Robert McDonald

Yes, a VR headset would certainly be a game changer for flight simulation, though that's likely not going to happen anytime soon. The problem is trying to interface with instrument flight (IFR) as opposed to visual (VFR). In IFR you need to insert the procedures and waypoints into the FMC, and I don't know how they could make that work with a VR headset. I'm willing to bet 20 years from now things will be wildly better, though Meanwhile, to each their own. I certainly wouldn't hate life if ORBX brought their products to XPlane!

The color change is the time of day sun artifacting which is SkyMaxx for X-Plane 10. I'm not crazy about it, and keep hoping they will tone it down. I had the airport time set for just a bit after sunrise, so that's why the pronounced color shift between the views, which are -60 degrees 0 degrees +60 degrees. This effect is most-noticeable when the sun is very low in the sky. Not my favorite. Also, the video camera was placed off-center, because the screens are LED, the colors may look differently than in you were seated in the center seat and flying the plane. The entire sim, which comprises 6 devices (5 pcs plus 1 tablet) is ready to fly about 8 minutes after starting up all the devices. The cost of the sim depends on how far you want to go in terms of graphics quality and field-of-view, plus how many monitors. Xplane can run well on just 1 monitor. When you start to add the hardware, and then if you want a glass cockpit, you are going to start upping the ante. Asking ONE PC to 'do it all' in real time on a complex flight simulation is really throwing a heavy load. I started with FSX and 1 PC. I soon discovered the frustrations of trying to make it all work off ONE video card and ONE pc and ONE monitor. That simply didn't work out for me. True, if you fly FSX or XPlane 10 at default settings with non-complex 2-d airplanes, you can likely get a decent frame rate and fairly smooth flying experience. This is how many people come into the hobby. As time goes by and you move up in scenery, textures, weather, navigation (online ATC) and graduate to very complex aircraft, you start adding bits and pieces to support all the additional load. I have said repeatedly that IMHO, X-Plane 10 is more 'scalable' than FSX, which means bluntly that X-Plane can use all the added hardware across your network and spread the load among the additional machines. For example, X-Plane can NATIVELY send the video output to three different pcs (that is my setup) for the exterior views. This means if you have powerful video cards in all 3 pcs, you can achieve the holy grail of high frames and stutter-free ops even in heavy weather, clouds, and complex airports etc. Am I saying no one can be happy with FSX? Not at all. I enjoyed FSX. I found the incessant and extremely complicated tweaking procedures to be less thrilling, and it soured me on FSX. Ultimately, after ping ponging back and forth between FSX and XP, I wound up firmly in the XP camp. It's hard living without ORBX NorCal and PNW, which are gorgeous. I miss the FSDreamteam GSX (Ground Services) and some of the really stellar payware airports that I had on the FSX platform. That said, I totally enjoy the immersion levels in my current setup, and that is an X-Plane experience for me. Budget requirements of course play a role. I spent several years accumulating what I'm running now. I had to forego some expensive vacation trips in lieu of long-term hardware additions. That's a personal choice. OTOH, I use my plane nearly daily, and so I'm recouping my investment. I know a great number of pilots who fly VFR and enjoy the smaller birds. I have gone towards jets, and my hardware reflects the 737. So for me, flying a Baron, for example, means much of my hardware would sit idle. Again, personal choice.

We must be related distantly! I too have a keyboard (Tyros3) and was doing the studio recording / workstation thing for a while, then I discovered flight simulation. Now the cubase is off my system, and the keyboard is parked on the opposite wall. I have an L-shaped desk which works pretty well with my setup. I'll post some videos in this post for you to see the setup. Yes, I 'started' with Saitek, and a lesser Thrustmaster joystick, before moving up to VRinsight and then ultimately, to FlightDeckSolutions. If I had it to do over, I would have skipped the VRinsight and gone right to FlightDeckSolutions. I was hesitant because the FDS stuff is pricey. On the other hand, the tactile feel and the way it all works makes it compelling, and in my view it's the 'go-to' hardware if you want to become serious about simulation. The heart and soul of my setup of course is the FMC and MCP panels by FlightDeckSolutions of Canada. The FMC in particular is full size scale-model mock-up of a real 737 CDU, complete with dimmer switch and lighted keys. They have two levels of hardware at FDS, the Pro-Max and the JetMaxx. The Pro-line is the high-end, and the JetMaxx is a bit more reasonable. Look at their full-scale 737 Overhead. It's SMOKIN! (It's also crazy expensive). The following 2 YouTube videos will give you a better idea of what is 'possible' in x-Plane with multi-monitors AND multiple PCs as well. Note: For best results, enlarge viewer to FULL SCREEN, and then click the GEAR ICON in the lower right corner, then select 1080p "High Definition" for maximum picture clarity.

