cmdrnmartin

From a UI perspective, xplane has some really wonky controls. Now I may be used to FS9, but a lot of those controls make more sense, intuitively, then the xplane setup. A saved remap would be cool, and the outside views need work (more zoom out!)

All the features work in my 735i, and in my Dodge Chally. Likewise, other then bug fixes, most games DO give you all the features at the start. This DLC and patch release thing is a NEW phenomenon, brought about by the internet and more specifically broadband. I can pop in my copy of Jane's WW2 fighters, Fighters Anthology, 688i, Longbow 2, and they work, with all the features promised on the box and in the leadup interviews to their release. There was a time when companies had a more longterm view when it came to releasing software and games, now the release schedule of 6 months determines output, not features and actual coding. It's why so many games get pushed out before they are ready, and spend a year in patching, or more. I made a big post about why there is backlash against Flight, because it was targeted at the wrong audience, because dumb decisions pushed it from being FS11 into the crappy Virtual Wings that it is. Personal opinion detected! Examining the facts, releasing Flight gave Microsoft the following: -Bad Reviews from people in the industry -Bad Press from the aviation community -Angry Backlash from the more hardcore set -A closed down development house in Vancouver -18 months of wasted time and funding -18+ months of maintaining servers at cost -Loss of good developers from their house who could have made a marketable product -Loss of support from 3rd party publishers, who as we know, are the key to keeping a product afloat past the 12 initial months of release. -More then likely did not recoup their expenses for making the game. -Indifference from the casual gamers the game was trying to attract. So yeah, I'm not sure how designing flight was a good thing.

Rise Of Flight, all the DCS titles. You mean stuff like Xplane had, FS9 had, FSX had... Uhhh, releasing a flight sim with features we all wanted was possible prior to Flight, why was it not possible for the Flight team? Business decisions. Technically, they could have built the game we wanted, they were prevented from doing so by business managers and marketing morons. The community could have modded Flight to fix whatever it lacked, except for a business decision that it would be locked code with no 3rd party addons. So no, we don't HATE flight. We hate what flight represents. A business abandoning its core demographic, by trying to branch out wider and make a quick buck while they are at it. The business decisions that led to flight being the gutted short bus riding representative of a once great series is what makes us angry. Microsoft had an opportunity, and because the marketing freaks told the business managers and accountants they could make a quick cash and grab, they built Flight instead of FS11. Because of that decision, they dropped the ball. And many, myself included, are angry about it. We hate what flight represents.

Rocks and glass houses...

Just my two cents on the topic, but FS2002 was a HUGE improvement over 2000, and 2004/FS9 was a dream to install and run. It could bog down at times, but even on relatively mid level machines it was a breeze to install, didn't seem buggy, and was generally very playable. FSX on the other hand, has been a struggle since I tried to remove the security shrink rap. It is not optimized, very buggy, and it's just WORK to get it to function correctly. FS9 stands out in my mind, as a 3 gig or so install, and I had a functional flight sim on the 1.5 year old computer I had bought from best buy. No fuss, no hassle.

Gotta love the claims of silky smooth graphics...

I gotta say, this interview reads differently given recent news and announcements...

Xplane Il-2 DCS A-10 DCS-Mustang DCS KA-50 Rise of Flight Take on Helicopters Sorry, What candle burning out?

I think this represents a wonderful opportunity for many reasons. 1. Prepar3d is not really for Civie use, the license is essentially being abused by those buying it for civilian flight simulation. Frankly, Lockheed Martin has mismanaged so much recently, I find it doubtful that we'll see much come of it. I could be wrong, but right now, it doesn't strike me as a marketable alternative. 2. X-Plane has a decent usebase allready, and has name recognition, even if it is as "that other flight sim" 3. The developer is dedicated and constantly working on it, improving it, and moving it towards the level of sim that many users of the old FSX like. 4. MS has essentially abandoned the genre, leaving Xplane as the only civilian flight sim developer on the market, and one with a strong code base to start on, with a fully navigable world. 5. Third Party developers have been switching over to xplane in droves as they saw the writing on the wall. Where they go, the market will most likely follow. I do see problems though. 1. Xplane's design team is ridiculously small. Meyer might be approached by a big name publisher and offered support, or a full on buyout, but until that happens, upgrades, code changes, and features are limited by what a tiny team can whip out. Even chained to a deskwith limited breaks a man can only code so much. 2. Xplane has a lack of addons at the moment. For people who spent thousands on their software, not to mention hardware, there is a certain expectation when they boot up flight sim. They want to fly the models they know, using the controls they know, to make it work for them. There are many differences between the UI in xplane and in Flight Sim. These are hard to overcome, and some are very poorly thought out (as a convert, there has been a lot of frustration relearning a flying sim/game) 3. Wx. Xplane does not do wx as well as Flight Sim did, and it needs to. Not everyone likes flying a helicopter around Seatac, there are plenty of people who want to do high altitude transatlantic stuff. The current map system, wx system, and metar grabbing system are not good enough. A third party addon would be welcome here, but the coding of xplane currently is limiting. 4. Visual fidelity. I am sold on the terrain for xplane, and some of the atmospheric effects. They are awesome. But the visual aircraft models need to be better. Cities need to be designed in many areas to attain higher visual fidelity. I am also convinced that the airport database is based off the ancient DAFIF release before it was sealed to the public, and many of the airfields are in desperate need of upgrading to reflect changes. This comes back to having a larger team working on the project. I could list off a lot of things in both, but those are what came to mind immediately. I am excited, and I hope Xplane and Laminar will step up to the ball game. I'm sure Austin is jumping for joy at the MS announcement, while at the same time realizing that this is an opportunity that if not handled correctly, could damage his baby as well. Lockheed might pick up the ball and contract out to a mjor house to move prepar3d forward. It could turn into BluRay vs HD-DVD all over again. Austin needs to exploit this properly. I sincerely hope this helps out Xplane, the potential is there, and when I first fired up nine, that terrain mesh and autogen showed me what a flight sim could be like. Xplane 10 has some great night lighting, and the terrain, it really does let you think you are flying, as many of the airports I fly to have uneven runways, with slopes and what not. It's a level of reality that helps to immerse. But it still has annoyances that drop the immersion spell. And those need to be ironed out. My 2 cents.

