Johnny Thunder

I'm still running beta 7, did the frame rate drop in RC1 from the boost we got in beta 7? Or is it the same?

You are up to date, 10.04RC1 is the latest version.

There is a new updater out, so the old updater no longer works. Beta 7 gave me a huge frame rate jump on my 9800GTX+, to the point that I can play with close to max settings. However someone has said that 10.04 RC 1 broke the FPS and it went back to crap, can anyone confirm this. I still haven't updated to RC 1, and if this is true I'm not gonna.

I thought the C-130 looked good, save it's lacking a 3D cockpit.However I would prefer if the artists spent there time making 3D Cockpits for the airplanes that are already there, instead of including completely new planes with no 3d cockpit.

Did anyone else get a massive increase in frame-rate? My Frame rate jumped up so much from downloading Bata 7, that I can now play with Extreme Objects and Roads, high texture settings, Tree Hunger, High Shadows and HDR lights while still getting 20-30 frames.If no one else is noticing this, then it seems to me that they fixed SLI. Only way to explain this massive increase in frame rate on my computer.

Hi, I'm trying to fix up this B-17G for X-plane 10.http://xpfr.org/?body=aero_accueilSo far I have found two problems running this in XPX and solved one.The first problem I ran into was that you could not see anything in the cockpit at night. I solved this issue by increasing the size of the cockpit lights.The second problem I have run into now is that whenever I start taxing, everything works fine until I use full left rudder to turn. When I do this, the left tire locks up and it becomes impossible to dislodge.I read on the wiki that XPX uses multiple brake pressure settings for each brake now. My guess is that the brake primer in the cockpit is only controlling the right brake pressure and not the left. I'm hoping there is any easy solution to solving this problem, but I can't think of anything else to do then try and get the cockpit into a 3d Application and change the animation settings on the primer to effect both brake primers, if they exist.Also, it seems the AI cannot taxi in this plane as well.Any help would be great.

This isn't a debate about if flight is gonna be a good or bad game. This is a debate about the possible consolization of MS Flight, the merits of Microsoft flight being used for FAA training and the future of the aviation industry as a whole.From the get go, Microsoft flight doesn't feel like it's primary market is PC gamers. We already have FSX, X-plane, and a whole list of other flight simulators that are far better then 'Flight' and it's current offerings, and probably future offerings for that matter too. However on the console market these offerings are new and unavailable, making them more realistic for that market then our own. The Xbox 360 is well above the specification to handle MS Flight (remember that you need vastly less ram on a consoles) and when you combine this with what has been said in recent interviews, that MS is targeting the next 30 million, instead of the next 3 million -that to me sounds like a conformation that this game was made from the get go, to be put on the Xbox 360.I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I just don't see why they would release a game like this otherwise, unless their stupid, and their not. We should know that much about MS by now. So in my mind, Flight is probably going to be regarded as "console trash" by the PC gamer crowd. Hardcore simmers will probably just have a heart attack but, I digress.I don't really care if MS Flight is console trash or not, that's not why I play flight simulators. The reason I play flight simulators, and the reason flight simulators were made in the first place, was to teach people how to fly airplanes. That's what is important about a flight simulator to me. For all anyone knows, playing one of those missions in MS flight could save your life in the real world someday. And how much is that worth!?On the other hand, MS flight could be terrible for training pilots. I hope not, but if it is then regard this game as the console trash that it is, and scold it back to the depths of hell from whence it came! Otherwise, I think there is a lot of potential here, especially if MS and the FAA teamed up to try and get more pilots certified.If Flight becomes big on consoles then undoubtedly there will be console hardware, and eventually someone will put together a simulator using the Xbox 360 and Flight, but why wait? I think it would behoove Microsoft to start working with the FAA right away making custom hardware for real-world flight training to sell to the mass market on the 360. The advantages here would be immense.*First the FAA could check your hardware setup using the internet via Xbox Live. There would be little need for an FAA inspector to come over and check your hardware because once you've seen one Xbox 360, you've seen them all.*It would be easy for end users to set up, because everything would just be plug and play. The consumer buys the simulator hardware and plugs it into the Xbox 360, congrats you now have an FAA-approved flight simulator.*Using Xbox live the FAA could keep track of what pilots know and what they don't know, far increasing the knowledge base to accurately train pilots and streamlining annual proficiency checks.*The availability and affordability for pilot training would increase, thus increasing the number of certified pilots that has been in decline since the 70s.*Flight simulators would be cool again.The way I see it, if people are willing to pay for Rockband 3, then people would probably be willing to pay for an FAA-approved flight simulator: So long as they can get real FAA flight training out of it. It could totally revolutionize the way the FAA operates too. What happens when the FAA figures out that if a pilot plays a few challenging missions in flight that they become drastically less likely to make mistakes in the real world? Would it not be easier to just use flight simulators for training?It's really the next logical step for Microsoft and Flight Simulator. The Aviation industry as well. MS Flight could be the end of the end for Flight simulator, or it could be the beginning of something totally new and revolutionary.

