What are the big missing features in XP11.x v P3D 4.x now?

[FlyBaby 659]

1 hour ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Folks,

LOL - without picking a side - I strongly disagree with this statement... We've never had it so good...

Regards,
Scott

Actually, your statement doesn't disagree.with mine..."having it so good" has nothing to do with the "pace" of advancements which is what the word "stagnant" was referring to with respect to the "missing features" topic of this thread.

Nice try though...

A reasonable response would have at least suggested that the updates / advances happen at a fast enough pace (in your eyes), which would have been the “opposite” of stagnant to support your “strong disagreement”. 

But no, we are simply left with “we’ve never had so good”. While I don’t disagree with your statement, I think there are more genuine ways to earn brownie points with the community.
 

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by FlyBaby

[deetee 164]

Unfortunately P3D has become a payware provider’s paradise, a black hole down which people regularly throw money to replace the default airports which are often way out of date (runways, ils freq). You need to shell out on those expensive add-ons for it to have any semblance to current charts. The X-Plane airport gateway on the other hand was a stroke of genius, I can fly into most large airports and be confident things are more or less up to date with the current charts.

If we move on to the default P3D scenery textures and coastlines, again the wallet has to come out to remedy this (it needs FTX Global to look half reasonable).

Compare if you will then these two sims, but I know which one has real consumer value in 2018. 😉

 

 

[MSFS Ralf 149]

For me it’s good FPS. I‘m able to run P3D with better looking settings and good FPS compared to XP11.

[klamal 282]

30 minutes ago, deetee said:

Unfortunately P3D has become a payware provider’s paradise, a black hole down which people regularly throw money to replace the default airports which are often way out of date (runways, ils freq). You need to shell out on those expensive add-ons for it to have any semblance to current charts. The X-Plane airport gateway on the other hand was a stroke of genius, I can fly into most large airports and be confident things are more or less up to date with the current charts.

If we move on to the default P3D scenery textures and coastlines, again the wallet has to come out to remedy this (it needs FTX Global to look half reasonable).

Compare if you will then these two sims, but I know which one has real consumer value in 2018. 😉

 

 

This, in my opinion, is both a pro and a con.  Of course we all want everything to be free.  But, most people can't or don't want to work for free.  If you're happy with the scenery gateway airports, great.  But they are not payware quality either.  You get what you pay for.  For some of us here, we are happy to pay someone for their time and then use these beautiful products in our sims.  For some of us here too, we are happy just to have correct layouts of airports and really don't care what the buildings look like or if it truly gives you the look and feel of being at that airport.

So I don't really consider the 'payware blackhole' a negative for P3D.  In fact, I see a lot of posts wishing for good quality payware developers to come to XP.  And that seems to be happening.  Which is good, in my opinion.  Because that is what XP lacks - quality products.

[FishermanIvan 110]

Just to poke my head in for fun, but airplane’s crosswind limits aren’t a legal limit.   A 172 will land just fine (and safely!) in more than a 16 knot xwind or whatever the demonstrated limit is.  The same applies for anything else.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

11 hours ago, klamal said:

This, in my opinion, is both a pro and a con.  Of course we all want everything to be free.  But, most people can't or don't want to work for free.  If you're happy with the scenery gateway airports, great.  But they are not payware quality either.  You get what you pay for.  For some of us here, we are happy to pay someone for their time and then use these beautiful products in our sims.  For some of us here too, we are happy just to have correct layouts of airports and really don't care what the buildings look like or if it truly gives you the look and feel of being at that airport.

So I don't really consider the 'payware blackhole' a negative for P3D.  In fact, I see a lot of posts wishing for good quality payware developers to come to XP.  And that seems to be happening.  Which is good, in my opinion.  Because that is what XP lacks - quality products.

I like the fact that Ortho4XP works for both Xplane and P3D now, although I have not tried it with P3D, I've used FSEarthtiles instead.  It allows for free photo scenery (which costs if you add the man hours your personal time takes to create the scenery) for both sims, and photo scenery, especially in P3D, is important.  I have always given the edge in generic scenery, mesh, landclass and autogen to Xplane11, which is why I like to fly with it even when I am flying over non photo scenery. 

I spent so many hours in the air, as a road warrior, and some small hours in the air, as a student pilot, that the way the world and atmosphere should look from above is burned into my mind's eye.  Xplane11 nails it, except for cumulus clouds, which are just not billowy enough so to speak, they seem to have little substance.  You really have to tweak the weather layers to get the clouds to look right, and they hide too much ground compared to P3D.  Clouds removed, (except for high cirrus which look fine), Xplane11 looks more like what I have seen out the passenger window in aircraft at its defaults vs. P3D.  It's autogen is much more realistic, P3D puts block homes where single family homes should be. 

Xplane11 puts just the right homes where they should be, and the architecture varies based on whether you are in Europe, or the States, or elsewhere.  P3D tries to do that, but does not do it as well, for that you need a third party scenery add on that replaces the Autogen, like Orbx.  And that costs money.  When the real thing is about flying from runway to runway and not sightseeing so much along the way, there's work to do, and I mean it, lol....