Noel- Are you also running 3 monitors in FSX? All with exterior views plus the glass cockpit and the glass cockpit server? Reason I ask- I Think when you scale up the view in FSX off ONE PC and ONE Video card, you slaughter your frames, yeah? Nice system(s)! Sounds like you're happy - and that's really all that matters, eh? Do you experience much distortion running the 3 monitors off the Matrox to go? My buddy was doing that in XPlane but he said the wrap-around view didn't look right.. and he went with 3 PCs to control each of the 3 monitors on his setup (that's how I did it as well). You might consider listing your PC's hardware into your PROFILE "My PC" instead of in your signature bar, a request was made we all do that some time back - but good on ya! Enjoy!

Trust me, I have a friend with a 580 who just upgraded to a new 4GB EVGA 770- and he LOVES the 770. It's every bit as important as the CPU in terms of XPlane. Take a minute and watch some of my videos (link below my sig). Particularly the triple-screen nightime XPlane at KSFO. I think the proof is in the videos. There are also a pretty good number of FSX videos up as well (to compare with). Be sure to click the gear icon in the lower corner of the YouTube player and select 1080p HD video. You're looking at triple PCs, a Titan (center) and 2 770's 4GB (wings). Once you experience 180 degree Field of View in XP10- I'm willing to bet breakfast and lunch you will find it hard to go back to FSX. Yes, it's a bit of bother moving over, and no, X-Plane isn't for everyone... but I have to admit that with the appropriate big airports added in LAX SFO SAN LAS JFK DFW You can have a blast (if you're a jet pilot) and the graphics? I am 100% satisfied. SMOOTH. No Stutters. Did I mention the cars on the freeway? Don't forget to add the free HD Textures, and buy Skymaxx for the clouds. Use per-pixel lighting and HDR, and you won't look back... The wing pcs are i5 happy meals from Sam's club (HP) with upgraded Corsair 750M power supply and the oc 4GB msi GTX 770 in each one. Stock ram, I think 8GB. As I said before, XPlane 'lives' in just ONE 'main' folder (and several sub folders), so it's cake to move it to other PCs - and it's simple to set up multi-view across the network to other pcs.

