JeremyWM

Absolutely! It took a few years, but I think Xplane 10 is finally in a position to make a run at the tired old dog that is FSX/P3D. Yes I lump those two together because despite what LM has added, p3D is still rooted in 8+ year old code. I still love FSX and run it, but certainly not because of the base MS flight sim product. It is ONLY because of A2A, PMDG, REX, and Air Hauler that I ever start it up these days.

There's actually a thread on X-pilot from a guy who's working on a very promising addon called X-passengers, which should fill the niche for a passenger simulation program. There is a pack of textures called Winter World that I believe you can download from X-plane.org which serves as a good alternative. It's easy to use. You drag and drop the replacement textures into the X-plane folder whenever you want to have snowy ground cover and then take it out again to remove them. You just have to remeber to back-up you originals. HD Mesh and OSM from Alpilot and Simheaven, airports and cities from X-plane.org, payware addon aircraft, and Xplane 10.31 and you have pure flight simulation bliss IMHO. P.S. Winter World has been updated and is now available from X-pilot.com as Winter_Package 1.1

The CRJ-200 from Javier Rollon and X-aviation is the only aircraft that I know which features 2-D pop out panels in the same way as FSX. I was a bit irritated by the lack of them in X-plane when I first started trying to get into the sim myself, but after some time getting used to things I really don't miss them anymore and to me having 2-D old school MS Flight Simulator panels isn't realistic in my mind anyway. After all, what pilot has a row of 2D flight panels floating around their head as fly in the real world. I think 2D panels is one of the reasons why real life flight instructors sometimes have problems with simmers who come in looking to learn to fly, because they're always staring at their instruments instead of looking out the window! :P If you've got 5 displays to use, put them to work making one gorgeous panoramic view of X-plane instead! ^_^ Then make sure to download the PilotView plugin from the .org and make up to 9 custom views so that you can easily and quickly move your "head" around the cockpit to see sections of the plane you need to.

Well the simplest answer I can think of at the moment is a "noisy" key on your joystick if you use one or on the keyboard. By noisy I mean a key that's loose or broken which can randomly go on and off. I know that you said you set-up a key to turn time compression off, but have you checked to see if you have a key or joystick button assigned to turn ON time compression? My Cyborg joystick started going wonky with one of the throttle controls awhile back, where it now just flits on and off all the time, which is what made me think that might be an issue. Unless it IS something weird with EFASS. It is a newer program and especially since it features a number of direct interfaces with X-plane, such as a moving map and custom weather engine, there certainly could be some strange issues with how it works with the sim. But this is the first I've heard of this particular problem and seems unlikely that it would effect X-plane in such a way.

Though I haven't used PFPX, I do know that it is a VERY complex program. It is meant to emulate real aircraft and flight procedures to high degree of professionalism, so if your looking for a quick flight planner to get in and go, I'm pretty sure this isn't it. Also it has a strange set-up where it only comes pre-loaded with 15 or so aircraft profiles that you can choose from when begining a plan and you can't add in your own custom aircraft easily or at all. As far as I can tell, because PFPX features such detailed aircraft profiles, even going so far as to have specific engine specs considerations, fuel usage up to cruise altitude, on and on and on, it doesn't allow for complete freedom to add your own aircraft. I remember seeing someone in the forums who wanted to use PFPX with the PMDG J-41 for FSX. There was no way to add it in, so he had to just fake it using the Saab twin turbo prop that comes as a preloaded selectable aircraft type and then fudge some of the numbers to try to get it close to the J-41. Aerosoft will be releasing updates which include new aircraft compatibilities (I think) but I'm not sure how many or how often. From what I've seen EFASS is the best flight planner you can get for X-plane right now. Not only that, but it features a wealth of features, even it's own weather simulation engine that replaces X-planes default system, and best of all it's totally free! I would at the very least download and try it before you go and spend big bucks for PFPX. For me I'm still a bit old school. I still use FS Commander for my flight planning needs. It has all the features I want plus I can use it with every aircraft I own. Or you could always just use one of the online tools such as Simroutes, Routefinder, and the newer one which I prefer- SimBrief.com. SimBrief has quite a lot of features and it's another free resource. The downloadable .FMS is for the default X-plane FMS/GPS unit, but for the CRJ-200 it's actually quite simple just to make your own loadable file. A simple text document with the route written in the standard route format like this - KSEA NORMY MODDA STEVS Q150 OPPEE MOLTN2 KDEN - and saved as a .icao file should work just fine for the CRJ if you load a company route in the sim. You just have to place it in the JrollonPlanes/ SavedRoutes folder found in the main X-plane location. For the 777 I have no idea what the format is however, but I hope I helped a bit. :)

