Muskoka

Didn't change a thing at my end, Rift s. Panels in PMDG 737 are still way to blurry to read. Tried v3.1.11 and v3.1.1(v2), both the same. Back to TAA where I can read all the text in the Panels/FMC without having to lean forward at all. In all the DLSS modes, even Quality, I have to get my face within one foot of the FMC to read the text. Sharpening doesn't help one bit.

Agree with Rick. Xplane is a "flight simulator / engineering tool", it simulates flight and offers aircraft building, not much else other than that (yet). Yes it can get boring flying around in a basically empty / void world (besides car traffic). FSX on the other hand is a more "complete" flight simulator, and with it's many addons (not absolutely necessary) becomes even better still. Until all the missing or lacking parts of Xplane are taken care of, or are in place, it will not be a "complete" flight simulator, and perhaps FSX is still your better choice. If you want advanced AI traffic, ATC, world scenery coverage, your best to stick with FSX. Performance is not an issue with the DX10 mods in FSX as well, very different sim from the DX9 version. Xplane and FSX are two completely different sims, and shouldn't be compared. They don't come close to offering the same amount of immersion from a complete flight simulation standpoint. Xplane still needs to grow to become complete. As a pattern flier, or engineering tool, it is great. Glen

We've been there, done that. Osm data is still far too incomplete to satisfy all but a few select regions around the world. The concept is nice, it's implementation in the Xplane world at this point is nothing but a dream for most. It will take years of editing in OpenStreetMap to ever get it to a usable level for Xplane. When there's data available it can look nice. Who has hundreds, if not thousands of hours to edit / add data to OSM, just to fill a retail flight simulator with nice "accurate" scenery, not me, not anymore. Have at it though, it will be like an unpaid second full time job, good luck. Please do Canada first. Most of us are still waiting for that "miracle" 3rd party to come along and bless us with "new world wide" scenery / autogen for Xplane, hopefully some day. Glen

Carlos, huge downloads are not a viable option for a lot of people out there, especially those in rural areas. So, we have to rely on the marketing hype, and yes, take a chance. Well, I believed the hype, again, and jumped in (XP10) right from the beginning, after being rather disappointed with XP9, which I also purchased. Was the Xplane 10 "hype" anywhere close to being true, not even close. And, the hype has yet to be realized today, with no announced improvements for the future. Who's developing an ATC program? Who's developing an AI Traffic program? I don't need to list any more. Nothings going to change? Then Xplane will never be more than it already is, an unfinished, feature lacking, flight simulator. I will continue to comment of the pitfalls of Xplane, so others are exposed to both sides of the "truth" coin. Don't like it, don't read it. Negative comments are just as valuable / warranted as positive ones, it's all feedback. Some of you are only happy if the feedback is positive, something kind of hard to do at the moment with the current state of XPX. No need to bring up "MS", were not talking about it here. Were talking about Xplane and it's shortcomings. Shortcomings that the "leader" appears to be blind to. We'll, there are a lot of us here that are not blind, are hoping for something much better, and will continue to speak our peace. Whether you see it as "complaining" or not is rather moot, it's all feedback of some sort. If the developers were smart, they would take the "feedback" as constructive criticism, and do something about it. Something they haven't done yet, so the "feedback / complaining" will continue. Don't like what I have to say, just ignore it, and me. I don't mind one bit, you won't hurt my feelings. Facts, are facts though, and can't be ignored, I can. Glen

Android here, phone and tablets, but agree, flight sim apps should be cross platform. FSWidgets do cross platform, and do it very well. Not only that, they cater to various simulators. Very smart business "model". Glen

+1, and makes all those arguments (oom's, ctd's, blurries, autogen popping) to switch to Xplane a thing of the past. For those with huge investments in FSX, this gives new life, and extends it's future. Does 64 bit Xplane run a bit smoother, sure, but it offers half the simulator functionality. With the DX10 version of FSX, most, if not all of the DX9 problems are gone. DX10 runs smoother, looks better, and most of all doesn't crash, neither version ever did for me though. Just need to get the addon airport lighting issues sorted out, soon I hope. Glen