The answers you have gotten are well reasoned, but I have some suggestions: 1. Graphics Card. 4GB OC GTX 770 (about $400 street less $15 rebate), recommended choices : #1-msi #2 EVGA. GET the big VRAM - don't 'cheap out' with 2 or even 3 GB of VRAM on your vid card. Yes, I know you are thinking FSX which doesn't benefit... but if ever you go to xPlane, you will be very very happy you have a ton of VRAM so you can enjoy tons of textures and hi-def scenery settings!! Cannot overstate this. You can NOT add 'more' VRAM to your card if you guess wrong and become unhappy, you will take a big financial hit trying to off the 'wrong' card and then replace it with a 'right' (more VRAM) choice. If you buy EVGA, suggest you buy the lifetime warranty option. Good insurance. Msi has a twin 'frozer' design with dual fans and cooling pipes, the most amazing video card cooling I've ever encountered, I would always choose them FIRST for that reason, unless buying a 'reference' design (the GTX Titan) which is identical across all video card manufacturers, in which case EVGA would be my choice for USA purchases because EVGA is located in California and gives excellent customer support 24x7. 2. CPU If you can afford i7, I recommend quad core minimum, 6 or more 'real' cores are better. Intel. NOT AMD. 3. SSD - not recommended. Instead, try the new HYBRID drives from Seagate. They feature 8GB of SSD built right into the hard disk, and the 'rest' of the space is traditional 7200 RPM SATA III. Over time, the drive looks are which programs load and run most often and moves those to the SSD area. IMPORTANT: NEVER use any kind of defragmention software on a SSD or HYBRID hard disk. The NAND flash memory on the SSD portion of the drive does NOT benefit from moving data to be sequential, and you are putting extra wear and tear on that NAND flash memory when you defrag it!! (Source: Seagate tech support) The money you save by NOT buying a SSD drive (the 2TB Seagate Hybrid is about $130 at CDW.com) will be better spent on that GTX 770 GPU. 4. PSU - 750 watts or more. 5. Case - Coolermaster Haf-X - the 'big daddy' of cases, super ventilation, lots of room for air and or water cooling, and will accommodate the largest of mainboards (motherboards) and video cards. 6. Cooling. Noctua DH-14. A workhorse air cooler that is whisper-quiet. Water cooling does not appreciably beat the Noctua in performance tests I've read, and liquids can leak, which can damage computers AND carpet. 7. Memory - 16GB is a nice round number, and yes, some Ram is faster and more reliable than other brands. You'll have to do your research. Some of the new ram has high cooling fins that can interfere with the Noctua air cooling. I bought low-profile memory that works well (without the huge high spreaders on the top) (I got Corsair Vengeance Lo-Profile - very happy with it). 8. Mainboard - I like ASUS primarily because of their GUI mouse-driven BIOS. Easy to overclock. 9. Sim Software - While I 'get' you love FSX, and who doesn't? Long term investment, consider X-Plane. The 64-bitness is exclusive to x-Plane 10.3x right now, and that's a good selling point. Also x-Plane is well suited to multiple pcs/ multiple monitors / home-built cockpits, so as you expand your sim hardware with better control surfaces, X-Plane can make the additional hardware work seamlessly and efficiently. I have 6 devices connected to my x-Plane setup, 3 are for graphics and 1 of those is the 'primary' X-plane pc (the other 2 wing pcs also are running X-Plane as slaves), plus 1 all-in-one pc for the glass cockpit, and another to run the glass cockpit server software, plus a Samsung Note 10.1 tablet to run Garmin Pilot. All of this connected on gigabit Ethernet with fiber optic Comcast 54mbs Internet. I came from FSX in the beginning, but now I must say I'm locked into X-Plane, though that may not be your personal preference. Truthfully, the limitations of FSX -and- P3D are such that I wouldn't go back to either, though if P3D came out in 64 bits, I might be tempted. Glass cockpit software: Flight Deck Solutions "Sim-Avionics" software using x737 64-bit airplane. Hardware: Throttle/Joystick : Thrustmaster Hotas Warthog Rudders: Combat rudders (Saitek) Radio Stack : Saitek Radio Stack CDU: FlightDeckSolutions FMC (Pro) MCP: FlightDeckSolutions Jetmaxx MCP Hope these help.

Hi Carl, Like you, I was indeed very torn between FSX (which I started out with) and X-Plane 10, which was visually appealing, but confusing to me to try to set up initially. Of course, FSX is no can of corn to set up, but you do so much tweaking with it trying to get your frames rates up that you kind of 'get used' to playing with all manner of settings and following online 'step-by-step' setup tutorials from some of our fine Avsim membership. Truth is, X-Plane requires a little hunting around to access things, but at least everything is available to you within the same folder (the 'x-plane folder') on your PC. Things are not scattered into the programs x86 directory as they are in FSX with add-ons. To my mind, Xplane with just a few add-ons (most of which are free) is a great alternative and points you towards the future by unleashing of all your system RAM memory (assuming you are running 64-bit OS) as well as capitalizing on todays DX10 and DX11 video cards. DX11 being preferred. More VRAM on your video card enables higher resolution flight, with greater textures in your scenery packs. Watching the videos of both X-plane 10 and FSX can give you a good feel for how they are different, and the benefits available from both platforms. If you begin to drift toward cockpit building, my money says X-Plane 10 will be on your desk sooner rather than later. Especially if you are wanting great frames across 3 or more monitors. *Note: Multi-monitors many require multi-PCs and discrete video cards on each of the supplemental pcs to render the wing views at max frames. On-mobo "Intel" graphics are NOT recommended for X-Plane 10. 2GB Vram on your video card is less good than 3 or 4. 4 is probably the sweet spot GTX 770 4GB OC recommended. GTX Titan (6GB Vram) for people with unlimited budget*

Hi Carl, I totally get where you're coming from. Each person must proceed at their own pace in our hobby, time and budget permitting. I have to say the XP 10 demo is very pretty, but the timer on it is a buzz killer. I strongly believe that to be fair, a person needs to make a leap of faith and purchase some level of XP10, I jumped in both feet and bought "Global", but there are lesser levels you can buy. If you have a newer PC with a quad core processor and 5-series video or greater, X-Plane can be quite appealing. It is designed to be flown on lesser pcs with the settings turned down, or it can really shine on the new-gen stuff. I won't try to convert you away from FSX, I would only suggest your keep XP in mind as a viable long-term alternative. There is a WEALTH of free add ons for XPlane, HD textures being a BIG one. XPlane is ideally suited to multi-screen viewing and more PCs (scalable). Best of luck.