No thank-you Pascal. If it wasn't for your work with the data ref editor in X-plane it would be far easier to just continue to dismiss XP as the ugly, inferior flight sim to FSX/P3D. I think you even challenged Laminar themselves directly to improve the sky rendering in the default setup of the sim, as I think your ideas are probably going to be part of the next release version. I really wonder sometimes who are the artists (or who is the artist) over at Laminar. I know Austin himself doesn't have a clue what looks good. Xplane has an amazing graphics rendering engine, but it seems so under utilized at times. As for Orbx, my opinion is that their airports are absolutely stunning! However their large area projects are far less so. I have FTX Global and to be blunt, I feel like I wasted my money. Some areas do look very nice, much nicer than the default FSX with it's greens and browns "desert problem." But over all it's just a bit underwhelming unless you also add some of their other addons like the PNW packages. I live near Olympia, WA. This state is beautiful. I've also lived in San Francisco, CA. One of my favorite flights to do is the hop between Seattle and San Francisco; a trip I've made many times as a passenger. Flying that same trip in FSX with FTX Global however, is like flying over a mostly green pock marked carpet with the occasional town or city rendered as a flat little oasis of generic textures with some randomly places little 3D buildings. Not too impressive and as always the classic FSX blurries follow me wherever I go. Xplane certainly has it's faults, but it's getting better all the time and gaining momentum. Anything from TruScenery equals Orbx IMHO as well. :)

I wouldn't be suprised if the community work that's been done ends up being put into an official release from Ben and the Laminar team pretty soon, with as good as some of the results have been. I agree the tools need polish though. I've seen a fair amount of weirdly "electric blue" screenshots from some who have gone a bit crazy with the effects at times. Glad to see you're on top of all the latest tools and techniques to make XP as good as it can be Turbine. Me personally, I am most excited about Xplane 10 with all thats been happening with it and then I often go back to FSX for much of my sim time as well, just because I have almost every A2A Accusim aircraft made so far including Captain of the Ship for the B-377, the PMDG J-41, maaannnny Carenado aircraft, the Realair Duke, Air Hauler to give realism and meaning to the flights, and FS Commander for the flight planning. It's pretty much simheaven when everything is working well in concert. I just don't feel like I have much impetous to move to P3D when it's so similar to FSX in so many ways and has quite a bit of compatibility issues from what I've read in the forums. That screenshot you show really does look nice however. :)

Huh, strange. I wonder why it was that it wasn't showing any cockpit shadowing. Basically thats what I noticed that really made the differance in favor of P3D was the dynamic shadowing and the much more interesting cloud formations, though as ryanbatcund mentioned, I think the super high rez clouds make them look a bit odd. I feel that they tend to look more like flat billboard sprites when presented in such high resolution. I have good ol' FSX with REX Essential Plus and I never use the highest resolution cloud texture set for that reason. Have you ever used Aerosofts Sky Tools for XP? It might give you some control to give Xplane a bit more "visual Pop" if you will. The default lighting in Xplane always seems to lack contrast and often ends up looking a bit boring and homogenous. Thats why I mentioned Fly with Lua with the Religh Scattering script as well. The first time I saw these shots, I was totally floored at the realization of the graphic rendering power kept under the hood of Xplane 10. http://graphie.org/ressources/forums/images/xplane-raleigh/ATR72_244.jpg http://graphie.org/ressources/forums/images/xplane-raleigh/ATR72_197.jpg%C2'>