"So, who are we to criticize his business model!" We are "Paying Customers"....this is an open forum group, that gives us the right to criticize whatever we like, including Xplane? Don't know anything about FlightGear, but it's free I hear? That fact alone should cut it some slack when compared to a "retail" offering. If Austin wasn't making a dime off of Xplane (my dime), you would never here from me, or a lot of others I would imagine. XPX is still a half finished product, with nothing more than promises for the future, promises that we've been hearing for over a year. And quite frankly, the stuff were waiting for to complete Xplane, has never been "usable" in any version, items being, atc, ai traffic, the list goes on. After close to 20 years of development, what is all of a sudden going to change to bring these missing pieces to fruition, just promises? The fact that we paid for a product, and 15-16 months later we still don't have anything that closely resembles a complete flight simulator, gives one all the right in the world to come here and complain. We didn't get what we paid for, and don't know if we ever will......period. Years ago, when demos of software products were a reasonable download size, I would download them, and if they were "worthy", I would keep them, maybe even buy them. Well, with the huge downloads today, 3gb for a demo d/l is a joke, and not possible for me and a lot of others, we have to rely on the marketing hype of the developer, and this was hyped way beyond belief. This has ruffled a lot of feathers, and again, gives a paying customer all the right in the world to show their displeasure. Sure, everyone has the option to return the item for a refund, but once again, were told to sit tight and wait for the goodies to come, we'll it's been close to 20 years, and over a year into this "Beta" and were still not seeing the essential missing pieces. But we've been promised their coming. We've always been promised their coming. Who promised? I haven't seen Austin publicly say that any of the glaring flaws in Xplane are going to be fixed or overhauled. Has there been any mention of "fixing" the lousy Atc, the dumb as stones Ai Traffic, the flight model issues that some have, the terrible visibility limits at altitude, the poor weather depiction under certain circumstances. It seems, in most cases, that "he" thinks these things are just fine and don't need touching at all. What promises are we waiting for? Third parties to fill these gaps, good luck. I really hope I have to eat these words, but so far, for many years, it's been nothing more than empty promises. In fact, the only thing that has been realized since release, is 64 bit, a great thing, but there is so much more to do, and those missing pieces should have been in place long before this was made available to the public as a advertised complete "worlds most advanced flight simulator". My thoughts..... Glen

Ryan, do you have OpensceneryX installed (link below)? It's pretty much a must have in the Xplane world, if your using custom made scenery. It might be the issue with your ctd's. If the scenery is looking for something from this library, and you don't have OpensceneryX, Xplane will ctd. Might be the reason? I don't know what's in that Minneapolis scenery, but install this and see if you still get the ctd? Normally when Xplane crashes it will give you a box on the screen outlining the problem, quite often it's something missing from this library, if your addon scenery was looking for it. http://www.opensceneryx.com/ Glen

I hear what some of you are saying, but to call this 3rd party development is almost laughable. And I say that with no disrespect to the authors. I also commented, that if they were able to sell this and make a buck, more power to them. Those that are new to Xplane need to know before shelling out any money, that this is already freely available to everyone, or can be done with very little work. If you don't have the time, that's fine, but this is not 3rd party development. This is selling something that is already readily available to everyone for free. If in some way it enhanced my area of flight I would be interested, but it offers nothing that I can't do with a few minutes of my time. There's nothing "new" about this at all. This isn't adding any value to Xplane, is just saves "the lazies" some time. This is no different than me taking all the stock aircraft, painting them a different colour, and then offering them back to you for sale. Would you call that 3rd party development, I don't think so. If you want to buy this offering that's up to you, I want a little more for my money, and something that changes / enhances the default look as well. Goran is a 3rd party developer, he offers something I don't have already, and can't do myself (not without the hundreds / thousands of hours he puts into his aircraft). This I can do by myself in very little time, and doesn't offer anything "new". And it doesn't "better" what I already have. Glen

I guess, most of it (all of it) you can do by yourself for free. It's still just using existing OSM data, which is terribly lacking in most parts of the world. I would gladly pay someone to give me something "different" scenery wise, current OSM data just doesn't cut it. We need something "new", something different from the current limitations of OSM, and the current autogen / plausible world system. We need something from a 3rd party that totally changes the scenery system / look. These guys are 3rd party, but their charging for something that is already available for free. Good on them for offering stuff for sale though, trying to make a buck, but I'll pass, OSM2XP is not that tough to use and this is just more of the same old, nothing new. Glen

"In other words, we're waiting for our hardware to catch up with our software." Really? SLI is, and always has been a hardware advancement in technology (for years), and it does work very well, WHEN the software is optimized to take advantage of it. No need to catch up, the hardware already has as far as Gpu's go, it's called SLI. The only thing that needs to catch up is Xplane, and take advantage of SLI. Blame it on memory bandwith, blame it on whatever you like, SLI would be advantageous to Xplane, period. Are YOU getting it? Glen Just to add, it doesn't need to be SLI, a multi core Gpu will do just fine. Xplane will still be the limiting factor, not the hardware. Years ago, the excuses for poor performing programs was they were only 8 bit. Then we had 16, 32, and now we have 64 bit systems. Xplane is now 64 bit, are we still going to use the same old excuses? What do we have to wait for 128 bit, you'll still use the same old excuse. The hardware is available today, use it in an optimized fashion.

