XPlane 10

[Doods]

Well got my copy of xplane 10 today. and i'm not that happy with it.....Same airport fsx and xplane the airport CYTZ

[JSkorna]

People will tell you how great that plausible world around Toronto looks in January. I'm sure you're happy with all those FPS you are getting from XPX though.

[Propane]

I tried it last week and I think it looks pretty ridiculous... I'm sure that nice effects can be achieved with addons, but the stock world looks pretty awful in my opinion.... and 50+ GB to get world coverage only to find that even some medium sized airports don't get any buildings at all, what the f...

[JSkorna]

Ah, someone will come along and populate the airport or wait until v10.666.

[jomni]

I tried it last week and I think it looks pretty ridiculous... I'm sure that nice effects can be achieved with addons, but the stock world looks pretty awful in my opinion.... and 50+ GB to get world coverage only to find that even some medium sized airports don't get any buildings at all, what the f...

I was also shocked but X-Plane veterans are used to this. Airports are really bare since the beginning. It's up to you to get add ons. They will also release an editor for you to add buildings yourself, edit the taxi routes, and share them with the reset of the users.

You should acknowledge where X-Plane comes from. X-Plane is more about the flying. The environment is bare because most commercial (non-entertainment) sims don't have highly developed sceneries. And X-Plane is coming from that perpective. It's not about sight seeing (though flying at high altitude and at night looks really nice), nor about airport operations. They actually just developed the ATC and AI traffic in v10.

Also I just found out that the buldings of the autogen are incomplete so you will see mostly suburbs in the current version. Medium-rise, etc are coming in the future. And still don't expect any landmarks as they are not looking into that.

Well I have to admit I got fooled into buying a Beta but hey at least I see that development of X-Plane is continuous.

[Doods]

Well i liked it enough to buy it lets hope it will get better......

[Propane]

I understand that X-Plane has a different background, which is why I went to try it out to see if it's approach to simming is different from FSX. The reason why I'm a bit amazed by the lack of environment details, is that a lot of people seem to consider it as a competitor to FSX while it is anything but that (again, in my opinion). And to be honest, I did a typerating in a relatively old full motion sim which showed more airport scenery detail! :)

[greggerm]

You should acknowledge where X-Plane comes from. X-Plane is more about the flying. The environment is bare because most commercial (non-entertainment) sims don't have highly developed sceneries. And X-Plane is coming from that perpective.

If Laminar Research is claiming that the lack of scenery detail has more to do with its 'scientific simulation of flight' instead of human and/or financial resource issues, they are being entirely disingenuous to the situation at hand. The fact that some professional training simulators lack some of these visual details is a convenient little scapegoat for the issue. Laminar most likely has had not enough time to work on these important components and not enough money to invest in the data to have it done automatically like its competitors have done in the past... not to mention all the non-airport related scenery issues which affect the product at this time.

New users of simulations are usually quite eager to post up shots to show off what they have... that hasn't happened with X-Plane 10. There's been a notable lack of screenshots coming from X-Plane 10 here on flightsim.com and on other general flight simulation sites, indicating to me that either very few people have bought the product yet, or very few people are happy with it.

Those that are working on it are doing so tirelessly and deserve credit, but they need help! It's too bad more human resources assets couldn't be brought to bear against the issue. There is enough scenery content in XP10 which remains incomplete and so little information about what might get finished and when, anyone who places any value on the out-the-window views should be cautioned about buying it at this point... especially if they like to fly in metropolitan areas.

-Greg

[jomni]

Actually X-Plane 10 scenery shines when you are flying IFR at altitudes above 10,000 ft. You really don't need to buy anything like GEX, UTX, ORBX anymore like we do in FS. And the night lighting is really spectacular.

I have mixed feelings about it now that I have finished a whole flight on an A320. A lot are still missing but it has potential.

[Doods]

People will tell you how great that plausible world around Toronto looks in January. I'm sure you're happy with all those FPS you are getting from XPX though.


Yes jim the frames are good. but look at the pictures and you can see why theres nothing in xplane to slow the frame rates down.....

[ED_4]

X-Plane indeed is about the flying not the scenery. In X-Plane you can go and test experimental types of aircraft with it, simulating how the design would fly. Like an unknown helicopter design or an aircraft that just don't exist yet in real life. The physics in X-plane is not like it would be in FSX or FS9 for that matter. Its on a totally different level of simulation. Something that Microsoft Flight Simulator only can mimic, but not simulate.