There are a wealth of technical books about all commercial aircraft, including detail manuals with respect to programming the FMC and so on. It is not and cannot be 'secret' the airlines themselves need access to the tech data to support the planes... and so one way or another, the information is out there. Yes, FSX or X-Plane can make some of the nuts and bolts simpler to learn, but you can go to YouTube and learn how to program a FMC, without investing a penny in real hardware or sim platforms.

Your choice of video card is too low IMHO. Should consider a GTX 770 if budget allows. If all you will ever play is FSX, then a 1 or 2GB v-ram on your video card may prove enough. If you envision a possible x-Plane 10 in 64-bits, 3GB or 4GB on the Video card is the recommended call, with 4 being substantially better than 3! Recommended brands: msi (superior cooling design) EVGA (united states based - 24 hr. real-english support - long time reputation) On the hard disk, may I strongly suggest one of the new Seagate "Hybrid" hard disks? These fine drives have a 64GB SSD (solid-state Nand) storage area combined with a spinning hard disk area, typically 1 or 2 Terrabytes. For about $130 street, you can buy the 2TB Seagate Hybrid. It will immediately yield an improvement in boot times, as it is designed to move the files you access most often to the SSD (solid-state) area of the drive. Power Supply is weak, I would suggest 650 Watt as minimum, 750 watt is better. Corsair makes a modular design which uses less area inside your case for about $80 (street) for the 750 watt model (CX750-M) A bonus to the CX750-M is that it physically is small enough to replace the low-powered STANDARD power supplies from major companies like HP or DELL. The big-dog power supplies typically won't 'fit' into the smaller mini-tower cases. Similarly, the GTX 770 video card (available in 2GB -or- 4GB Vram configurations) is longer than stock video cards, but short enough to sneak into the typical happy-meal PC from the big vendors I mentioned. Of course if you're using a monster tower case, this is LESS of an issue! Important: VRAM on the video card cannot be added on or upgraded later... nowadays, what you buy to begin with, you're 'stuck with'. So it's better to over-buy excess VRAM capacity, particularly if you want to maximize your video card's life cycle. X-plane can use ALL the Vram you can afford, so if money is no object, go ahead with the GTX Titan which has a whopping 6 GB of Vram on the VIDEO CARD! I strongly suggest you consider running X-Plane 10 over FSX. X-Plane 10 is 64-bit (unlike P3D or FSX), and will fly in your new system, frames-wise. If you are an avid FSX fan, I would recommend installing BOTH FSX and X-Plane 10 and ping-ponging back and forth as your whim dictates. If you give X-Plane a chance, I believe you will get hooked. Must adds for X-Plane Skymaxx (weather) HD Textures (free) a wide array of very nice freeware airports available on x-plane.org 24GB of system ram is a ton. If price is a concern, consider 16GB in lieu of 24. Most of us 'assume' the path to better performance is system ram. In X-Plane, its the ram on the VIDEO CARD not the mother board that really takes your performance and appearance (rendering) into the stratosphere. Check my videos (see signature bar) to compare FSX versus X-Plane. Sadly, FSX can only address 4GB of system ram (because it is a 32-bit program that runs only on Windows). Xplane can run on Windows, Linux, and Mac. X-plane is more easily scalable, you can network x-Plane easily and run 3 or more PCs all powering a separate external aircraft view. (see my triple-monitor videos for a demo). The 180-degree Field of Vision available in X-Plane 10 is truly amazing. With X-Plane you can start out with one monitor, and add more pieces over time. That's why the video card vram choice is very important, as you add more monitors, your vram will be the limiting factor as you will need ALL of your monitors able to render at the same settings so your overall view on all monitors looks correct. You can't run one "razor sharp high-resolution" monitor with 2 fuzzy wing monitors... (well, you CAN, but you won't love life). So plan ahead NOW - BEFORE you buy. Most vendors are VERY reluctant to take a mis-ordered video card back for refund (once you've opened the box). Some absolutely won't issue a refund, but will only EXCHANGE for the same model. Customer service wise, EVGA is king if you're in the usa (they are too). EVGA sells extended warranty you might consider that if you're buying the high-end cards. Overclocking your video card is risky business, msi models feature a very efficient "FROZR" design with cooling tubes and twin fans that in my mind is unbeatable. GTX Titan of course is a reference design, and does not benefit from the individual cooling efforts of company A versus company B or C. All Titans look the same, they all have the same cooling design. So much of an issue, the GTX 690 card appears to have disappeared from the marketplace (my suspicion is because of overheating concerns). The 690 had dual Keppler GPU chips with an on-card SLI-chip. Never saw any real benefit with the 690 in FSX (most posters seem to concur). The Titan, though, in X-Plane, has taken EVERYTHING you want to throw at it. With 6GB of Vram, those with unlimited budgets, the call is triple Titans. Again, that would be for X-Plane 10, -not- for FSX. Best of luck on your upcoming build.