I'd love to see this same comparison shot with X-plane using SkyMaxx and with HDR/Dynamic shadows. Putting REX sky in FSX against plain jane XP clouds and FSX will always win. Add SkyMaxx (reasonably priced payware from X-aviation.com) with the Fly with Lua hack for the distant blue haze/horizon effects and Aerosofts color tools which are both free and I bet X-plane could make a much better showing in this comparison. Also the dynamic shadowing goes a long way towards realism. In P3D I noticed you have it on but in the X-plane shot there's no cockpit shadowing. I know that XP does nice real time lighting and shadow effects. Are you unable to turn on HDR and Dynamic shadows for XP? Nice comparison shots. I'd love to see more. I do believe X-plane can do better than this though, with HDR, shadowing, SkyMaxx, Fly with Lua, and Aerosofts Sky Tools. :) Anyone else have both who would like to show some more comparison shots? Hopefully this topic can stay as civil as it is right now without diving into another VS. flame war, because I would love to see some more shots and to continue the discussion.

I have no doubt that you and your team of administrators have worked diligently to create a forum for any and all things flight sim, with a strong effort towards inclusion no matter the platform, Tom. My point is that the flight sim community in general can sometimes be uninviting and insular. The flight sim population at large has often, and at length, cast dispersions on X-plane, despite the fact that X-plane has been a very good simulator for many versions, despite it's shortcomings or differences to MS Flight Simulator. I believe AVSIM to be the largest, most venerable forum within the flight sim universe. It wasn't the fault of the administrators, but the prevailing opinions of it's large user base that created what I believe to be an inaccessible atmosphere, but this has been changing for the better recently, in my opinion, and that was what my post was about. Thank-you Tom Allenworth, and all who are involved with AVSIM, for creating and continuing a wonderful forum for flight sim enthusiast of all platforms, ages, and particular interests to meet and engage with one another.

Another excellent resource is Zones Photo for X-plane. They have free downloads for thousands of square miles of high quality orthophoto scenery for much of Europe and some small island in the Atlantic. http://zonephoto.x-plane.fr/

I have a number of nice repaints for the LES DC-3 and some paints for Carenado aircraft in X-plane. Currently they're hosted on the ORG (unfortunately) as well as the X-Pilot forums, but I would love to get them available for download on AVSIM. Bar none, AVSIM is the most venerable and important forum in the flight simulation community. I'm very excited and delighted to see the interest in bringing X-plane into the fold in a much greater way now. For a time it seemed that AVSIM was an uninviting Draconian fortress which only catered to Microsoft flight simulators and looked at X-plane with derision. I'm glad to see things have been changing for the better, despite a handful of people who incessantly dump on X-plane whenever they get the chance in almost every topic about X-plane. As far as uploading files to AVSIM, I think the biggest hurdle, at least for me anyway, is the confusing interface for the downloads section. Not to be rude, but that part of the site seems a bit antiquated, and almost seems like a whole different website compared to the nice modern, intuitive AVSIM forum in general. I have a hard time even finding certain downloads, that alone uploading my own files. I think the nicest download section for X-plane files right now, is the one for X-Pilot.com. However I notice by a quick perusal of their forums, that they too only have a few hundred uploads, despite being a popular X-plane forum. For whatever reason, X-plane.org is still the undisputed king of X-plane forums. I find it to be an ugly website run by administrators who often behave unprofessionally and vindictively towards anyone who might even give a hint of criticism of the org itself or the products on the org store. The key to getting more uploads and lively discussion topics for X-plane on AVSIM is to work on getting people from the org more active in the AVSIM community. Easier said then done it would seem.

