mess with it, but until I see high quality add-ons, I'll just stick to P3D.

airlinejets · September 14, 2016

Just take it for what it is, some people just don't like X-Plane for various reasons. This is a subjective matter. I can speak on my behalf, I've used XPX since 10.0.0, and I've put many hours into it. I've probably used XPX more than P3D, and in my opinion the latter is just a better flight sim because of all the add-ons. Without add-ons, either sim would be pretty much be extremely dull. I'll wait to see what XPX 11 brings. I'm sure I will mess with it, but until I see high quality add-ons, I'll just stick to P3D.

Aaron, since you evidently prefer P3D, then what is the purpose of coming to the X-Plane forum and discrediting the simulator and it's users?

captain420 · September 14, 2016

This is a forum right? and as a community forum for flight simmers, I should be able to freely express my opinions and thoughts. I did not solely decide to join the XPX forum to start bashing it. I saw this subject on the topic table above the forum listing and wanted to add my 2cents. Whether it's something negative/positive or something that the individual agrees/disagrees with. There's just some things I feel strongly about and I wanted to voice them. Nothing more.