Glad you saw the humour Carlos. I sometimes think I need to go back to a small single monitor, then I wake up from the bad dream. For someone to say that SLI would not help is just not true. It won't help small single monitor setups, but it will certainly help others. Xplane is not optimized for SLI period, that's a shame, and something that should be looked at moving forward. Why would I spend more money on a second or third GPU if the software is not going to optimally use it, now that doesn't make sense. Optimize for SLI so I can build any system I want and get full value for it, I really hate being limited. FSX does / did enough of that already. Wait a second, Macs can't do SLI period, can they (?), it's becoming clearer now. Lousy machines are always getting in the way of progress. Glen "Memory bandwidth is one of the core problems of X-Plane 10." Then there's another thing that needs to be fixed. As I've always said, I don't want excuses why things can't be done, fix it so it can be done. I have a high(er) end system and still struggle if I try to take advantage of the visual goodies in XPX. It's basically always been my argument against the use of HDR, it's useless with any reasonably high AA setting, and higher visual settings. If SLI won't help this situation then they need to rethink what their doing. Don't design in such a way that is so limiting. I / we want to use large multi monitors, then make sure the software works (is optimized for) with SLI so I can take advantage of that technology, end of argument.

As usual, I didn't miss anything MM, but you seem to continually miss the point, and again it boggles my mind. Going forward, looking to the future, however you want to put it, SLI would be very beneficial. You can't tell me more GPUS wouldn't be a good thing, don't even try. Simply put, multi large monitor systems ARE becoming the norm. You folks stuck in the past can stay there with your 27" monitors. More and more people are moving to multi large monitor systems where SLI would be very advantageous. Quite living strictly for the now, look to the future, and all the change that needs to take place to make Xplane a viable simulation platform. SLI could only help with regards to the future, please stop negating any positive posts, or progress, that could be made to make Xplane better. I could care less about right now, what can be done to improve for the future, start implementing everything (and the list is huge) that needs to be done to improve Xplane. Glen Carlos, I agree, you don't need sli if your running at such low monitor resolutions, 1920 x 1080, but more and more folks are moving to multi monitor systems where sli would make a huge difference. Just as FSX didn't / doesn't take advantage of it (it actually does to some extent), it's a shame that Xplane doesn't as well. Maybe in the NEAR future. Don't try to tell me people aren't struggling with their performance in Xplane. You can't run with HDR on and any reasonable AA to remove the jaggies, it just can't be done. It becomes even worse with multi monitor systems. Try to turn up any sliders with HDR and good AA and your going to be in the teens with fps in a urban environment. SLI would most definitely help. There is no argument to say it wouldn't. Just because you guys don't want it, or see the need for it, because of "your limited systems" doesn't mean it wouldn't be beneficial to others.

All the more reason to incorporate (can't think of a better word) SLI. Why take advantage of multi core CPU'S then. Your arguments hold no weight, and make no sense. SLI could / can only "HELP" with more load on a system, if the software / program were capable of SLI. The day that "MORE" computing power isn't an advantage in the computing world, then I'll accept your argument, until then it makes no sense. More power wherever it is coming from is always a good thing. If multiple graphic GPUS wouldn't be a good idea, then I guess multiple system CPUS isn't an advantage either, think about it. Just because Xplane doesn't take advantage of multiple GPUS (SLI), like FSX (?), doesn't mean it wouldn't be a welcome addition and very advantageous. Single monitor systems are a thing of the past, especially with simulators. Xplane has only been around for 20 years though, wouldn't want to ask for too much, too soon, geez give them time. ^_^ Glen

Thoughts, don't have any, haven't got a clue what that post is about, or what he was trying to say. The utility works fine. Do rotary encoders work with Leo's board (is that the question?), certainly. I hooked the encoders up to the board, went into Xplane, and assigned them to what ever I wanted. Do you have to turn them a fair bit to scroll, sure, that's the way they are, better than using a mouse. Is it better than using an existing knob / rocker / toggle switch, can't say, always used encoders. I do like having options though, and with this board I can do whatever I like, rotary encoder, potentiometer, toggle, push button, rocker, etc. Next is going to be a home made Trim Wheel with a high resolution digital pot. Glen

Ryan, I feel your pain. This is how I addressed the issue. One of these can be used for many different things, but works very well when you need to tune radios, heading, speed, v/s bugs, etc. What's nice...no soldering. http://www.leobodnar...oducts/BU0836X/ To go along with this you will need some of these. http://www.ebay.ca/i...=item51a79ed8ae You could also add some push buttons or toggle switches, make a mini panel to your liking. It's easy to configure in Xplane, no different than any other USB device. No more fiddling around with the mouse. Might give you some ideas? Glen

There was XPOSM for earlier versions of Xplane, don't know if it works in version 10. You could add roads with it, if I remember correctly. Glen Jess, here's a link. http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=35397