Just in case you are not impressed with the Seattle KSEA area starting location in the demo (I know I wasn't here's a link to the freeware New Zealand scenery showing whats truly possible in X-plane. My suggestion would be to get a Carenado GA aircraft, the full-copy of X-plane, and download this freeware and enjoy some low-and-slow flight simulation bliss. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFnh-77I5QE This is where you can download the free scenery: http://www.alpilotx.net/downloads/x-plane-10-new-zealand-pro/

No problem. Honestly if I had purchased X-plane 10 when it was first released I would have probably shelved it for quite sometime myself. I did the same with version 9. I thought it was truly awful at first and put it aside for about a year. Then when the Mitsubishi MU-2 came out, I bought it and gave Xplane a second look. If you want to get an idea of some of the best X-plane has to offer right now, you should take a look at some of the videos done by redpiper1 on Youtube about X-plane. He does some beautiful videos which really show off the best of what the sim is capable of and he also give you a list of the add-ons used in the videos as well, so you know what to shop for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUfa7iEZX6c

How could you know if X-plane 10 was sufficient to your personal requirements for a flight sim if you've never actually tried it, Huascar? I don't know about what is sufficient for you, but I know that the X-Aviation LES DC-3, the Jetstream 32 from Javier Rollon, the FlyJSim 727, any scenery from TruScenery or Aerosoft, the many great free airports available on the .org, and the New Zealand scenery freeware certainly have my attention. Geofa: Yes absolutely, constructive criticism is always something that should be allowed to come to the discussion floor. X-plane has become better for it. Constant bickering and ignorant slander based on limited experience and seemingly personal crusades are not however. Often these forum strings devolve into the kind of dismal chastising that you refer to when someone else, often one of a well known band of dissenting commenters, brings up the same tiresome gripes about X-plane versus FSX and it snowballs from there.