This explanes why my computer running a 9800GTX+ is getting the same frame rate as my computer with an ATI HD6950.This bug needs therapy.

There's a toggle nose-wheel steering command on the keyboard layout page. I think you need to add it though, as it's probably not there by default.

Yeah, the current prices are unreasonably high, as I suspected they would be. Best of all, they aren't even selling "New" content yet really. All that stuff they are selling (aside from missions I assume) is all stuff that was already in FSX+Acceleration. They just cut up FSX and are now selling it back to you in pieces so they can make 6 million dollars from each person they pillage instead of 50.lol! Microsloth rules.

I believe that someday X-plane will be better then FSX in almost every way, I hope this happens at some point during the X-plane 10 run.As it stands, this: Isn't necessarily false advertising, but when I got the game, I sure felt like it was.Only the planes in the video that say "X-plane 10" are actually in X-plane 10, the rest are payware. Also if it doesn't show a 3d cockpit, it probably dosen't have a 3d cockpit (Like the B2 and b-52). ATC is a little bit of a mess. The scenery looks bad for everywhere else that isn't the demo area. The Lancair has been removed in one of the updates. And Mars is missing...So there are a lot of initial gripes with X-plane 10. Still, unlike FSX the developers are still working on it and in time it will be everything the said it would be, (I.E. A feature complete simulator that dose everything as good or better then FSX) but that is a ways down the road.

I just recently did this, after reading about it in all these X-plane vs. FSX fourms and WOW, dose FSX run better. It's like night and day. This is just the sort of thing I like to do. I didn't know X-plane had a good Ice simulation.

Just got back from stall testing the DC-3 in yet another simulator, I'm not gonna post a video as I think I've done enough of that to make my point.In IL-2 Sturmovik I get results that are about half way between FSX and X-plane 10, closer to X-plane I would say as the plane dose try and correct itself so that it is always facing the direction it is flying/falling.

I think it's because I have the expansion.Edit: Or it could because FSX was made be 33ed degree arch demons working for Bill Gate's on his island in the secret underground pentagram building housing the den of Lucifer!...as I suspected all along!

I play a lot of different flight simulators, FSX gets stalls wrong, unless everyone else gets it wrong? Can't have it both ways.But really, your telling me this, is a 100% accurate stall?Really?

Inferior isn't the right word, unrealistic I think is better.X-plane prides itself on it's ability to accurately simulate the flight characteristics of any given geometric shape. This ability to to accurately simulate the flight modal of conceptual airplanes is a huge asset for some airplane manufactures, as they can test their designs in X-plane before they even start building them in reality. This allows them to see how they fly, and get a general idea for how safe the airplane is going to be during operations. There has even been one case with the CarterCopter, were one of the main design flaws was solved by using X-plane during the conceptual phase of the development of that aircraft. This is really what X-plane's primary goal is, and this is where the majority of the development time has been spent.FSX however, dose not have that same goal. As far as I know, you can't use FSX to help you figure out how a conceptual aircraft is going to fly. FSX is however set up with the goal of making better pilots in mind, that's FSX's primary goal. So when the FSX developers came to the problem of trying to solve stalls, they realized they could not accurately simulate stalls because it is impossible to collect wind tunnel data on the stalling characteristics of an airplane. So instead what they choice to do was go with a drastically more difficult simulation for stalls that is far more dangerous then real world airplanes.Is it realistic?No.Dose it make you a better pilot?Yes, as once you stall a few times in FSX, you find yourself falling to your death more often then not. Combine that with the fact that some of the missions in FSX are a few hours long, and one little mistake will requires you to do the mission all over again, and FSX can go down in history as one of the most frustrating and rewarding games ever made.

