fs_av

I just wish he'd concentrate on delivering his own more complete hyped "plausible" world and tell us when that might happen ! But I'd bet "plausible" has different meanings for different people.For me, that definition is, "plausible" world => 75% of "real" world in urban areas, at least.And, yes, it is time for X-plane and it's creator to come out of the "great potential" or "plausible" cocoon and act mature if either one is going to be taken seriously.

ZERO for me.For armchair amateur pilots like me, that is one good reason to have real world comparable aircraft as part of the default aircraft package ! I would tend to agree that a C172 default or a Piper Malibu would be good choices, considering the more detailed scenery that is possible with X-plane.However, one aircraft in each default category optimized for the XPX would be far more preferable. That way, whether you are an armchair pilot, a real world student pilot or a veteran military or commercial airline pilot, you get a chance to experience the different aircraft that are as close to the real world aircraft as may be possible to create in a flight simulator.Now that would be a good marketing point.

While you are at it, Always ask for Double what you need/want. At the very least, even if what you asked for is slashed in half, you got what you needed/wanted and if you get more, well, pat yourself in the back and celebrate.Couldn't hurt, could it ? That's the logic my mentor suggested using when putting together a budget for an upcoming project. It succeeded more often than not. And, whatever happens, you can't blame yourself for not trying !Like I said before, ask for the BET Optimized !Edit :BET Optimized = "Blade Element Theory OPTIMIZED"

I believe Austin is good at programming or code; I do not think he is good at developing/producing a good aircraft using his own aircraft creation tool, Planemaker.Hence, I'd thorougly agree with the quoted conclusion. Howevever, I'd go a little farther and say he should do the same for at least one aircraft in each default category and call the folder "Blade Element Theory OPTIMISED" or "BET OPTIMIZED". The question is will Austin accept it and follow through with it ?How about it, Austin ?

If I did, I don't think you'd recognise it or be satisfied with it ! It won't be anyhing I haven't said before. As to "I just want to see if you can do it.", if you didn't recognize it as a "positive" before, why would you accept or recognize it as a positive now ?But, naive as I may be, ( hey, stop right there before you utter words before you finish reading!) I bought Austin's hype for over 10 years.Not good enough ? How about this next one ?I supported X-plane, Austin and Laminar for over 10 years.Still not good enough ? OK.I promoted X-plane, like a few diehards at the time, for almost 10 years.If I didn't believe X-plane had potential when I first came across it, purely by fluke, over a decade ago, why would I have devoted time and energy to developing for X-plane for almost that long, considering there were hardly ANY tools available at the time.And here comes the dreaded zinger, bet you couldn't wait ! Also bet you will tell me I blew it. That's okay too. I am much older and hopefully wiser.Thanks to the illustrious Austin, the few tools that existed at the time were made obsolete by the great one's changing of formats , pi##ing off most, if not all, utility developers, who, like me, also saw the potential as well as the vast emptiness of the X-plane landscape and decided to do something about it. They were never encouraged, acknowledged, recognised or rewarded for their efforts, even though they offered their ware as freeware !This isn't about just a person. I'd like Austin to at least once recognise that there was a community of foolish diehards who supported X-plane despite all odds. Austin (and what passes for his team) don't know that they are standing on the shoulders of those who came before them.Okay, go ahead and tell me I blew it.

All my posts are complaints that baloon up to critcism level and then rise up to the constructive criticism level. Really. :( I never give destructive criticism - NEVER. It's like saying it's perfect product. There's no such thing.Which brings us back to X-plane, neither a perfect nor a complete product. And I do hope they would stop hyping it so much and delivering more of what they have already hyped.

You have a right to your opinion, no matter how wrong it might be. You have a tendency to draw premature conclusions and have thin skin.Anyway to understand you correctly, what you are saying is, essentially, nobody has a right to any opinion on X-plane ! NOBODY. Whether a newbie a casual user, experienced or a veteran. Well, folks, guess we have new sheriff in X-plane town.Well, obviously we have a difference of opinion, to say the least. Got you mad again, GoranM ? Was just wondering when you'd sink to that level - again ! Must you always end up doing that when responding to my posts ? You will forgive me if I don't join you there. Looks like you and CameronB drink from the same "patronizing well". Exactly my sentiments. It is particularly important considering Laminar is touting their Flight Model as superior to just about any other Flight Simulator.Come on, show us, Laminar.