Wow, I took a break from this topic for a few hours, and got really far behind on the discussion. There is certainly some impassioned and well informed opinions being exchanged. Awesome! ^_^ So I should clarify what I was trying to say before. In mentioning the article in PC Pilot magazine a while back where a real world pilot tested the actual plane against the simulated one, and found it a bit wanting in the flight characteristics department, I wasn't trying to run down A2A Simulations' work at ALL. They make the my favorite add-ons for any sim, period! I own the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser with Captain of the Ship, the B-17, and the Spitfire, all with Accusim. There's nothing else like them anywhere. The article was written by someone who, if I'm remembering correctly, has actually flown a real Spitfire, and the test was done against the A2A Spitfire with Accusim in FSX. He said that the physical modeling of the sim aircraft was amazingly accurate, the engine and systems modeling was superbly realistic in things such as the need for careful engine heat management, but the one area where it come up short compared to the real thing was in the flight dynamics. He said that the sim Spitfire was generally too stable and easy to handle comparatively. My point in bringing this up, again was not to disparage A2A's work. It is my opinion that A2A's Accusim aircraft features the pinnacle of what is possible to achieve in FSX in terms of flight dynamics realism. Now, unfortunately I haven't seen an article done yet where a real pilot of a specific aircraft tests it's X-plane counterpart in the same way. I would really love to see what they would say. But, at least in my most humble opinion, I do feel that the X-planes flight dynamics best FSX's, even with an Accusim plane which I consider to be the most realistic available for FSX. As long as you're comparing similarly priced top tier add-on aircraft that is. That's one of the things that still bugs me about X-plane, is the lack of quality of the default aircraft. With Xplane 10 it has vastly improved over version 9 though. In 9 you basically got a handful of utter freeware trash with 2d-panels. Garbage in, garbage out as they say. This becomes problematic because whenever you hear from the most vociferously negative voices against X-plane, it's invariably from those who have only used the demo with the default aircraft and are comparing it to FSX with a mountain of quality 3rd party content. I have a few hours time in a Cessna 182 as the pilot in the left seat. I know the feeling as the plane takes off; the feeling of the aircraft picking up speed, becoming lighter and flitting around a little, and the wheels leaving the runway, the way it feels almost like some great hand has suddenly picked the plane up from underneath and lifted it into the air as the winds swirled about it. I have the Carenado Cessna 182 for X-plane. When I "fly" it, I am delighted by the similar feeling I get as the simulated aircraft catches the "wind" and lifts into the sim skies. Getting back to the topic at hand here, I see many reasons to like X-plane as it is set apart in it's own way, instead of constantly bemoaning it for what it lacks versus FSX. I have both sims. When I get tired of one, I jump into the other for a refreshing experience. Right now I've been doing Air Hauler flights in FSX with my PMDG J-41, but I've been itching to get back into my X-plane DC-3 or the CRJ-200 for some FS economy time with X-plane. I urge people to enjoy X-plane for what it is, and look forward to it's improving in the coming months or years. Some reasons to like X-plane is the flight dynamics fluidity, the HDR light and shadow effects, the excellent default textures for mountains, fields, farms, the accurate road networks, the amazing addon aircraft and now scenery which are being released all the time. Some areas that need improving? Yea, the default cities still suck, they often look ridiculous, the over zealous turbulence modeling is still a problem, the clouds sometimes look like cotton candy. There are issues, but they can and will be dealt with I think. A free OSM downloadable addition can make an immense improvement to the look of some cities, the free New Zealand scenery pack is an amazing example of what can be done with some work, and with each new version from Laminar we get a better iteration of an already great flight sim. To HighTowers; we've already seen this shift toward forward momentum for X-plane. No, there's aren't any companies which have been working with FSX as their primary platform, who have now shifted entirely to an X-plane centric business, but there has been plenty of cross-platform movement. The "secret-sauce" as you put it, is in people who are already knowledgable about X-plane development working with FSX developers to translate their products for X-plane. Carenado is the best example of this. The many fantastic add-on aircraft available from them for X-plane are mainly attributed to the work of Dan Klue and others who have been working with them to make their existing aircraft available for the X-plane platform. Aside from this fact, there is already some fantastic people and organizations who have from day one, been exclusive X-plane developers. Look at the amazing stuff from X-aviation, Felis who has been involved in the Yakovlev Yak-40 and AN-24 and the new Airbus 320 NEO, and for a look into the future see the jaw-dropping IXEG Boeing 737 classic. No need to think that you must invest thousands of dollars either. There is whole lot of great content available for free or low cost for X-plane. You could buy the FlyJSim 727 freighter on sale right now at Xplane.org for 25 dollars and download a myriad of free scenery and be in simulation heaven before you know it.

Just as I was getting to say it, Goran beats me to it! :lol: X-plane is NOT in a constant Beta form. It is not a perpetually moving target for developers. The people who constantly propound this theory that it is are not developers. Just ask Goran, as he is one of the talented people helping to make some of the best add-ons for X-plane available today. (Thank-you for the superlative DC-3!) X-plane has stable versions released at regular intervals. In-between those releases, they push Beta's which are test bed's for new features, fixes, etc... You do NOT have to participate in the Beta testing. You can choose not to tick the box on the updater screen and just use the latest stable version. When you check the box, you are basically signing up to be a beta tester for Laminar Research. They are a very small team which is why they have the fantastic idea of utilizing crowd-sourcing in the flight sim community to do the beta testing. X-plane 10 is a great sim. Yes it has some negatives and limitations, but any desktop simulation does. As for the flight modeling issue that LaDamson brought up, I just don't see it. I have many aircraft add-ons for X-plane and the only one that I have ever encountered that I had to trim like crazy and wrestle into the skies is the MU-2. This aircraft was my first add-on for X-plane. I must have crashed it on take off about thirty times and cursed the air purple when I first tried to fly it. Then I took some time to research it and read the manual. The real aircraft is a notorious unwieldy crate to fly just like the sim one is! Yes the effect is probably exaggerated for the simulated plane, but once you know to trim it up and to use a smooth but firm hand at the controls, this aircraft flies beautifully. I have been an FSX user since 2007. I have hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of add-ons for it. But, I've never seen the challenge of FSX to be in the actual flying of the aircraft. A2A Accusim aircraft, now perhaps with Accufeel which adds more fidelity to the dynamics, are the only add-ons IMO which give a sense of "feeling" of a machine riding on air currents. Generally in FSX the challenge lies in the proper procedures for working with the aircraft systems, developing a robust and accurate flight plan, etc...I remember a few articles in PC Pilot magazine where a real life pilot of a particular aircraft wrote a piece where he/she discussed how the real plane flies versus the FSX version and did some sim flight tests to determine the differences. In all of the articles, the pilot determined that the FSX flight envelope fell decidedly short of it's real world counterpart. Even the A2A Spitfire with it's amazing Accusim add-on was disappointing from a flight modeling perspective. Each sim has it's respective strengths and weaknesses. There are many reasons to like X-plane and we don't need the same derisive voices saying the same tired negative opinions every time we have a forum topic discussing it.

