Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
qzpmtfgh

Few opinions on X-Plane 11, and PMDG products for XP11

Recommended Posts

How old is the code in XP11? Wasn't version 1 released in 1990?


Jay Bloomfield

Share this post


Link to post

I've never understood any of this stuff. To be blunt, the tribalism is entirely...well...stupid. All sides of it. Stop it.

I've been messing around in sims since FS 5.1 back when having a computer in your home was still relatively rare (so rare that the only one in my relatively immediate family was at my grandfather's house). Back then, there was a wealth of relatively simple sims, though at varying times: MSFS, SubLogic, Flight Unlimited, Fly, Janes, Falcon, and so on. Compared to the stuff today, they were all pretty rudimentary. All the same, each one gave you a different perspective. Flight Unlimited was tiled, so you were essentially confined to a single area of scenery that just repeated, but its main purpose was to enjoy some aerobatics, so you took off, flew around like a crazy person, and brought it right back where you started. Janes, on the other hand, gave you the ability to take off, go unload a world of hurt on various things, and come home (similar to DCS, it was a confined world). Even the earlier versions of MSFS didn't have the greatest offerings.

I used ALL of them, relatively equally. Back then, the interwebs weren't really a thing, so I'm not even sure a bunch of people would sit behind keyboards and snipe at each other for choosing one over the other, but it would've been as pointless back then as it is now. I enjoyed all of them for what they brought to the table. Clutching to one and shouting everyone else down in their inferiority is a little...well...culty.

The thing that makes even less sense to me is that I commonly see people say "more people need to be in our camp" in one sentence, and then "everyone who isn't in our camp is a worthless ingrate" in another. Psych 101: if you want people to see your way of thinking, don't make them your enemy.

On my dev computer, right now:

  • Flight Simulator X
  • Flight Simulator X - Steam Edition
  • Prepar3D
  • X-Plane 10

I use all of them. Each one has its strengths (though the only real reason I maintain FSX and FSX:SE is to test compatibility, and I maintain one as a stock, no-add-ons-installed environment). Each one has weaknesses.

I have every version of Air/Ace Combat from the original PlayStation version up through XBOX and back to PlayStation (yes, I have both of those consoles, too, and the arguments back and forth there are stupid as well...to include the PC v console argument). Compared to a proper simulator, they're all incredibly gamey (case in point: 100+ missiles on your F-16), but I've always found them entertaining. They're awful approximations of flight, but they're casual enough that I can fire up the XBOX, blow stuff up, and then move on to other things in my day. Loading up a PMDG plane, for me, takes a decent amount of planning and commitment, and the fidelity of the environment and the plane makes that all worth it. The balance in that case is fidelity/immersion versus time. It's not as clear cut between the various core simulator environments out there, but there are tradeoffs.

If you're proselytizing one sim over the other, you're doing it wrong. Pick the sim that you like. Enjoy it. Let the others enjoy their own platform. For me? That's multiple platforms, depending on what I happen to want to do that day.

If you cannot live and let live, you can leave. :laugh:

  • Upvote 7

Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post

I have my "feed" for AVSIM setup in such a way that I see all new postings, and I tend to scan through to ones I am involved in, and others that I have a somewhat vested interest (vested as in spent money with, used/use products for), so saw that this thread was gaining legs, so to speak, as the discussion was about two subjects I have said vested interest: PMDG and X-Plane.  While it appears more and more that people from around the world have something to say about the two subjects, putting them in the same sentence seems to bring out the worst in people.  I own three simulators and many different add-ons for all three, and while I don't use all of them equally, I still stay up to date with information that may benefit my choices in the present and future.

Kyle couldn't have said it better, though I would have used smaller words (joking Kyle :happy:).  Recent comments could only be construed as nasty and hateful, and will wind up being a direct reflection of the poster.  It is however, even more disheartening to see veteran members making childish and rude comments, which fail to produce nothing but more hate.  Some members, I actually looked up to for guidance, when I was new here, and I took a lot of their knowledge with me, to help get through issues with configurations, operation and just general information.  I shake my head with disappointment that as a community, it is so divisive, which has now turned into a contradiction.

