Returning to Flight Sims. Is XP11 suitable?

[dvlourie 19]

someone else had a similar question earlier, my response was:

I made the switch about 6 months ago. I was an avid FSX user since the "green-line" days of the early Sub-Logic. Hey, flying is flying, right? I have not looked back. 

The "flying" feel and physics of XP is closer to real world flying than anything I have tried before, and I have tried them all! I do fly GA in the real world and with XP and Pilotedge, my abilities are far better than anything in the past.

Now in the real world I fly mainly the PA28 and using XP and Pilotedge just makes real world flying that much accurate and confident. Try the demo....

[ricka47 611]

On 6/6/2017 at 9:57 PM, dvlourie said:

someone else had a similar question earlier, my response was:

I made the switch about 6 months ago. I was an avid FSX user since the "green-line" days of the early Sub-Logic. Hey, flying is flying, right? I have not looked back. 

The "flying" feel and physics of XP is closer to real world flying than anything I have tried before, and I have tried them all! I do fly GA in the real world and with XP and Pilotedge, my abilities are far better than anything in the past.

Now in the real world I fly mainly the PA28 and using XP and Pilotedge just makes real world flying that much accurate and confident. Try the demo....

I made the switch to XP11 at around the same time and removed all traces of P3D from my computer.  Then, the 64-bit version of P3D came out.  Since I am crazy along with the fact that I missed seasons, traffic, detailed airports everywhere and some of the other things that XP still doesn't have, I'm in the process of switching back.  However, I still think that XP11 looks better and less "cartoonish" that P3D v4 which still looks pretty much like FSX.   

[CarlosF 1,234]

1 hour ago, ricka47 said:

I still think that XP11 looks better and less "cartoonish" that P3D v4 which still looks pretty much like FSX

Agreed, I was about to purchase it but then decided to take a look at videos to see how it looks stock with no addons, (I don't have any p3d addons) and you are right, it is still FSX on steroids, too cartoonish for my taste. I'm sticking with XP11 as it looks way better even with its shortcomings. 

Also, I keep seeing people over at the other side purchasing $1000+ video cards just to get the most out of it, no way I would spend that amount on a video card, I like this hobby but I like my other hobby way more. My GTX 970 handles XP11 just fine with plenty of eye-candy.

[ricka47 611]

8 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

Agreed, I was about to purchase it but then decided to take a look at videos to see how it looks stock with no addons, (I don't have any p3d addons) and you are right, it is still FSX on steroids, too cartoonish for my taste. I'm sticking with XP11 as it looks way better even with its shortcomings. 

Also, I keep seeing people over at the other side purchasing $1000+ video cards just to get the most out of it, no way I would spend that amount on a video card, I like this hobby but I like my other hobby way more. My GTX 970 handles XP11 just fine with plenty of eye-candy.

P3D cannot be flown without add ons.  One of the reason that I'm going back is that I have quite a few.  Funny - all the money that I've spent (and will spend) to make P3D look like XP!

[sd_flyer 6,032]

2 hours ago, ricka47 said:

P3D cannot be flown without add ons.  One of the reason that I'm going back is that I have quite a few.  Funny - all the money that I've spent (and will spend) to make P3D look like XP!

It will never look like XP11! Even with all add-ons roads  are still going to look cartoonish :)

[Richard Sennett 2,499]

5 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

It will never look like XP11! Even with all add-ons roads  are still going to look cartoonish :)

1+

[Desaix 235]

On 6/6/2017 at 5:59 PM, Chock said:

If however, you mean IFR including the ATC transmissions one would be listening to and transmitting, filing of flight plans etc, then XPlane 11 is not quite so great for that, because frankly, the default ATC in XPlane is not great, and neither is the flight planning either, nor are any of the plug in add-ons you can get for it either. This is set to change, but it ain't going to happen overnight.

 

I think one should at least find time to check what's available on the market before giving wrong infos.

As mentioned in another post Pilot2ATC works great in XP (provided you're using windows) and presents a real good flight planner / moving map. I don't think anyone could rate as professional the default ATC system in PR3D hence even there you need a payware package to get a proper ATC. 

Furthermore a couple of other ATC programs of the FSX world are compatibel with XP but I cannot speak about them since I never tried them.

What XP lacks is a good AI package.

[Griphos 138]

He's talking mainly about what is available in the program itself, not in addons. And default ATC in P3D is FAR better than default ATC in XP.  I don't even bother with comms in XP because it is so bad. I don't know if there even is an addon that would allow one to engage in typical comms with a tower in VFR flight without filing a flight plan. Does Pilot2ATC offer that?  Because the default is so limited, addons have less scope for improving things.