Also, I double and triple check to make sure the props are set correctly (I.E. not feathered) by looking out the left window and at the right engine before I press the start switch. You can tell just by looking whether or not the props are fully fine and on the start locks. If you are using the correct start procedure, than I''m not sure what the problem could be, unless it's something unique to your particular system. Have you tried a fresh install and then applied the patch available on PMDG's website? I would first install the aircraft file, run FSX and load the default Cessna on the ground somewhere, then load the J41. Then shut-down FSX, run the patch, and do the same opening procedure with FSX again. Another problem I had with this plane, which I believe I fixed with a re-install like I described above, was when I would try connect to the ground power unit, I would get a total FSX CTD every time. I think it had something to do with some Visual C++ runtime components not loading properly. This is just a very comprehensive add-on. With a lot of complexity, there's bound to be issues at times.

This is one of my favorite planes to fly and has been for quite some time now. I had that flashing VC problem once before and for me the solution was to open the J41 configuration manager and turn the cockpit detail from "High" to "Normal." With this, the flashing was gone, the cockpit still looks amazing, and I get a bit better frame rate performance as well. As for the engines this particular aircraft has notoriously temperamental engine dynamics and from what I've read it is realistic the to the actual aircraft. You have to go through a careful start-up process to get these engines running without burning them up. I had a hell of a time for a while and burnt up a number of engines before I finally got used to the proper start procedures. There's an excellent tutorial on the AVSIM PMDG forum called "Turbo-Props" I believe, which details exactly how to start the engines and shut them down properly.

Yes, I had this exact same problem for a while. It's because you are missing the font for the FMS display. I believe it is glassga.ttf. http://support.precisionmanuals.com/KB/a6/fms-is-blank-with-a-yellow-square-showing.aspx

Maybe I can help here a bit VeryBumpy. I've been into FS Economy for about a year, year and a half, and at first I felt that FS Economy was really obtuse and hard to understand. Now I think I have a pretty good understanding of it. It can be complex, but that's what I think is great about it. Once you get over the initial learning curve, you can get more and more into the complexities and can always be learning something new and hopefully have a good time doing it. So the reason FSE lists planes that are not for rent is because users can actually purchase planes for their own use in FSE once they have earned enough money to do so. This makes it so that user always has the plane they want available at the airport where they last parked it. Also because they own the aircraft, they can make money by putting out available for rent to other FSE pilots like yourself. Imagine it as you are a pilot working at FBO at a real life airport. When you get your job order, you can't just go out to the parking area and grab any plane you see. You have to choose from what is available to rent from either your company or from another private party. FSE has many public aircraft available as well as private ones. The public ones are usually more flexible and cheaper to rent. The ones that are privately owned have an asterisk. The Dehavilland Beaver that you are trying to rent is in need of repairs. As it states though, a renter cannot make repairs to a private aircraft, that's up to the owner to do. Below the list of available aircraft at an airport there is some very useful information that describes what the different symbols mean. FS means for sale, rent dry means that you pay for the fuel used when you land at your destination, rent wet means you pay for the fuel per hour, a bonus for flying the aircraft closer to it home base, etc... What I think is a great way to start is to go to the FSE Manual (link is on the right on the home screen). Look for the "Your 1st flight" link under the "Getting Started" heading. Follow the instructions. Then go ahead and do the "Your 2nd flight" tutorial. Then I think it be easier to go off on your own and have some fun in FS Economy.