I don't ! Just don't chracterize my posts as babble or engage in any kind of personal character attacks.I present my opinion FWIW. It's up to the reader to decide what to do with it, if anything. Nice try, GoranM, not falling for that. I am afraid you will have to take my word for it.If not, you are a reader amongst many, and like eveyone else, you have a choice on what to make of my posts.Since you make a baseless claim on my experience, all I can say is : You don't have a clue and I don't need one; because I already know ! i.e. you don't know what you are talking about.BTW, have you ever wondered why I prefer to remain "anonymous"? (and I am not alone !) I think I am pretty sure you have. What bothers you is that I seem to know enough about what I am talking about and most, if not all of it, is based on my personal experience, hence true from my standpoint. Additionally, it bothers you that you can't get any information about my background or what I may have developed. Since I am not willing to talk about it, let it go. What's more, I don't see why that has any bearing at all on what I post.Aren't my knowledge, familiarity and experience not enough to warrant a, shall I be bold and say, constructive criticism of X-plane ?

Excuse me ?Look at 99% of my posts and you will see that they are to the point, albeit, somewhat or mostly critical of X-plane/Austin/Laminar. I am not here to earn ANYONE'S respect or to win any popularity contest. I say my piece based on my experience and let it stand, FWIW. The reader has the option to read it, chew it and decide whether to swallow it or spit it out. The reader also has the option of offering or countering my post with his own. NO CHARGE !Like everyone's posts here, mine are also opinions; in my case, I hope they carry a little more weight compared to the average user, because of my long experience with X-plane over several versions. Neither I nor anybody else is forcing anyone to read my posts. Whoever said I have to say ANYTHING postive ? I am not here to bow down or pray to Austin as if he were god, much as he would have us do.This last sentence is based on fact ! Many can perhaps dismiss it as Austin's poor sense of humor. Naive Optimist ? A glutton for punishment ? Or an addict, perhaps ?

I think you know my postion to an extent and I hope I have yours. I'll let it go at that except....Show me where I have attacked someone's character or labeled someone in some sort of derogatory manner.I am not saying I never have ! I am human, therefore by definition, not perfect.Having said that, for every time I may have engaged in a personal attack, I could probably show you twice as many, if not more, against me. I don't know how many times I have been called a "troll" (believe it or not, I don't even know what the darn word means, and have never bothered to "look it up" nor let it bother me; I can surmise it can't be a compliment. But, if I let those kinds of labels bother me, I'd never post anything or get my views across.All I can say is that some X-plane (not necessarily exclusively X-plane) diehards, cant stand ANY criticism of X-plane. These would probably be more at home at the "org".As I have said a number of times, if you don't agree with anything I post, counter it with your own post, without engaging in character attacks. That adds value to the debate and will be more informative for readers.

1. Too late for that.2. There is no money back guarantee or a refund policy. And even if there were, talking about my experiences on the public forums helps me and hopefully others.3. After over a decade of my time invested in learning a few of X-plane's quirks and idiosyncracies and having invested countless hours and years over several versions, you've got to be kidding. At the same time I am more open to alternatives like FSX, Prepar3d, etc. than I would have been just a year or two ago.4. I have enough scenery developed to completely give up now. Scenery Development has been a passion of mine for a long while now, though less so in past couple of years, in part due to health. I am somewhat disappointed based on my posts that you'd come to those conclusions. Austin is a smart man; the problem is he treats his customers like a bunch of dummies. You can perhaps overlook that if he produced a decent enough COMPLETE program that lived up to his hype. And YOU and I along with other like minded users who see the shortfalls need to let him know.Sure I could do it by email. Believe me I did that for almost a decade where I thought it might make a difference. It hardly ever does. A better way to do it is to do it in a Public Forum like here, where not everyone is sold on the X-plane hype, instead of the diehard infested "org".To make a long story short, the thrust is to let Austin know about X-plane's short comings in a Public Forum and hopefully Austin and/or Ben will take notice, thus leading to a better X-plane program, assuming they take the criticism seiously, positively and actually do something about it. At the same time the users and interested parties get to see, know and understand and/or counter any of my posts with their own posts, just as you do at times when you avoid the personal attacks.