John

[Noel 4,487]

On 11/21/2018 at 3:24 AM, DJJose said:

Hi Noel,

If you are still in Paradise, CA I hope you are doing well and your family is safe.

I think it's a wise decision for you to stick with P3D v4 and wait to see what happens in future versions of P3D & XP. Like you, I chose to stick with P3D v4. In another thread I wrote:

1) I bought my copy of XP11 digitally when it was released to support the platform. I now need an internet connection to run it. What a joke!

2) On my computer, XP 11 takes a long time to load (even with default textures.) I tried FL ortho and it took forever to load. Even with ortho I still noticed blurry textures and many times the sim just CTD.

3) Still today, NO default seasonal variations.

4) In the latest version, I noticed that the textures did not extend to the horizon. What happened there?

5) The GA planes I sim with (payware) do not behave realistically at all. This has been a problem since XP10. Even though most say that XP 11 FDs are more realistic than P3D, I have not had that experience with my system.

6) Sounds are absolutely awful!

7) Aircraft ground traction is unrealistic on my system!

😎 The weather needs to be revamped! I experienced abrupt weather changes, ugly poor performing clouds, and unrealistic wind shifts. Just bad!

9) AI traffic needs improvement.

10) ATC needs improvement.

The other disconcerting thing about the XP 11 platform is that downloading free addons from the xp dot org forum was time consuming. The site is slow. Plus, the best addons are sold by a particular seller that I have no interest in buying from them again.

Wow thank you for your well wishes for us, and for overview of XP11's less than desirable attributes.   I'm actually, believe it or not, still using P3D v3.4.  I've never had issues w/ OOM so never upgraded to v4.x.  I have paid the professional license twice now at $200 per and that is a lot to pay for something that changes infinitesimally compared to the wonderful content from third party providers.  Think about it:  default terrain scenery and aircraft really are low end.    And yet $400 went to LM.  Really bad deal, but as they have the core what can you do beyond staying pat, which I've clearly done.   V3.4 is quite decent as is fortunately.

[CFIJose 5,485]

4 hours ago, Noel said:

Wow thank you for your well wishes for us, and for overview of XP11's less than desirable attributes.   I'm actually, believe it or not, still using P3D v3.4.  I've never had issues w/ OOM so never upgraded to v4.x.  I have paid the professional license twice now at $200 per and that is a lot to pay for something that changes infinitesimally compared to the wonderful content from third party providers.  Think about it:  default terrain scenery and aircraft really are low end.    And yet $400 went to LM.  Really bad deal, but as they have the core what can you do beyond staying pat, which I've clearly done.   V3.4 is quite decent as is fortunately.

I'm in complete agreement that P3D is over priced and I'll add over-hipped. You need a bunch of payware addons to make it look great and you then get instability. But, it's all we've got, and I've learned to live with it. I wish XP 11 success, but my experience tells me that it will be a long time before we get a sim with the best of both worlds (sims.)

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

On 11/21/2018 at 11:39 AM, deetee said:

Unfortunately P3D has become a payware provider’s paradise, a black hole down which people regularly throw money to replace the default airports 

I hate to break the news to you but XP is headed down that same costly road. With XP10 I had no payware airports installed and only two payware aircraft. I used freeware ATC to replace the deficient default ATC and FSGRW for weather. Then I bought SkyMaxx for clouds etc. and World Traffic 2 to replace the virtually non-existent AI traffic. That progression has continued with XP11 except now I'm waiting for Active Sky for XP and using WT3 plus  Pilot2ATC. Some of the former top freeware XP developers now charge for their newer products. Once ORBX gets going with a full XP lineup, the floodgates may open up.

The days of the $60 US complete flightsim are rapidly drawing to a close. This payware add-on bloat is the trend unfortunately. The lack of 3rd party payware is one of the factors that killed DTG FSW and it is also a factor in the infinitesimal adoption rate of Aerofly FS2. Payware is now the parasite that has taken over the bodily functions of the host organism.

[Bjoern 1,153]

In the eyes of this random flightsimmer, the pricing on a good part of payware add-ons for XP is pretty ridiculous, especially in light of questionable support for, and compatibility to, more recent releases of the base sim and some freeware offerings.

[Paraffin 2,197]

3 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I hate to break the news to you but XP is headed down that same costly road. With XP10 I had no payware airports installed and only two payware aircraft. I used freeware ATC to replace the deficient default ATC and FSGRW for weather. Then I bought SkyMaxx for clouds etc. and World Traffic 2 to replace the virtually non-existent AI traffic. That progression has continued with XP11 except now I'm waiting for Active Sky for XP and using WT3 plus  Pilot2ATC. Some of the former top freeware XP developers now charge for their newer products. Once ORBX gets going with a full XP lineup, the floodgates may open up.

I disagree, at least to a certain extent (mainly about scenery).