There's really no reason for such inflammatory language to get your point across. Perhaps I'm wrong about how Flight is set up, however I'm not intentionally "lying" as you say. This is how a simple online discussion devolves into flame bitting and bickering because of people such as you who can't have decent conversation about something without spiting insults or accusations. So the game itself is downloaded and installed on your hard drive. Fine. The online component of the game is an integral and necessary part of the product however. Without new content being created and robust customer support from Microsoft, which was already suspect at best when they actually had a dedicated team of people working on Flight, people will grow weary of the same stale content and quickly begin to leave the game. Newcomers will be few to non-existent and MS Flight will become a ghost town which withers and dies away. So perhaps you will still be able to sign on and play, but why the hell would you want to?

Just because the Windows Live servers are going strong, has little to do with whether or not someone will be able to load up Flight to enjoy the DLC that they purchased in the future. MS Flight is not a game which lives on your hard drive and simply has an online component through Windows Live. It is part of the new "cloud computing" revolution, for good or ill. The game itself requires that it be played online, meaning there has to be servers somewhere to connect to and which also means there must be employees to manage those servers. Flight is now a dead platform. Now that the project has been cancelled, there will be little to no product support. Microsoft won't continue to spend money keeping Flight going forever either. My guess is that Flight will continue to limp along with a skeleton crew administering daily operations for a time and then eventually will simply shut-down the project completely and focus their resources on other projects. Just like games such as Star Wars Galaxies, when the servers go dark, the game and whatever money you've invested in the product will vaporize and blow away.

You're the one bringing the conversation back to the usual back and fourth about FSX vs. X-plane urthgental. This thread isn't simply about praising X-plane and wondering about what 10.10 will bring either. It's about taking stock of where things are at with X-plane 10 at this point and to do that effectively you obviously must compare and contrast it to the current standard which is FSX. How does X-plane 10 compare to FSX now, what was FSX like at this point in it's development, where do you see X-plane heading in the next few years with regards to the competition. These are all perfectly valid questions. The fact that the Aces team was so vast compared to the team at Laminar Research is also pertinent as it shows the amount of resources available to the Aces people to create FSX. This is one of the fundamental differences between the two programs and why I feel that X-plane needs to be given the time to grow, though it is still fine package to build from already. X-plane is very much an open source product which relies on the community to take the baton and run with it after Laminar has run the first leg. They make robust SDK tools freely available to the masses like WED, Planemaker, and Overlay Editor in order to give the consumers the power to go about the monumental task of creating the simulated world. The Aces team had 238 people to create FSX which is why it was a more complete package upon it's release with mission, a built flight instruction set, 22,000+ default airports, a quick flight set up menu, and a nice interface to tie everything together. Laminar has 7 on a good day. Yet with X-plane I've been able to make scenery, airports, changes to the texture set itself (Winter World from xplane.org is great for snowy winters), and create new aircraft. That's something I could never do with FSX without programing knowledge and a lot of patience to deal with the often obtuse SDK package for it.