Stan- Congratulations on your new toy! it sounds like you're extremely satisfied, and that's really what our hobby is all about. Your frames rates are dazzling, and as a former FSX pilot, I'm suitably impressed! Having departed FSX for XPlane 10 64-bit, I can only admire and applaud your success in getting FSX performance into what most of us would consider 'amazing' territory! I wish you happiness and joy with your new platform! Now that you've licked your PC issues, I'm betting the next step may be higher-end actual hardware from a company like FlightDeckSolutions (among others). If you fly Boeing jets, I can assure you that the FDS FMC and MCP-panel products are real game-changers, and with hardware like you already own, the addition of a full-scale CDU and MCP panel will make your setup even more enjoyable. Then, if you haven't yet, you might consider triple monitors so you can 'see around the corners' when you're turning base and final. The triple monitors alone were a HUGE improvement. My visual flight skill set improved in the 737 by a substantial margin. The CDU also made the entire process hugely more fun, and it is true to life in every way, and available for 737 or 777 from FDS. I encourage and applaud your continued participation in this wonderful hobby of ours.

I don't think that there will be a ban on flight simulation games. The truth is that a person can learn to fly any number of ways, in the RW as much as the PC world. Level D sims and such are out there for those who want to pay the money to fly them. And lesser full-on sims as well, but not full-motion. Truth is, if a person wants to do wrong, it's pretty hard to prevent it. You can try, you can gather intelligence, network, and so on, but if the individual is nutso, he or she can present problems, and not just with aircraft piracy. Defending a nation, or even just a simple city or town is no can of corn these days. My hat is off to those men and women who bust their tails on a daily basis so that we can live our lives in peace and safety. Our fine military, and our great law enforcement teams on the civilian side. Great job to one and all, and sincere thanks and appreciation!

This is clearly a bad situation, regardless of the outcome. Speculation is futile.

A lot of speculation - and not enough data has been released to 'be sure' which scenario is more likely. Your heart goes out to those with loved ones on the plane, and to the passengers and crew members. Hijack seems to be a real contender. The fact the transponders were shut off is enough all by itself to tell me someone ELSE was in control. Yes, if a pilot was bent on suicide, he/she could have switched to Standby, but the lack of cell phones makes the hijack scenario more likely. The government(s) involved likely have a real tight lid on 'all the facts'. Nothing is more terrifying than the thought that some organization has a plane with the range of a Triple 7 at their disposal. It's not a ransom deal, IMHO. The terrorists/pirates were after the metal, not the bodies. The people are a liability. I'm betting that plane is on the ground being repainted, or beneath camo nets. It's in the perpetrators' best interest to hide the plane. If its location were known, no power on Earth would stop the efforts to recover the plane and passengers. It would be Seal Team 6 time, for sure. I sure hope I'm wrong, and by some miracle, the passengers are alive. I doubt the pilots are. God awful, no matter how you look at it.

If you are only flying FSX or P3D, I would say no need to replace video card. If you're flying X-Plane 10, then I would suggest getting a card with 4GB of VRAM, example the Msi 4GB OC GTX770. You would need a bigger power supply, suggest 750 Watt Corsair Modular PSU (about $80). It's not terribly hard to put a new PSU in unless you have a truly-small PC case. If you're careful, you can even use wire cutters to snip out the OLD wiring from your OLD power supply, if it's too tightly-bound or buried beneath your motherboard. Be careful you don't cut the NEW wires though!!

Just look at what Lockheed Martin did with Prepar3D! Still in 32-bits!

Hey Ryan! I'm a tremendous slouch! Yes, I totally love PilotEdge, guilty as charged! Only a person who flies a lot on PE knows why that is, yeah? There is no 'wrong answer' for sim platforms. It's all about your own personal joy. If you are happy with Sim X, Y, or Z, more power to ya! Fly more, post less!