Sounds good Andras. When I said "steal", I didn't mean it in a bad way (illegally), just that the same data was being used at multiple places / sites, the data is redundant. There are many areas where most of the data overlaps, (some doesn't) but that then requires to much "editing" to correct the overlapping. If we could clean this up with exclusions, or some modification to OSM2XP, that would certainly help. It would be nice to get our local municipal Planning Departments on board with OpenStreetMap. I think that's wishful thinking. I would love to have data down to the residential level available to use in OSM2XP, or just have updated with Xplane updates. The data has to be out there, just need to figure out how to get it, unfortunately it's not readily available. Glen

.SHP data is just another file format that can be used in OSM2XP to enhance your scenery. Most use .OSM data, but you can also use .SHP data, if you can find some. In my part of the world there doesn't appear to be any useful .shp data, as it's the same (the building footprints) as the .osm data that's available. You might get lucky and find some .shp data that differs from the .osm data for your area, and then you can "fill the gaps" when using OSM2XP. Glen

No worries Jeff, nothing at all wrong with honesty. Thanks for the heads up. Glen

Exactly, and the very reason why .shp and .osm data CANNOT be used together, without hundreds of hours of editing. This, and the lack of data, were the reason for my post in the scenery section. From afar, everything seems ok, get close and wow does it look terrible. I'm starting to think that the providers of the shp and osm data copy from each other, ie they steal each others data for use. In a lot of cases they're exactly the same (data), too much of a coincidence. Probably the shp data is a copy of the osm, but who knows for sure. Glen

Ya, sceneries are not such an issue, tools are already there (for the most part), but, ATC, AI Traffic, and a more advanced Weather Engine would be very welcomed. I'd love to buy the 777, but I'm at a point where I refuse to spend anymore money on Xplane until it offers full simulation functionality. Not having suitable / useable atc or ai traffic is a huge negative for me, especially when flying heavies. Online flying, no thanks, did it, not interested. Need something like Radar Contact or Pro Atc, perhaps voice like Vox? Glen Ultimate: Xplane 64 bit Radar Contact / Pro Atc / Vox for Xplane Opus / Active Sky for Xplane Ultimate Traffic for Xplane Scenery of your choice for Xplane Sure there's more......just scratching the surface.

Very interesting approach, I like it. There are a lot of addons for FSX that would fit nicely in Xplane. How it could be done is beyond my knowledge, but the added functionality would be very welcome, and is much needed. Glen

Five, shaking in my boots, that's a nasty set of teeth. Glen Edit: Then I'll tell the little black bear that's hanging around here where his/her? next meal is going to come from.

I couldn't have said it any better Greg, well said, to the point, and the unfortunate truth. We are, and probably always will be "stuck" with the crumbs were fed along the way. There never has been any "great" influx of much needed 3rd party development. Honestly, who cares about addon aircraft at this point, we need the base sim functionality fixed first, atc, ai traffic, weather engine to name a few. These "poor" areas will always keep Xplane from being a full function flight simulator, and thus will continue to diminish it's relevance in the flight sim market no matter what aircraft are offered. I will not spend another dime on developers aircraft until the base of Xplane is "fixed" first. What use is a nice new shiny aircraft if the rest of the "simulation" fails miserably. As you said Greg, until the development platform stabilizes, your never going to see the much needed outside support. And, for those of you that still don't seem to understand (you can argue the point all you like), Xplane IS always in Beta. The evidence is in the fact that there isn't any 3rd party development in needed areas. If it wasn't always a moving target, do you not think developers would have jumped on board? They haven't, and the reason is the perpetual development Beta cycles. If 10.20 is final, where are all the developers, aircraft development doesn't count, they've been around and "struggling" to keep up since day one. Were talking about the other key areas of Xplane that are sorely lacking, and always have been. Not going to happen people, and always will "stunt" Xplanes growth. Glen Edit: Again, I'll just add. If your happy to just jump into a plane and fly around, have no real interaction with advanced atc, have no "logical" moving ai aircraft, have no advanced weather engine, again just to name a few, then Xplane is more that adequate. But to call it "The Worlds Most Advanced Flight Simulator" is far from the truth, and an outright misleading statement / lie. That fact cannot be argued. The lack of flight simulation functionality, or it's poor implementation, cannot be hidden, it's blatantly obvious. Xplane doesn't offer near the fuctionality that FSX does with addons, how can it claim to be the most advanced? As an engineering tool, yes, but we (I) want a flight simulator, something that simulates all aspects of flight. Xplane still does not offer this, and won't, without change. So, to sum up, it's final (?), great, where's the developers, aircraft don't count? Who's making the much needed ATC program, anyone? Didn't think so.