Did you read the entire OP ? Notice the following ? Let me quote : Is that hard to do and why can't Laminar do that with their stock aircraft before they ship the product out ? It's called Quality Assurance. The difference is, Laminar touts it's flight model while denegrating others AND calling it's own superior. If Austin uses 3rd party developer(s) aircraft, and I assume he is paying them, it is the least that Austin should be asking that the aircraft be updated to the current version. We don't know what sort of arrangement he made with 3rd party developer(s) but the bottomline is : it is Austin's responsibilty as part of Quality Assurance but sadly that's non-existant at Laminar. My point is the default aircraft should reflect the supposedly accurate "blade element theory" based flight model as is pointed out in not so many words in the OP.Fine don't give me the 50 or so aircraft that are ALL CRAP ! Instead give me one aircraft in each category that truly lives up to or near real world couterpart in performance.Don't shove the "plausible" down my throat. Instead, give me the real McCoy ! Same for scenery, same for aircraft. Sounds kind of like my Scottish Chemistry teacher before we got the Chemistry Lab fully equipped and operational, where he starts the Chemistry class with "Imagine I have a test tube in my hand....." ! With the full Scottish accent embelished with sarcasm. But I digress.Do I really have to buy a payware aircraft to experience X-plane's capabilities ? Is that what I am EXPECTED to do ? Do I really have to resort to the payware industry for something that Austin (or his 3rd party developer) could have done more easily, to fully take advantage of the "blade element theory" based flight model ?Again, I call it Quality Assurance !*********************************** Neither. It's NOTHING PERSONAL. And I thank you, GoranM, for giving me a similar counter-opportunity to expose X-plane/Laminar/Austin to a limited extent for what they are. And the lack of personal attacks are very much appreciated.

Hi Peter,Just curious : have you looked at Prepar3d and would it be better than FSX ? I assume you'd have a bunch of addons for FSX so you may tilt somewhat towards FSX but seeing that the FSX programs is frozen (atleast for now, till MS wakes up from the Flight fiasco), Prepar3d may be the way forward, while, from what I gather, maintaining atleast some semblance of compatibility with FSX.Would be interested in your opinion.

Show me a flight sim that makes as big a deal about the "blade element" based flight model WHILE knocking the other methods as inferior, unrealistic or inaccurate !This is not meant to be a comparison between flight sims, much as you might like to fuzzy up the issue by doing that.Is it really that hard for Laminar to spend more time on quality assurance ? If they had, they could have perhaps avoided some of the issues XPX is currently facing, including the "overall quality of the many default aircraft" as the OP cited. http://www.x-plane.c...ker/Seeker.htmlNo generalizing here. Very specific. Austin should be spending time addressing the outstanding issues of XPX rather than engaging in side issues. Like I said before, if it's not code based, the illustrious Austin loses interest, sort of ADD.

One might think that after a decade or so of the "blade element theory" based flight model and advances in computer hardware, Laminar might have it nailed by now. Even for default aircraft ? It is up to Laminar to ensure quality in whatever aircraft they include as stock or default, even if some of those aircraft were developed by 3rd parties.Wish Laminar would spend some time on Quality Assurance, having his, what passes for a team, in fixing the current bugs and ensuring that the next update includes all that is necessary to match the reality with hype, instead of developing projects and features that are either unnecessary or unusable for many, if not most users !

@MadMax:I think you are missing the point.As I said, it's a business/marketing decision and Laminar EXPECTS the users to contribute, where it, Laminar has not provided a complete product.The entire X-plane program is code driven, whether scenery engine or the flight model, hence the "plausible" world rather than the "real" world. It's been that way for a decade that I have been fiddling with various versions of X-plane and isn't likely to change anytime soon.There is not one building that is comparable to a real world building. NOT ONE ! If there is, todate, it's probably a few landmarks around the world, like the Seattle Space Needle,etc; otherwise it's not intentional.But that's, again, a business/marketing decision by Laminar.************************************************************** Documentation is and has ALWAYS been lacking and/or incomplete and/or inaccurate in many instances. That's the price we pay for Laminar's hurry in pushing out a product.Yes, have for almost a decade. Don't ask me what. You can chose to believe me or not.

