Hah, this reminds me of my first steps in flight simulation. I would load a 747, set flaps, thrust, take-off ... then 3 minutes later, I was like - ok, good - and exit the sim. 

 

Ha ha, I couldn't even land, I would crash or just couldn't find the airport. It was FS9 that made me go out and do real PPL lessons and the sim helped a huge amount :-). Now I appreciate more what our sims have to offer, but I can imagine most users (who we don't hear from) don't care, and fly under the golden gate bridge upside down in a 737 and post their thought on Youtube afterwards

XP doesn't really need FSX/P3D dev's (call me crazy if you want) there are quite a few extraordinary XP developers out there that are staring to produce extraordinary products some of which are freeware/donationware, so it is just a matter of time.

 

MS flight sims have been around for a long time,  it wasn't until FS2000 that outside development started, now we are seeing the same thing happening with XP.

 

Let time be the judge.

As to X-Plane, it was advertised in my pilot shop catalog back in 1994.  Back then, there was a lot of freeware for MSFS too.  In fact, most leading edge developments were freeware.............way back then.  I do agree that there are some exceptional developers for X-Plane. 

I get the impression that X-plane releases are looked at with way more criticism. I don't know why, maybe because it's user base has more rw pilots. I held off on the Aerosoft ATR because of some of the quite extreme negativity. I bought it and really like it. It looks and flies great(I know its systems are simple). Same thing goes for the T7 by Ramzes. I bought it on sale and it looks and flies really nice. I actually think it's better than FF767 because they didn't mess up the cockpit window shape and posts in the VC. I haven't found a system I use from day to day with PMDG's T7 that isn't modeled. I'm really happy I bought it.

I get the impression that X-plane releases are looked at with way more criticism. I don't know why

 

I think because of various reasons:

 

1. There's a myth around X-Plane that due to it's Blade Element Theory (BET) approach X-Plane was more realistic. Then people notice that aircraft quality depends on the individual developer's abilities and experience as it did in FSX' table approach and that you do not get a good flight model automatically just because it's X-Plane. This would not be a problem per se, but it becomes a problem when people have the impression that X-Plane users have an arrogant attitude because of BET. (I was told that this was much worse some years ago, though, and has changed to the better in recent years.)

 

2. Most people don't care that most X-Plane developers are one-man projects or small teams with much less resources or experience that do development in their spare time -- if there's a product for $60 that has less quality than a similar product in FSX world for the same or a lower price, people criticize that. It gets not easier by the fact that X-Plane addons are sometimes more expensive than comparable or better FSX addons. For example the Aerosoft Airbus A320 costs as download version 44 EUR, whereas the JARdesign Airbus A320 costs 65 EUR.

 

3. Some people only accept PMDG quality, anything else is "bad" in their eyes.

Some people only accept PMDG quality, anything else is "bad" in their eyes.

With more and more unknown developers entering the payware space, buying a payware aircraft is like purchasing a used item on Ebay. You just don't know what you're finally going to land up with. Whether you are buying for XP or P3D, PMDG has become the quality benchmark againsed which all other payware products are measured. There is nothing wrong with that. It simply forces others to a higher standard if they want to enter the payware space.

 

Like with any other consumer segment, the serious flightsim buyer is more sophisticated and demanding now than he/she was in 1998. Once people know what is possible, that's what they demand from that point on.

 

Although I do take my hat off to anyone who designs for flightsim these days. Months, if not years of work can be savaged in a forum over a period of 30 minutes. I find that very sad.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with that. It simply forces others to a higher standard if they want to enter the payware space.

 

That's true for the "serious" user (the simulation enthusiast) or the "expert" (as I call it in my review rating system). It may well be that the majority of users in forums like this belongs to this group (we agreed about that yesterday), but developers do not exclusively develop for this "expert" group.

 

I think this is what the "expert" groups sometimes seems to forget -- that they are not the target audience for many payware developments. CVEP's example with the ATR72-500 is a good one. Nearly no other aircraft in the XP world has been bashed to the ground as much as this one, but CVEP enjoys it based on his demands ("it looks and flies great"). Based on his demands, the ATR72-500 is certainly a "good" aircraft, and he's probably not the only one for this rating would be valid.

 

 

It only becomes a problem if a developer whose actual target audience is not the "expert" group nevertheless writes on website, shops, etc. how super-realistic his product is. This exaggeration may bring some fast cash, but creates a bad reputation in the long run. It's not an evil thing if you create a simple product -- just don't try to sell it as if you're the next PMDG.

 

 

It only becomes a problem if a developer whose actual target audience is not the "expert" group nevertheless writes on website, shops, etc. how super-realistic his product is. This exaggeration may bring some fast cash, but creates a bad reputation in the long run. It's not an evil thing if you create a simple product -- just don't try to sell it as if you're the next PMDG.

 

I completely agree with you on that.

I completely agree with you on that.

So do I. I think McPhat and Aerosoft were quite clear in telling people that their ATR was a light on the systems product. I too prefer more system depth, but I can also enjoy a light, but realistic in immersion and feel of flight product. They did well in this regard. I hope that they, like with the AirbusX will add some features to it and will not be discouraged by the negativity. It's better to have a certain type airplane in a light version, than not at all.

Hey guys, who is the main developer of airports for XP?

There is no main developer as such, but mostly small groups or individuals. Aerosoft occassionally release an airport, but there aren't any big groups pushing out lots of airports like you see on FSX. There is much more freeware, some of it is very high quality and can beat some payware.

There is no main developer as such, but mostly small groups or individuals. Aerosoft occassionally release an airport, but there aren't any big groups pushing out lots of airports like you see on FSX. There is much more freeware, some of it is very high quality and can beat some payware.

Thanks Tony, so is there a central place to see what is available?

A good place to start is x-plane.org. There you will find a large amount of both freeware and payware airports. X-Plane.org is pretty much the defacto place to find addons (paid and free). There is also x-aviation.com, but they seem to concentrate more on the airplane side rather than scenery.

A good place to start is x-plane.org. There you will find a large amount of both freeware and payware airports. X-Plane.org is pretty much the defacto place to find addons (paid and free). There is also x-aviation.com, but they seem to concentrate more on the airplane side rather than scenery.

Thanks Tony. As a matter of interest, are current sceneries and aircraft likely to be compatible with Xplane 11 that I keep hearing about?

 

On a different note. What is going on with the water in XP? I notice in some screenies that it appears to be an almost sheet of glass with no texture but bright blue! In others, it often looks overly false.

 

Is there a manufacturer that develops aircraft as good as A2A or Realair?

I think it's highly likely XP11 will be backwards compatible, just like XP9 and 10 are and I'd be surprised if LR break compatibility (It would be like cutting off their own foot and would limit the number of people who would purchase the update).

 

The water in XP depends on the settings you have, on low settings it can look like a sheet of glass, on higher settings there are reflections and other effects. Additionally, plugins such as RealTerraHaze can alter the colour of the water. I have personally altered the colour on mine to be less blue. However, I do think the water looks better in P3D on high settings, and something that needs to be improved in XP (but it's all a matter of taste)

 

Regarding A2A or Realair, there is one company called AirfoilLabs whose c172 comes really close and is really immersive. There is also Carenado if you like visuals, I also hear lots of praise for Aerobask. At the moment, FSX addons are still ahead (unless you like helicopters, and then there is no comparison), but XP is catching up as the devs become more experienced. I expect XP11 to bring us some fantastic visual improvements for the aircraft and although it will be a while before devs catch up, it will certainly be something to look forward to.

Thanks Tony, so is there a central place to see what is available?

http://flyingxplane.apps-1and1.net/airport-map-again/