What I think Greg may be referring to is the overall immersive quality of X-plane 10 vs. FSX. Scenery, detailed aircraft, realistic clouds and sky, water, sound; all of these thing come together to produce the sensation that you are immersed in the simulation. Unfortunately X-plane fails in this regard in a few key areas, at least at first. If someone downloads the demo, the first thing they are treated with is a beautiful swoop down through pink tinged clouds at sunset over Seattle to a waiting 747 which is nicely detailed inside and out. The Sea-Tac airport is also detailed with plenty of buildings, cars, jetways, etc... Then they take off, and the fantasy ends. I'm from Seattle, Wa and I can tell you that aside from the properly arranged roads, X-plane 10 fails miserably to give anyone the sense that they are flying over Seattle. The clouds are near perfection, especially on a cloudy day (which is most of the time :). Yet when you look down it seems not exactly "plausible." I know Austin's plan was not to make what you see out the window realistic, but instead be "plausible." Unfortunately X-plane 10 fails to even make a "plausible" version of Seattle unless you believe that perhaps this is an alternate universe where all the major cities have been destroyed and replaced with southern California style homes oddly intermingled with Bronx style row houses all built on top of one massive stretch of astroturf. But I said at first right? Implying that if you go further beyond your first impression, you might be pleasantly surprised? If we go back a step to my own first impressions of X-plane 9 I could also elucidate a few points. I'm a long time fan of flight sims in general. I was still a high school kid when things like the first Jane's Combat Simulations came out, but I used to play it till my eyes popped. Years later I got into FS9 and FSX when they came out. Each time I got into a brand new sim I was blown away by the new graphics and expanded simulation fidelity. Then in 2009 I discovered X-plane 9. It looked awesome and came with much praise for the flight modeling so I jumped on it. I loaded it up and placed my plane at KSFO in San Francisco and took of over the beautiful Bay Area. Then I said this looks like #@$#! The water looked like sewage outflow, San Francisco was a few randomly placed boxes, there was no bridge, the clouds where made up individual sprites which spun around when you move the camera, and the plane I was in was nothing more than a set of wings and wheels slung together behind a 2-D panel. I immediately banished it from my hard and didn't look at it for a year. It wasn't until the Mitsubishi MU-2 made by Tom Kyler, now published by X-Aviation, that I gave X-plane another chance. It was clear at that time that things where changing. Talented developers were finally starting to make aircraft with immersive 3-D cockpits and the X-plane world in general was becoming more fleshed out. So I gave it another look. Since that time I've purchased many amazing aircraft, downloaded hundreds of free scenery files from the .org, and my X-plane world has become a much more impressive place to spend time in. Microsoft as a large corporation which employed the Aces team of somewhere between 30 and 50 people produced FSX. It was a complete package with world scenery, airports, and missions, however it did have performance and stability issues which where patched here and there and then finally fixed a good deal later to a certain degree with two major service packs. These weighed in at hundreds of megabytes so there must have been more to them then simple default GUI changes like tf51D suggests. At the time it was considered to have a nicely detailed world, but there were criticisms about the graphics that could be voiced as well. Frame rate problems aside, much of the world especially outside of the U.S. region was swathed in what became known the "desert problem" and due to the lower fidelity of the mesh data many of the world mountains become gentle undulating hillsides. It took some time before the FSX world really began to take shape when talented people produced freeware and payware that added much need detail to the ground texture and uniqueness to the airports. If you were to put X-plane 10 up against FSX when it was first released without add-ons I think the comparison would be quite favorable for X-plane 10. Contrast this with X-plane made by Laminar Research which employs what, perhaps 15 people in total? The software is released in more of a beta stage of development and then goes through a kind of crowd sourcing testing phase utilizing the early adopters of the program. Major issues are recognized and dealt with, new features or improvements on existing features are added and the product quickly grows. The main thing is that it has already proven itself, in my opinion, to be a viable platform to grow from. If you look around at some of the Youtube videos featuring X-plane 10 I think you will see that it has already come a long way. Some truly exceptional screen captures have been made of it with really do a much better job of showing off X-plane than the demo itself does, which never seems to be able to make a good first impression.