[sd_flyer 6,032]

2 hours ago, Griphos said:

He's talking mainly about what is available in the program itself, not in addons. And default ATC in P3D is FAR better than default ATC in XP.  I don't even bother with comms in XP because it is so bad. I don't know if there even is an addon that would allow one to engage in typical comms with a tower in VFR flight without filing a flight plan. Does Pilot2ATC offer that?  Because the default is so limited, addons have less scope for improving things.

It seems like P3D has better stock ATC, but it's only on the surface. Practically it is as useless as the current in XP...

As for VFR flight there are two choices file: on the ground or in the air (flight following). In both cases controller needs to know your destination. What XP ATC lack is communication prior entering/landing D, C, B airspaces. With much better business in this department,  P3D requires to ask permission prior  entering class Charlie airspace, which you don't need in real life. All you need is to establish two way communication ( they got it wrong back FSX) Both P3D and XP stock ATC  can happily vector you into the mountain, and neither one can't accommodate SID/STAR..So give or take you need third party ATC programs for both sims

 

 

[Griphos 138]

No, it's not the case that they are the same and that an addon is required for both, or that ATC is practically useless in P3D.

In P3D, you don't have to file a flight plan to talk to a tower to request landing, or request permission through airspace. You can't do either of those in XP.  In P3D, you can tune com radio to a station frequency and talk to them, with several options that usually cover typical situations. Can't do that in XP.  You can't call up and request flight following in XP (without filing a flight plan).  

I didn't say P3D ATC was good.  I said it was usable, and for a certain kind of VFR flying, at least adequate.  XP ATC is not at all usable for most kinds of flying. You don't need an addon for basic ATC in P3D and I've never bought any. In XP, you certainly do. 

P3D isn't perfect (although your particular example is a bit technical, and, while correct, isn't the usual practice either).  But it IS quite usable. 

[soaring_penguin 428]

As I understood, ATC is one of the next points on the table that Austin wants to tackle, especially the lack in VFR situations. But as usual, there is no timeline to be found :) .

[vortex681 806]

On 10/06/2017 at 9:15 AM, jh71 said:

As I understood, ATC is one of the next points on the table that Austin wants to tackle, especially the lack in VFR situations.

But wasn't that also the case with XP10? To quote from the developers blog for XP10 at the end of 2011 with reference to ATC:

What kinds of things might you expect in the next stage? (NOTE: these are not promises. The details of future features have not been finalized but i'm trying to offer an idea of roughly where we're headed). VFR operations. Requesting higher/lower altitudes in flight. In-air conflict prevention and resolution. Changing destinations in flight. Requesting specific runways. Requesting specific approaches...etc. etc.

Even while XP10 was in developement, this was one of the priorities discussed at an XP Congress:

Improved ATC (Also high on Austin's list).

Austin has wanted to tackle ATC for a long time. I wouldn't hold your breath!

[sd_flyer 6,032]

2 hours ago, vortex681 said:

But wasn't that also the case with XP10? To quote from the developers blog for XP10 at the end of 2011 with reference to ATC:

What kinds of things might you expect in the next stage? (NOTE: these are not promises. The details of future features have not been finalized but i'm trying to offer an idea of roughly where we're headed). VFR operations. Requesting higher/lower altitudes in flight. In-air conflict prevention and resolution. Changing destinations in flight. Requesting specific runways. Requesting specific approaches...etc. etc.

What VFR operations? The primary purpose of ATC to provide separation for IFR traffic :)

 

 

[Griphos 138]

You must not be a pilot, or not a pilot in the US.  A great deal of ATC operation is aimed at VFR flight.  I have never filed an IFR flight plan in many, many years of flying, and I use ATC constantly.  

[strider1 575]

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

What VFR operations? The primary purpose of ATC to provide separation for IFR traffic :)

 

 

Its called flight following ! AC seperation. It's workload permitting.

"Radar traffic information service — commonly known as VFR flight following — is a service provided by air traffic control (ATC) and available to all VFR pilots which can enhance your flying safety. While receiving flight following, you'll be in radio contact with a radar controller at a Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) or Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC)"

"The purpose of the service is for controllers to issue traffic information to pilots, based on radar-displayed targets, concerning other aircraft in their proximity or that will intersect their flight path"

They also provide radar vectors if you need assistance with navigation, low altitude alerts, transitions through controlled airspace, etc...