What has stalled 64-bitness for FSX and P3D? The underlying code bed, and of course COMPATIBILITY with existing 3rd party products. Laminar took a GIANT leap forward when they redefined the playing field and supported 64-bits. No one else thus far has matched that herculean effort. The stated flaws that still remain in XP are miniscule when laid against the backdrop of OOM's, CTDs and severe stutters and low frames that are part and parcel of some of the competition. 32-bits alone is troubling, but asking just ONE computer to do all the heavy lifting? Honestly? Scalability to me is a HUGE difference in the platforms. XPlane can divvy up the work and well-rewards those who plunk the huge bucks for Titan GPUs or 4GB GTX 770s. Similarly, those with multiple multi-core PCs on their flight deck enjoy significant performance gains via the built-in Network support in XP. XPlane can use all the VRAM you can afford on your video card. Competitors? Not so much. If wide angle and less-distorted Field-of-View is important, XPlane again takes the gold medal. So you forfeit seasons? No Lego-brick airports world wide? Fuzzy optics at FL300? The "torque" issue? Let's be honest, if you fly jets, torque is a non-issue. Fine by me, given the other pluses. But to each their own. If a person were just starting out in Flight Simulation, I would do all I could to recommend XPlane over other products for long-term ownership. Yes, the eye candy of some payware airports and Ground Services in FSX is a strong drawing card, but the monumentally complex and unending tweaking with the settings? Not my cup o' tea. I'd rather fly. I certainly agree that XP has some real work to be done, and things could be improved in several areas. But ultimately, I see XP standing on the top of the mountain on a day not too distant. As PCs continue to improve the 32-bit limitation of FSX will exacerbate the differences. I don't see Lockheed Martin re-inventing the wheel in P3D v.2 or even v.3, Simply put it means starting completely over and tossing most existing add-ons in the dustbin. Once a pilot is willing to toss that investment, the allure of XPlane becomes compelling indeed.

I wasn't intimating that you personally were in favor of commercial aircraft being flown remotely, Rob. It has been discussed on Avsim quite a bit. I just recalled after reading about your 'exciting landing' once the plane was below 500 feet at KLAS, that there simply is no technology devised that can 'feel' the plane, and factor in thousands of hours of 'by the seat' feedback in real time. Also, no matter HOW reliable and redundant the automation is, NOTHING is 100% (not even pilots) reliant. I just think considering what the planes themselves cost, not to mention the souls aboard and on the ground who could be adversely impacted (in a very real way) by an automation failure, the idea on NO ONE on the flight deck curdles the blood, at least for me. I grant that it is possible to program computers to handle various scenarios and combinations of flight factors. I admit that computers have a greater capacity to make decisions in a shorter amount of time than a human. Still, I think the automation alone is simply not enough, and a drone pilot on the ground may be just fine for COMBAT MISSIONS with no passenger load, but I can't honestly accept robot control of passenger planes. Like some import car owners, the urban legend has it that (computers, foreign cars) never break. You and I know that's a fallacy. As an IT manager, I could tell you stories about fail-safe systems that break down all the time! I agree with you, the FMC interface is primitive beyond words. Most pilots aren't in love with VNav descents! In fact, the entire cockpit could stand some major tech innovation (e.g. Dreamliner). You are quite right- technology continues to improve and should do so. It'd be great if some of that new stuff could be added to new planes.