  • Upvote 2

Engage, research, inform and make your posts count! -Jim Morvay

Origin EON-17SLX - Under the hood: Intel Core i7 7700K at 4.2GHz (Base) 4.6GHz (overclock), nVidia GeForce GTX-1080 Pascal w/8gb vram, 32gb (2x16) Crucial 2400mhz RAM, 3840 x 2160 17.3" IPS w/G-SYNC, Samsung 950 EVO 256GB PCIe m.2 SSD (Primary), Samsung 850 EVO 500gb M.2 (Sim Drive), MS Windows 10 Professional 64-Bit

Share this post


Link to post

A few posts were removed for not being signed in accordance with forum rules. Please ensure that you sign your posts.

Since those posts seemingly ignored the earlier message:
These are sim platforms; not religions. If that line starts to blur, I think you've invested a little too much emotion into it.

  • Upvote 3

Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
On 2017-5-2 at 2:29 PM, slavik35ua said:

Crosswinds, wind shears, default Cessna, that's not serious, general aviation is almost same in every sim, I've been flying in FSX for 4 years, 2 years in P3D, and now coming close to 2 month in X-Plane, so, as you can see, i'm pretty experienced simmer, and X-Plane 11, is the sim which is, well, if not the best in physics aspect, but definitely more comfortable then 2006-year 32-bit code FSX/P3D, it's much more simple and does not require any tweaking, affinity masks, NVidia inspectors, VAS monitoring, ENVTEX and so on, it's ready from the box, especially annoying thing is P3D, when they charge you 60$ for a 32bit in 2017 (laughs intensively), give it a try, and you won't come back to P3D/FSX, but even I do, because of PMDG, so, and some mentioned before, X-Planers aren't so "narrow minded" 

I only mentioned the default 172 in default weather because even in that state with no payware addons it shows FSX does not run on rails. I'm puzzled that you think GA planes perform the same in all sims. Maybe you should try A2A's GA sims, or XP11's 172.

I run FSX-SE by the way. That doesn't need any tweaking ether. If I had P3D I probably wouldn't tweak that either, it isn't compulsory. It works well out of the box. I'm glad you aren't narrow minded, despite laughing at P3D's 32 bit addressing. Not that that affects its flight model. As an experience simmer you would know that.

  • Upvote 1

ki9cAAb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, kevinh said:

I only mentioned the default 172 in default weather because even in that state with no payware addons it shows FSX does not run on rails. I'm puzzled that you think GA planes perform the same in all sims. Maybe you should try A2A's GA sims, or XP11's 172.

I run FSX-SE by the way. That doesn't need any tweaking ether.

So you talking about physics but still think FSX/P3D is not on the "rails", okay, I think our conversation should be closed to avoid future arguments and misunderstandings, I think we'd better stay with our opinions and just enjoy what we have, waiting for the developers to be cross-platform, so everyone could enjoy each amazing plane in each sim, however, till that happens, i'll probably be sitting in the real plane.

Peace


Viacheslav Pyrih

My potato: CPU: Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0GHz | GPU: MSI GTX 1070 Gaming Z 8108 Mhz | RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4 2400Mhz | MB: MSI Z170A Tomahawk | Cooling: be quiet! Shadow Rock Slim 190 TDP | HDD: WD 1TB Blue WD10EZEX | PSU: be quiet! Straight Power 10 600W

 

Still waiting for the QW 787

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, slavik35ua said:

So you talking about physics but still think FSX/P3D is not on the "rails", okay, I think our conversation should be closed to avoid future arguments and misunderstandings, I think we'd better stay with our opinions and just enjoy what we have, waiting for the developers to be cross-platform, so everyone could enjoy each amazing plane in each sim, however, till that happens, i'll probably be sitting in the real plane.

Peace

I know FSX/P3D is not "on the rails". I thought we'd established that. I was just asking you to confirm it for yourself. I don't think you understand the flight modelling in FSX/P3D so you aren't really qualified to discuss it.

  • Upvote 1

ki9cAAb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, kevinh said:

I know FSX/P3D is not "on the rails". I thought we'd established that. I was just asking you to confirm it for yourself. I don't think you understand the flight modelling in FSX/P3D so you aren't really qualified to discuss it.

Have u read my previous posts? 6 years in total on the "FSX" engine, i'm more than sure what i'm talking about the flight model, but, the very big thing that differs the physics between fsx and x-plane is the extreme weather. Try to fly in so called "red zones" in X-Plane and you'll be dead, and what happens in FSX/P3D? "Light chop", I've been flying on the PMDG 747 recently, and flew into a big red splat on my screen, but nothing happened, AS16 and PMDG747 didn't make me dig the ground, but in the default 737 in XP11 I simply got "Structure over-g" and dived deeply. So, the "rails" subjects can be discussed sooooooooooooo long, and i'm not exaggerating. 