Everytime I see someone type a string of words in ALLCAPS I assume they have nothing important to say, they just want to be heard.

It's not arrogance. I'm not claiming I'm better, I'm saying that he's got an inflated sense of self worth. Also, maybe you should consider that he's trolling the Xplane forums looking for a rise, instead of accusing me of needing to 'behave.'Feel free to PM me if you wish to continue this conversational path.

Don't be such a child. The world's problems have nothing to do with your trolling or the Flight Sim community in general. Xplane vs FSX is a First world problem, in the same way "I can't hear my tv when I eat chips because they crunch loud in my mouth" is a problem.Get off your moral high horse, you're not any smarter or more intelligent then any of the people posting on here today.

It's less the placement of those buildings, and more the accuracy of them. Because the terminals pull from an object database of default/generic textures and shapes, many of the terminals don't look right. Compare and contrast for example, CYOW. The default buildings are flat wrong. You can get freeware that resembles the real thing more closely. But you're still replacing buildings.I consider Xplane and FSX to be on par when it comes to airport buildings, FSX has buildings yes, but you have to replace them with 3rd Parth anyway. Xplane just doesn't bother rendering incorrect buildings, so you have to go get 3rd party as well. In terms of airfield detail, Xplane blows FSX out of the water, especially with regards to lighting.

Uhhh, FSX engine needs to be re-written. It's incredibly poorly optimized.

Hifi is a business with a product.Their product is an addon to another product (FSX)That product (FSX) is no longer supported, or being marketed, etc.Hifi's product will DIE if they don't integrate with another Flight Sim Product. The logical solution is to develop for Xplane. I'm sorry that the world of business and capitalism is such a mystery to you, but anyone else can plainly see the untapped market that Xplane represents. Learning the code will take a bit of time, but developing the weather sim will be relatively easy since it is a matter of porting existing code over to the new platform.

It's hilarious to see you post that reply and completly miss the intent, I bolded the part of your statement where the irony flies right over your head.

CRFI models, and the new Activesky for XPLANE should address these issues.

Let me offer a contrast:FSX: Buggy ancient product still costing 50 bucks. Airports are not accurate with respect to signage, buildings etc. Default buildings are used to represent airports, and are generally wrong. Same brown terminal building in Capetown is in Toronto, etc. Weather effects aren't nearly as polished, wind and turbulence effect highly suspect. Slow. Low res terrain. Abandonware (not being actively developed)XplaneX: Optimized independant Flight Sim with over 50 GIGS of scenery and terrain relief. High Res terrain. No buildings at airports, but accurate taxiways and ramps. Far superior lighting system. Very detailed weather engine (although lack of high alt downloadable winds is annoying.) For only 70 bucks. Currently being actively Supported.

After this forum subsection gets shutdown, let's work on getting Flight Shutdown so it doesn't sully the Flight Sim franchise.

Using that logic, why do you bother posting at all?

The worst part is LM Prepar3d is just FSX, in all its unoptimized, buggy glory. So I don't see it as being a viable option.

I think the value of my steam account exceeds 14,000$ at this point. Gotta do something on my four days off.

Thank you for bringing your wx engine to Xplane!

Oh lordy. My real world license is probably the only thing that has kept me from being banned. It's very hard to put up with some 14 year old telling you that you're doing your job wrong.

And people will still complain about it.