I realize that the pancake can be done: It's just that, compared to FSX, doing the pancake is really hard, that's why I posted the video where I tried to do the pancake, but failed. In FSX, you can do the pancake simply by pulling up just after take off. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3, PANCAKES!!!XPX is like, I see you trying to make pancakes, I see that FSX makes perfict pancakes. This is not me, I am X -plane 10, you need to work for your pancakes....and I'm all like, I don't even like pancakes.

Here is my best effort to try and repeat the same death stall in X-plane: The problem is that once one of the wings starts to stall the plane just flips to one side, if I correct I can sorta do this strange para-shoot maneuver (I guess we can call this Pancaking right?) that's basically like the death stall in FSX, but I can only do it for a little bit before it flips over or builds up enough airspeed to move straight and level again.

By contrast, every plane in FSX can do this pancake effect, even the Cessna 172:http://youtu.be/rkH0PeUSx4UYet, it is basically impossible to pancake anything in X-plane. Dose anyone know which one is more realistic? I bet an Aerobatics pilot would know.I think this is the number 1 biggest difference between X-plane and FSX. It drives me insane in FSX, and yet in X-plane I can't help but wonder if this lack of pancaking is a real problem?

Yes, pancaking. That's what it should be called. Still, as you said, this case involved severe icing; It makes sense that if the wings get covered with enough ice, they will start to stall in any condition. As it stands, I believe it is far too easy to pancake in FSX, and I suspect they do this intentionally to make you a better pilot.I found out last night you can loop the 747-400 in FSX, the same way one would in X-plane, but it only gives you the same results if you never let the stall indicator go off:http://youtu.be/Jf8OoCpsitA Once you start to stall, X-plane and FSX have wickedly different philosophies on what happens during that stall.Edit:This is what it looks like in X-plane 10, when I try (And I mean try really hard) to pancake the 747-400: In FSX I would have probably started to fly backwards, until I pankcaked to my death.

OK, wow, I just looped the 747-400 in FSX fully loaded (85,000 pounds), with full realism at 1500' and recovered at guess what altitude...? You guessed it, 600'I know you guys probably don't believe me so I'm uploading the raw fraps video. Looks like it's going to take 151 minutes to put on youtube though.Edit:http://youtu.be/Jf8OoCpsitA

Well that was Interesting...I loaded the 747-400 in FSX up with 2 pilots, me and my suicidal comrade, and about 20% fuel. That loop was relatively easy and at the top of the arc I was still reading about 180 knots indicated airspeed.So I decided to load the thing up with the same amount of weight that X-plane was defaulting with, around 66,000 pounds(or is it tons?) That's me, my suicidal comrade, and about 70% worth of fuel.The first loop started out the same as in X-plane, at the top of the arc, I was doing 70 knots. However unfortunately I achieved the famous FSX death stall where the wings far exceed the critical angle of attack and the plane falls like a rock.Still I tried again, and on the second try I recovered correctly coming out at 370 knots by making sure to never let the stall indicator go off.So long as you never go into a stall, the loop in MSFSX and XPX on the default 747-400 seem to be nearly identical in performance. This is rather surprising, as I thought it was impossible to loop the 747 in FSX with full realism, now I see it can be done.Still up for debate which one is more realistic though. XPX doesn't have death stalls, the plane will correct itself or the wings will rip off. FSX the stalls are far more dramatic and far less detectable. It seems to me that FSX and X-plane have 2 completely different philosophies for how an airplane should operate in a stall.Edit: Dose anyone know how to record replays in FSX?

Interesting, I get the same results in X-plane in the default 747 when it's fully loaded (Go in 1000' come out at 600')... very interesting.If I was gonna do this move in real life, I might wanna do it with the load that agrees with both simulators... time to boot up FSX.

Am I the only one here who believes X-plane has no user Interface? It's a great menu bar once you get the hang of it, but I wouldn't call it a user interface. That's something that should be added on top of what's already there......which is a simulator with a menu bar, IMO.

^^ I'll change the music.