Here's my screenshot taken right now to highlight the beauty of XP11 once more, and just imagine the gorgeous PMDG 737/777/737 shiny like this. Outstanding

Oh, forgot to say about the lights, in XP the lights are real lights, not a texture, just look at these landing lights, you can see how they illuminate the glass they are behind, and the fuselage,(scr taken yesterday).

NhM7nuP.jpg

c117d10217ae46b09689c91b04317255.png

  

  • Upvote 1

Viacheslav Pyrih

My potato: CPU: Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0GHz | GPU: MSI GTX 1070 Gaming Z 8108 Mhz | RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4 2400Mhz | MB: MSI Z170A Tomahawk | Cooling: be quiet! Shadow Rock Slim 190 TDP | HDD: WD 1TB Blue WD10EZEX | PSU: be quiet! Straight Power 10 600W

 

Still waiting for the QW 787

Share this post


Link to post

*Steps back in, obligatorily*

For what it's worth, the correlation to real life of crash tolerances are feeble at best in the sim.

Each sim has its own benefits. Not all of those benefits/drawbacks will be known to an end user unless they've developed for the platforms. Having actual light sources makes things easier, in theory, for people like Jason and Vin, who use those features. Dynamics are a different story.

...then again, what do we know about that kind of stuff? We're injecting lookup tables into XPL to sidestep the blade element theory stuff.

(The above line is a joke. People saw the PFPX file that I put together for the DC-6 to use with PFPX for flight planning, saw lookup tables, and immediately accused us of wrongdoing...without doing any research...or bothering to look at the very first line of the file explaining what it was.)

There are tradeoffs everywhere. Different sims are no exception. Arguing otherwise is pointless. Nobody is going to win this discussion.

  • Upvote 1

Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, slavik35ua said:

Have u read my previous posts? 6 years in total on the "FSX" engine, i'm more than sure what i'm talking about the flight model, but, the very big thing that differs the physics between fsx and x-plane is the extreme weather. Try to fly in so called "red zones" in X-Plane and you'll be dead, and what happens in FSX/P3D? "Light chop", I've been flying on the PMDG 747 recently, and flew into a big red splat on my screen, but nothing happened, AS16 and PMDG747 didn't make me dig the ground, but in the default 737 in XP11 I simply got "Structure over-g" and dived deeply. So, the "rails" subjects can be discussed sooooooooooooo long, and i'm not exaggerating. 

 

You may have used FSX/P3D for six years, but that doesn't mean you know how the flight model actually works. If you did you would know the "on rails" comment is just X-Plane enthusiast's trash talk. We all know native turbulence in FSX is rubbish, but if you use something like ASN or AS16 for weather you will get a much better experience. In fact much more turbulence than you need. You seem to be basing your comments on the level of turbulence. That doesn't even begin to cover it.

My debate with you is about the flight dynamics, not what the sim looks like. No one seriously disputes X-Plane looks good.

BTW if you want to play a numbers game, I started simming way back with FS5, but I've been working in flight simulation for 40 years.


ki9cAAb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, kevinh said:

You may have used FSX/P3D for six years, but that doesn't mean you know how the flight model actually works. If you did you would know the "on rails" comment is just X-Plane enthusiast's trash talk. We all know native turbulence in FSX is rubbish, but if you use something like ASN or AS16 for weather you will get a much better experience. In fact much more turbulence than you need. You seem to be basing your comments on the level of turbulence. That doesn't even begin to cover it.

My debate with you is about the flight dynamics, not what the sim looks like. No one seriously disputes X-Plane looks good.

BTW if you want to play a numbers game, I started simming way back with FS5, but I've been working in flight simulation for 40 years.

Okay, your 40 years and i'm no one in the sim industry and know nothing about the flight dynamics, but all of your proofs base around something like "it's not on the rails", "xpl amateurs phrases" and so on, but how about a firm proof why you don't think, that XPL has better FD


Viacheslav Pyrih

My potato: CPU: Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0GHz | GPU: MSI GTX 1070 Gaming Z 8108 Mhz | RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4 2400Mhz | MB: MSI Z170A Tomahawk | Cooling: be quiet! Shadow Rock Slim 190 TDP | HDD: WD 1TB Blue WD10EZEX | PSU: be quiet! Straight Power 10 600W

 

Still waiting for the QW 787

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

*Steps back in, obligatorily*

For what it's worth, the correlation to real life of crash tolerances are feeble at best in the sim.