Devon: You're right- some of the warts that are STILL part of XP are discouraging to those of us that are hoping for a quantum leap and a final resolution to the long term major gripes (season, blur at high altitude, no Lego buildings). My point is that given the smaller physical size of LR, plus the HUGE distraction of their battle with the patent troll (not to mention the drain on their financial resources), things appear to have slowed down substantially. I myself have a feeling that the next iteration of version 10 will be substantially better, and I have a secret wish that we may see one or two of the 'gripes' go away when that release finally occurs. I also think that Laminar is building on a quality product, and like PMDG over in FSX, they may have discovered the wisdom of waiting till something is completely tested and solid, rather than tossing virtual beta-ware out the front door (which can create havoc for users, damage the company's reputation, and ultimately drive pilots away). Since moving to X-Plane, I have discovered a single truth that has made me feel like a new man. I no longer spend interminable hours tweaking trying to eke out decent frames!!! This cannot be overstated. I think most flight sim pilots got into this hobby for one reason - it's much cheaper and easier to fly a 'virtual' plane than a real one. Once you experience multi-screens and glass cockpits, you are forever changed. Last night I saw my main PC solid at 30 frames, even in KSFO payware airport and also at McCarran. The Wing monitors (driven by their own PC and own Graphics cards) produce insane rates, from like 40 on the ground to over 110 in the air. I would put their average at 60 frames. The wing pcs (1 on each side of the main monitor) are also running separate copies of Xplane via the network. The point being is I have cobbled together some freeware and payware airports to handle 95% of my flights. I obtained and installed the High-Definition X-Plane Textures. I bought SkyMaxx. Then I added a RW full-scale CDU from FlightDeckSolutions and the Jetmaxx version of the FlightDeckSolutions MCP/EFIS. Connected it all up with Sim Avionics (also from FDS) software, and tossed in an HP all-in-one touchscreen for the glass cockpit. Complicated? Yes. Astounding? Yes. And the frames/stuttering? No longer an issue. CTDs? What are those? Devon is right- the list of important improvements remains on the 'to-do' list - and lack of snow is an issue for pilots who live and fly in 4-seasons areas. Can a Californian be totally happy with XPlane? No question. For my part, I'm happy with X-Plane right now, and will be THRILLED when the items Devon mentioned come to pass. My main concern, over anything else, is that Laminar persist and survive. The Patent Lawsuit that is pending to me is like a cancer. And like a cancer, those facing it go through the typical stages of grief. Right now, it still looks as if Mr. Meyers is stuck in denial. I worry that his ego may cost him dearly. He believes that such trolls should never be submitted to, and fighting the good fight is the only way to go. It has been suggested you can win the war (the suit) but lose the battle (tank the company) by virtue of being bled to death by attorney's fees. I fervently hope that this will not happen to Laminar. Once the suit is in the rearview, I think we will see substantive progress within X-Plane. Since it already is a very high-quality product, I recognize that taking it up several notches does present some real challenges, and the reason is SCALE. The small size of the company is definitely an issue, when ACES were up and running, the size of the FSX team over at Microsoft was MUCH larger than the band of brothers over at Laminar. I'm willing to trust Austin, and give him all the time he needs. I know that when he releases the 'improvements' they will be substantial and well-engineered.

I don't care what ANYONE says... We can never expect people flying commercial airliners from a remote location to have the 'feel' of the plane when experiencing wind shear, crosswinds, and a host of other unexpected 'issues' moments before landing... or shortly after takeoff. Picture Sully Sullenberger's dual-engine bird-strike flameout being flown from the ground by a guy who has 7 minutes from takeoff to putting the plane in the Hudson. I can't see that having a good outcome with a 'drone pilot' in charge of the airliner. With 0 power and no hope for a go-around, I don't think ANYONE could have flown that plane into the water 'remotely' the way Sully did it... and let's face it... you WANT a guy that calm and collected in the cockpit... I am aware of the stats for "Pilot Error", but those numbers are misleading. I believe the astronomical number of potential crashes that were AVOIDED by "pilot solutions" would far exceed the errors. But since no catastrophe occurred, the stats are skewed. In the same way you can't 'prove a negative', you cannot statistically prove the disasters that were PREVENTED by onboard pilots. Sorry, but the guy on the ground arguing with his wife on the cellphone when the birds hit my plane simply leaves me cold.

Were these shots taken using FSX or XPlane? :lol: Seriously, great job, Rob! My favorite airport, just a notch above KSAN and KSFO.

From what I have read by back tracking, the above quote seems to refer to Laminar Research. To say they have little or no ambition seems unfair. They have been in business for twenty years, and they are the only company that offers a 64-bit simulator platform, that can run on Windows, Linux, and Mac. Check me on this, I think FSX is solely Windows and is solely 32-bit. While X-Plane still has some work to do on several fronts, I am confident that if they survive their patent lawsuit, the future will be bright for Laminar.