Access yes, Not the ability. Big difference. Particularly, using the codes available. Not necessarily. As I said, bigger developers have the technical knowhow that smaller ones may not have. This is not a hard and fast rule and at the same time there are always exceptions to any rule. I never made the claim that it is. There you go comparing again. Yet, your point is somewhat irrelevent in the sense that MS made it clear upfront that they are going with a different marketing model and want to exclude third party development (at least for a limited time - 2 years?) by not releasing any SDK. That's what they decided and that's what the 3rd party developers and many users resent. It's a business decision, not because MS lacks the capability to offer an SDK ! And they could change their mind anytime.How can we criticise one car for not offering a four wheel drive over another which may offer that option ? It's a business/marketing decision.We can go round and round comparing things but the bottomline is there are very few tools available for the current X-plane versions. And if Laminar expects the users to contribute, which was my point in my OP, then Laminar must make the necessary up to date doumentation and all appropriate tools and utilities available to users.And as I said, it's the least they owe their users, considering the incompleteness of the product they released !

strider1, GoranM, Minos, Simmo W, etc. and other X-plane diehards (and I used to be one) :Are you guys so devoid of any ideas that you have to resort to character attacks rather adding or countering the OP ?

Well not for v2. But, I would assume that the $49 price will remain for prior versions, i.e. 1.x versions or as you called them "dot versions.At the same time I don't know if I would pay $200 for the 2.x versions. May be, at or below $100 for Academic version ! And it remains to be seen what improvement or enhancements they have made in v2 to warrant a higher price tag.I know somene mentioned, v2 may come out maybe in a week or two, but does anybody have any specific info/link/announcement on when v2 may debue ?

@ Comanche and JasonHarris, great posts, both of you ! Very informative.Wonderful to have comparision posts of P3D and FSX, as well as XPX.Thank you and please do keep them coming.***********************************************BTW, for those interested, I started a similar post asking for opnions on FSX or Prepar3d here :http://forum.avsim.n...sx-or-prepar3d/

In my case, I made it clear in a subsequent to my OP, that I never played with or owned FSX.Here's my own quote : :

Not quite. Just take some classes. THANK YOU ! Just answering the question simply would have sufficed.Thank you for your kind permission. I thought I'd have a sleepless night thinking about what i will do without your permission.*********************************************************************************************************************************@ Commanche, thank you for your opinion. Much appreciated.

First, learn English, with particular stress on writing and comprehension.Since you do admit to playing with or owning FSX, which, todate, I haven't played with or owned, you don't have a problem with my looking at possible alternatives to XPX, DO YOU ? Needless to say, if you haven't surmised as much from my posts thus far, XPX todate, leaves a lot to be desired. And I am not alone in that conclusion.

Seems like ? You just have to draw conclusions on the very little I say, if anything or based on incomplete information ?The question is, MUST YOU ?I made up my mind over a decade to get X-plane and have been supporting X-plane, Austin and Laminar ever since ! Needless to say, the fulfilment of the potential or lack there of leaves a lot to be desired. XPX just broke the camels back.Let me ask you this : Have you ever played with or owned FS2004 (FS9) or FSX ? In addition to "Virtual world with 40 high-detail cities and more than 24,900 airports".All that from Lockheed Martin, no less.Wonder when XPX will get to that; forget about livestock and wild animals - other than birds, that is !

What's a better deal, XPX or the Prepar3D Academic with an eye towards the future ?How can one pass up on Prepar3d Academic at $50 vs XPX at $79 ?http://www.prepar3d....par3d-academic/Prepar3d Features Virtual world with 40 high-detail cities and more than 24,900 airports Environment includes highway, air and maritime vehicles and traffic Realistic livestock and wild animals Accurate topography with regionally appropriate textures Modifiable real-time weather system, continuous time of day, seasons and a variety of lighting effects Expandable library of vehicle models Customizable, data driven graphics and models Uses Classroom Home Educational programs, such as summer camps and after school programs Price : $49.95