Each sim has its own benefits. Not all of those benefits/drawbacks will be known to an end user unless they've developed for the platforms. Having actual light sources makes things easier, in theory, for people like Jason and Vin, who use those features. Dynamics are a different story.

...then again, what do we know about that kind of stuff? We're injecting lookup tables into XPL to sidestep the blade element theory stuff.

(The above line is a joke. People saw the PFPX file that I put together for the DC-6 to use with PFPX for flight planning, saw lookup tables, and immediately accused us of wrongdoing...without doing any research...or bothering to look at the very first line of the file explaining what it was.)

There are tradeoffs everywhere. Different sims are no exception. Arguing otherwise is pointless. Nobody is going to win this discussion.

Hmmm, this made me confused, why are the default XPL lights that weird, that you say only Jason and Vin use it, as I have read, these lights can be modified well, though they can't be fully custom, but the default ones on the 737 look pretty nice, same to JAR/Rotate products, their visuals are nice, especially the Rotate MD80, which has 5 fuses each in 4096x4096 


Viacheslav Pyrih

My potato: CPU: Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0GHz | GPU: MSI GTX 1070 Gaming Z 8108 Mhz | RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4 2400Mhz | MB: MSI Z170A Tomahawk | Cooling: be quiet! Shadow Rock Slim 190 TDP | HDD: WD 1TB Blue WD10EZEX | PSU: be quiet! Straight Power 10 600W

 

Still waiting for the QW 787

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, slavik35ua said:

Hmmm, this made me confused, why are the default XPL lights that weird, that you say only Jason and Vin use it, as I have read, these lights can be modified well, though they can't be fully custom, but the default ones on the 737 look pretty nice, same to JAR/Rotate products, their visuals are nice, especially the Rotate MD80, which has 5 fuses each in 4096x4096 

My point was that the advantage of the lights being real lights makes it easier for our modelers to work with. The users see these benefits in that the lighting looks more pleasing, but the real advantage is for the people doing the lighting work. With FSX, you have to use all kinds of hacks to do it.

Advantages in one sim are not there in others. All the same, the sim with the advantage may have a glaring drawback in another, making it difficult for a dev elsewhere. This is not as cut and dry as a lot of people attempt to make it.

  • Upvote 1

Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

My point was that the advantage of the lights being real lights makes it easier for our modelers to work with. The users see these benefits in that the lighting looks more pleasing, but the real advantage is for the people doing the lighting work. With FSX, you have to use all kinds of hacks to do it.

Advantages in one sim are not there in others. All the same, the sim with the advantage may have a glaring drawback in another, making it difficult for a dev elsewhere. This is not as cut and dry as a lot of people attempt to make it.

Oh, that's the way you meant it, cuz what I thought was that u tried to say that the default lights may seem not easy to work with, turns out they are really nice and good for the dev team. Thanks a lot.


Viacheslav Pyrih

My potato: CPU: Intel Core i7 6700K 4.0GHz | GPU: MSI GTX 1070 Gaming Z 8108 Mhz | RAM: Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4 2400Mhz | MB: MSI Z170A Tomahawk | Cooling: be quiet! Shadow Rock Slim 190 TDP | HDD: WD 1TB Blue WD10EZEX | PSU: be quiet! Straight Power 10 600W

 

Still waiting for the QW 787

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, slavik35ua said:

Okay, your 40 years and i'm no one in the sim industry and know nothing about the flight dynamics, but all of your proofs base around something like "it's not on the rails", "xpl amateurs phrases" and so on, but how about a firm proof why you don't think, that XPL has better FD

X-Plane does have a better flight model in that it offers finer detail to the designer. FSX/P3D is a "whole aircraft" model, whereas XP uses aerofoil elements to build up a whole aircraft. XP also has a more detailed lateral-directional aerodynamics so it's better in asymmetric conditions. But each element is still a lookup table, so XP uses those but at a much lower level than FSX. The fact that FSX uses whole aircraft lookup tables does not make that a bad flight model, it's how full flight simulators are usually programmed too. Both FSX and XP follow the same aerodynamic and stability principles. 

  • Upvote 1

ki9cAAb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...