If you like test flying aircraft, the scenery is only a plus. The real deal is on how the aircraft is handled in X-Plane. That's why it's named that way X-Plane (X as in Experimental). At least that's how it was when it first came out. I still hope they still kept that kind of main ingredient on how it handles the aircrafts in the newer versions.

[callmecapt]

Yes jim the frames are good. but look at the pictures and you can see why theres nothing in xplane to slow the frame rates down.....

What an unsual and ill informed statement.
X Plane uses the GPU far more efficiently than FSX. THAT is the reason why the framerates are so good. It has nothing to do with what's lacking in the sim. If anything, going by how FSX is coded, X Plane should run slower. 70+ GB's worth of terrain, weather effects, sounds, textures, etc... are in x plane.

[ED_4]

What an unsual and ill informed statement.
X Plane uses the GPU far more efficiently than FSX. THAT is the reason why the framerates are so good. It has nothing to do with what's lacking in the sim. If anything, going by how FSX is coded, X Plane should run slower. 70+ GB's worth of terrain, weather effects, sounds, textures, etc... are in x plane.

I think what he means it that in X-Plane there's hardly any 3D objects to keep the CPU down. Things like a crowded sky filled with AI traffic, ground traffic, and even sea traffic. Things that can be seen in FSX. Let's not forget the places where there's a high density of 3D buildings like big cities. All these things can bog a flight sim, much more than the terrain files. Terrain, unlike those other things I mentioned are only rendered within the vicinity of the player. (And in a very dense city with 3D buildings and skies filled with AI traffic. That can cause a PC to get slow, unless you happen to own a super fast computer.) Otherwise all that 70+gigs can and will bog down the simulator.

[callmecapt]

X Plane is coded in such a way that polygons don't bog the sim down as much as you would think.
CPU's these days are extremely fast. FSX bogs them down because FSX needs Core0 for the flight model, and all subsequent cores to load scenery. X Plane doesn't work anywhere close to this way.

[ED_4]

X Plane is coded in such a way that polygons don't bog the sim down as much as you would think.
CPU's these days are extremely fast. FSX bogs them down because FSX needs Core0 for the flight model, and all subsequent cores to load scenery. X Plane doesn't work anywhere close to this way.

Which makes X-Plane far superior in handling scenery graphics. However there are still a way to go for they need to fix some things. Like that idea of not having too much AI traffic. Where the ATC goes funky due to that AI traffic? Sounds a bit backwards to me.

[callmecapt]

Which makes X-Plane far superior in handling scenery graphics. However there are still a way to go for they need to fix some things. Like that idea of not having too much AI traffic. Where the ATC goes funky due to that AI traffic? Sounds a bit backwards to me.

No one is disputing there are problems in X Plane. The ATC and AI is completely new. What they HAVE done, for a first time, is extraordinary. Especially for a small dev team like Laminar. For the AI to have it's own flight model, based on the core flight model in x plane, per aircraft is something I have never seen in a flight sim. Then to integrate that into an ATC system, well, it's obvious there will be some small issues. Have you seen how the AI takes off, flies and lands in other flight sims?

[ED_4]

No one is disputing there are problems in X Plane. The ATC and AI is completely new. What they HAVE done, for a first time, is extraordinary. Especially for a small dev team like Laminar. For the AI to have it's own flight model, based on the core flight model in x plane, per aircraft is something I have never seen in a flight sim. Then to integrate that into an ATC system, well, it's obvious there will be some small issues. Have you seen how the AI takes off, flies and lands in other flight sims?

I don't know about others. What I do know is how they are in FS9. And even that isn't perfect. But at least we can have as much as a hundred or more flying around without the ATC choking. At least that's what I've observed so far.

I'm not into the flight environment criticizing in X-Plane either, but that's what is going to happen if others will want to migrate and use this great flight simulator. Coming from the MSFS world, they'd want something similar, if not better than what they already have seen with MS. I already know what X-Plane is capable of, I'm not the one you need to convince. I own an older variant of it, Ver9.

Although it is great for testing out different types of aircraft, after a while a barren sky seems to start to feel lonely. When you are used to a crowded sky like I am in FS9, it starts to feel lonely up there.

[ussmidway]

I think that if the sim were more accessible, we might see more user created stuff. But, what makes it NOT accessible to me is the price. I know there are people here who spend tons of money on sims and addons, but I have a feeling most of us dont. As much as I would like to support Laminar, it isnt going to happen with me if the price stays above $40. Times are tough all over, and I just cant swing it. And I really havent seen anything from the demo or user reviews and screens that would tempt me away from FS2004 and FSX.