I won't say which sim platform is 'best' or 'most realistic'. Each captain develops a list of priorities, then pays his/her money and away they go. I will say and continue to believe, that if you can add more than ONE pc to your setup- XP will reward you, not punish you. You won't have to jump through hula-hoops to make your network setup work in XP- it's BUILT IN to the sim. XP has a lot of nifty performance monitoring features, where you can set up various parameters to output to your screen, or a file, or what have you. If multiple PCs with matching screens going across a gigabit network is something you've dreamed of, it's SIMPLE to set up in XP. If glass cockpit PFD/ND/MCP appeals, this can be done with Sim-Avionics, and will give you the added cross-benefit of a highly advanced flight model in lieu to the developer's or 3pd's internal workings of their airplane. S-A is not for the faint of heart (it's pricey) but it can make a low 5-figure investment look and fly like a 6-figure sim. The only limits are your budget and your imagination. Once you start using full-scale gear from a company like FlightDeckSolutions (their 737-Overhead is STUNNING and full-size, not a 'toy' like some competitors... albeit it costs $4000 USD plus $600 for the stand) you can start to make the crossover from toy sim to RW hardware. If you want to move up from flying your desk to a mini or even full-scale cockpit, this is now a lot easier via aftermarket hardware choices. And in these high-end sims, the driving platform of choice seems to inevitably drift towards XP over FSX or P3D. Sure, 64-bits alone is a game-changer, but when you are sporting video cards for 400 up to $1000 each across 3, 4, 5 or 6 pcs...you want a sim that is built to use up all of that horsepower and VRAM. The winner, with no reservations, is XPlane. Yes, we all 'wish' that Xplane would do this or do that, and you need to factor in priorities, and difficulty of implementation. Because XP is designed to be flexible enough to run on lower-end hardware and laptops as well as the bleeding edge systems, some stuff is slow to show up in the sim itself. The 'laundry list' of wish-list additions at Laminar is a long one, and plainly speaking, choices have to be made, and priorities assigned. Still, I see XPlane as the future of flight simulation. 10 or 15 years from now, it will likely be drop-dead spectacular. Still, it's worth flying today, in my book. Plenty to like, lots to love! The engineers at LM are always trying to build the better mousetrap. Yes, we can suggest things, and we can also wish and hope. Better winters, Better visibility to the horizon at high altitude, buildings at all airports, and so on. But even if XPlane never got one bit better than it is right now, it has dazzled me and provided far more OMG moments than FSX ever did, and that is a personal observation (your mileage may vary). Watch videos of both platforms. For maximum frames, and much more reliable hardware performance under high-rendering settings, plus scalability across many pcs and monitors, my heart belongs to Laminar. Start throwing in real-world-scale hardware, and you will likely be an XP pilot. Although FSX is still installed, I -never- fly it any more, and that's saying something given Orbx just released Northern California scenery.

64-bits is a great enhancement and valuable advantage in XP. It is not a panacea or cure-all for all things flight-sim related. What makes XP really viable and attractive (to me) is the ease to which it may be scaled across multiple PCs. I have a number of comparative videos up on YouTube that show the differences between FSX and XP 10.x. If you throw 180-degree triple pcs and a glass cockpit into the mix, there is no question in my mind that ultimately XP wins, notwithstanding the known weaknesses (haze at altitude when looking out to the horizon, airports with no buildings, etc, etc.). Will XP eventually become "all that and a case of Tostitos?" In my mind, that is a certainty. The only salient question becomes "when?" But as another has written, with minimal cost, you can get XP and the HD textures, and a nice payware airplane, and just with some of the freeware airports, you can have a pretty nice time of things. The XPlane 'demo' is handicapped by much too short of a timer, and to really try it, I think a person should buy it. It's not crazy expensive, and you don't necessarily have to buy the global version to start off with (although I did). To ask just ONE PC to run the amount of hang-ons we throw at it including complex aircraft, active RW weather, live ATC, payware airports, textures, night-lights, ORBX HD scenery... and expect it to render EVERYTHING at 30Fps or more in REAL TIME at 32-bits? UNREALISTIC. When you split the work amongst multiple PCs with powerful video cards via a high-speed hard-wired Ethernet network, you can achieve $100,000 simulator performance at a fraction of the cost. What has hurt FSX is the incessant adding 'just one more straw' to the sim. The endless tweaking and adjusting, in search of the holy-grail "butter-smooth" CGI quality graphics and close-to-RW aircraft handling is a fool's task. If you could live with low-end graphics and avoid the piling-on of add-ons, FSX can look and fly pretty nicely. After a couple of years running wild with your credit card at sim shops online, though, things are quite different. You start hitting 13 fps at LAX payware airport in your PMDG, and you become increasingly unhappy. Thus, as some have suggested, it might be time to consider a platform that is DESIGNED to be expanded via additional PCs. That ACCOMMODATES and USES the high-end, high-dollar, high VRAM GPU you paid hundreds for... that can RENDER in HDX quality... and continues to evolve and become BETTER because it is still in ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT at the source-code level, not just at the hang-on add-in level...you may elect to at least purchase and experiment with Xplane. This isn't to say "XPlane is better", but the future is looking more and more like XPlane. Once PMDG brings one of their planes to XP, the land rush will be ON.