I'm in full agreement on the weather add-ons, which is basically a result of Laminar dragging its heels for years on improving the base weather system. I've paid for xEnviro and SkyMaxx Pro/RWC, and will probably get Active Sky when it shows up. I'll pay for anything that makes incremental improvement in weather modeling.

Scenery is something else though. The default landclass + OSM scenery is very "plausible" for areas I'm not very familiar with, and I'm not a fan of blurry ortho-based scenery. I'm still trying to decide whether to try the ORBX GB stuff, and if I do it will mainly be for the landmarks.

I fly to a lot of "random" locations in the FSEconomy game, more often into smaller airports and airstrips than big airports. The default Gateway airports are good enough for that. It's getting harder to find an airstrip in the areas I fly that haven't been filled-in by user created airport buildings. In FSEconomy I'm lazy and usually start hot on the runway and end the flight on the destination runway without taxiing over to the apron near the buildings. So I'm not too concerned about ORBX quality airports everywhere I fly.

With all the mountain flying I do, often at lower altitudes, the HD and UHD terrain mesh looks terrific and doesn't need anything else (except maybe the TerraMaxx overlay for Winter snowpack). 

Now, that's all from a charter/bush pilot perspective, which is how I use the sim. If I only flew big airliners, I might want to collect a bunch of payware scenery for the major city airports and hubs. That could get expensive, and to that extent, you're right that XP is increasingly moving into must-have payware for that kind of flying. I'm just pointing out that we're not all alike in how we use the sim. As a charter/bush sim pilot, one of the big attractions of XP for me is how little I have to spend on scenery. Basically zero.

[deetee 164]

8 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I hate to break the news to you but XP is headed down that same costly road. With XP10 I had no payware airports installed and only two payware aircraft. I used freeware ATC to replace the deficient default ATC and FSGRW for weather. Then I bought SkyMaxx for clouds etc. and World Traffic 2 to replace the virtually non-existent AI traffic. That progression has continued with XP11 except now I'm waiting for Active Sky for XP and using WT3 plus  Pilot2ATC. Some of the former top freeware XP developers now charge for their newer products. Once ORBX gets going with a full XP lineup, the floodgates may open up.

The days of the $60 US complete flightsim are rapidly drawing to a close. This payware add-on bloat is the trend unfortunately. The lack of 3rd party payware is one of the factors that killed DTG FSW and it is also a factor in the infinitesimal adoption rate of Aerofly FS2. Payware is now the parasite that has taken over the bodily functions of the host organism.

More payware is coming that’s for sure, but my point was that from an tubeliner pilot’s perspective there is no necessity to buy 3rd party airports for XP as the airport layouts and frequencies are generally kept quite up to date, unlike it’s competitor’s which are stuck in the early ‘00s. As for scenery that’s down to personal taste. I don’t mind popping down $$ for something that provides cosmetic improvements over a large area, or for an accurate global weather system, but $30+ a pop to have a correctly laid out airport is getting silly. 

Edited December 1, 2018 by deetee

[snglecoil 1,828]

I use both XP and P3D and like each for their strengths. As a general aviation guy, I really appreciate what ortho4xp has brought to the scenery game in XP. What's missing for me though, is the fleet of A2A planes. If they ever make the leap into XP, I'd use it a lot more than I do now.

[jon b 2,041]

On 11/19/2018 at 12:34 PM, FDEdev said:

I don't know which airline you are flying for, but I don't know any airline which would be happy if their pilots would divert if it's not necessary, especially if a few hundred passengers are concerned.

X-plane makes you believe that a 35kts crosswind landing requires a high amount of skill and experience but this isn't the case IRL.

LR pilots sometimes get only 2-3 landings per month, and that after a 10hr flight so it would be bad if a 777, 747 would be as difficult to land IRL as in x-plane.

Simple push off the crab angle prior or during the flare and that's it.

 

It’s really not as easy as just pushing off the crab and flaring. The large swept wing on the 747 will massively change its geometry in relation to the airflow as the crab is removed leading to a strong rolling motion as the upwind wing increases lift so also requires a countering roll input during the flare. Other factors are during a near 40kt x wind the length of the 747 will put the flight deck almost over the upwind edge of the runway which leads to a very peculiar picture.Also the shear weight of the thing leads to a very stable ground speed due to its inertia and as a result the airspeed and therefore lift is bouncing all over the place in gusts which require constant correction. Interesting discussion though.

[virtualstuff 753]

On 11/19/2018 at 6:42 PM, NorwegianAviator said:

What type of aircraft do you fly?

I don't take you serious, making the statements about flight dynamics (based on all your comments in this thread)

Even a level-d simulator can't be compared to the RW stuff...
With respect we are sitting on an armchair behind a computer screen and discussing flight dynamics if they are more real or not between those two simulators,  a reality check would be a good idea 🤣

Most flying commercial and 5 days per week and done 40 / 50 legs and crashing in different hotels across Europe, doing other stuff in there free time as debating flight dynamics on a game / simulator forum...

I leave it at this...

Edited December 16, 2018 by awf
Spelling / and other wording (not native)