I must say, however, I dont have a problem with the plausible world. I enjoy the demo, and would fly it more if the load times werent so bad. If I get a better machine and the price drops a bit, I may take the plunge some day.

[csefton]

For those that keep insisting that 'X-Plane is about the flying not the scenery'!....may i just point out that Flying in the real world WITHOUT scenery would SOON put an end to all those pleasure flights and most GA aircraft!...its NOT all about getting from A to B...the WHOLE point of flight IN THE REAL WORLD and simulation is to experience the joys of flight and not just the flight dynamics or navigation instruments or equipment, the WHOLE experience!...the whole reason man wanted to fly in the first place was to LOOK down on the earth and fly in the clouds....NOT to look at boring instruments or nav aids!..............

X-Plane 10 is a big let-down in most areas...particularly the scenery..or obvious lack of it!...yet after a lot of messing about i have found myself still enjoying certain aspects of the sim which ARE ironically related to the scenery enhancements...namely lovely HDR lighting which adds a lovely extra VISUAL realism kick that FSX doesn't have....plus it does have lots of other nice touches that need to be experienced to start to understand the sim in better and more realistic ways than FSX.

X-plane 10's biggest challenge and promoted development features were an attempt at better visuals!!!..... lets not forget all Austins developer pics of all those new houses and roads and extra 3d realism he wanted to show off and was constantly hyping it up to that effect..

The actual flight characteristics haven't changed dramatically at all that i can tell from version 9...so version 10's main features ARE all related to its new visual enhancements.....sadly the lack of which are still glaringly obvious in most areas of the sim and result in threads like this!...

I still much prefer FSX but am now finding i also enjoy the odd flight in X P10 demo.....will i purchase the full version?....based on the demo, prob not looking at what i get (or dont get being more accurate!) with the extra bloated gigs of frustrating scenery discs!.....its just still too frustrating and lacking in VISUAL SCENERY AND VISUAL REALISM for me to jump head first into it!........but anyone who claims xplane is all about flight is being rather one sided, close minded, old fashioned and WRONG!!!.....its now trying (and failing in most areas!) to feature more accurate and visually aesthetic scenery and THEREFORE OVERALL satisfaction to try and appeal to a larger audience....

I remember the same old xplane fans A FEW YRS AGO saying 2d panels where more important than gimicky 3d Virtual cockpits! (prob cos Microsofts sim HAD lovely 3d cockpits lol!)...how WRONG they were then about that and how wrong they are now about xplane being purely just about the flying and NOT the seeing!.......Xplane 10 is a step in the right direction...its just a very frustratingly SMALL baby step!

[Hueyman]

As a former FS user, after switching to X-Plane, it was like a big BREATHE !!! I mainly fly helicopters, and FS is a joke for rotary wings. X-Plane is in 1st place for heli, nothing you can say against..

BUT, I admit visual, sceneries etc.. still sucks, I think the only way to see it improve is wait for 10.XX update and even more, the incoming of many devs, that would definitely agree to work on bith X-Plane 10 and FSX, like two sons, equally dispatched.. Why continue to work on FS2004 and FSX ? There is the successor of FSX :XPX...

Because I can assure you that when XP10 will be stable and visually enhanced, massive people will give it a last try.. and this last try will be the one !

Wait and see, you'll see.. ;-)

[raimondo2]

As a former FS user, after switching to X-Plane, it was like a big BREATHE !!! I mainly fly helicopters, and FS is a joke for rotary wings. X-Plane is in 1st place for heli, nothing you can say against..

BUT, I admit visual, sceneries etc.. still sucks, I think the only way to see it improve is wait for 10.XX update and even more, the incoming of many devs, that would definitely agree to work on bith X-Plane 10 and FSX, like two sons, equally dispatched.. Why continue to work on FS2004 and FSX ? There is the successor of FSX :XPX...

Because I can assure you that when XP10 will be stable and visually enhanced, massive people will give it a last try.. and this last try will be the one !

Wait and see, you'll see.. ;-)


At least with xpX you fly a proper simulator ! unless you stick to fsx - the choices are limited:

prepar3d - xpX - and the kids coinmaking machine which is Flight !

You can see what Xp10 can do on this images:

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?244850-XPlane-10-Visit-Copenhagen

those buildings are on top of photorealistic - it is real autogen sized and shaped as in real world - and not landclass based as in any msfs ! including flight ! therefore much more accurate and precise.

the choice is yours !!

[jomni]

But the building objects are still not complete. That's why we still see mostly suburban buildings when we expect urban. :(