Is this X-Plane 10 'as real as it gets' ?

[greggerm]

Unfortunately you are not the only one. What makes it worse is that the developers / Laminar, is not interested in improving it.

Although I agree wholeheartedly that the current state of XP10 is not compelling enough to warrant a full switch or even occasional use for me, I do disagree with your assessment of the developers interest in improving the platform.

Laminar Research has made the business decision to release a product which is arguably incomplete - and this has apparently been their modus operandi for generations of the X-Plane product. We are told, and we have seen evidence over the past several months of ongoing development, but in the past 5-6 weeks it's gone very quiet.

Unfortunately for me and others, the decision to release the product with so many things* missing and the slow pace at which these items are being finished frustrating, especially with the features you are waiting for are central to my personal enjoyment of the platform.

* - "so many things" which are important to me and many current MSFS users, but which might not be as important to someone else who is more entrenched in the X-Plane lifestyle.

They are making improvements and changes - just very very slowly. Painfully slowly, in fact. These are the pitfalls of having an employed development staff which could probably be counted on two hands. While their work so far has been damn good for a staff their size, the limitations of time and man-hours is painfully apparent to the end user who might not be terribly sympathetic with the staffing levels and want a good value for their $80.

Even without considering its fractionally small 3rd party developer environment, XP10 is not yet ready or mature enough to be the heir to the throne of flight simulation royalty. It's got merits no doubt which many users currently enjoy, but it still has a long way to go before it will be adopted by general flightsim users. Laminar is trying to get there with their incremental fix and repair process, but it could be months if not YEARS for X-Plane 10 to gain the missing feature functionality we're used to seeing within the off-the-shelf MSFS products.

Perhaps someday it will rise to the occasion, but until then it will remain a bit of a boutique simulation which excels in certain aspects, but falls well behind the curve in others. If they could round out the experience a bit more, it would become a serious contender.

[flytv1]

Hi greggerm.

>>They are making improvements and changes - just very very slowly. Painfully slowly, in fact.<<

I would understand it, regardless of how slowwwwly, it happens, if it happened. I've had most versions of most simulators since the PC sims were first released and Laminar has the worst record, in my opinion, of all the companies that I know of, when it comes to customer input / feedback.
I have very simple, and realistic, requests from Flight Simulator, most important is Flight dynamics that simulate real aircraft behavior, and visual feedback that gives me a picture that I can recognize from the real world.
Unfortunately XPX does not do either well, the C172 behaves like desert tumble weed, with some realistic xwind, on the ground and in the air, and the view out the window is much too short to be of any VFR use, unless you want to follow the freeways / highways at 50 Ft. AGL. On their site they explain the behavior as an desired feature???
In addition their inability / lack of understanding of the need to maintain continuity, is pointing to the fact that they do not care about the customers. Some of the planes designed for XP9, like the C162 which was one of the best, will not even load in XPX.
For me the $$ is not an issue, I typically get 2 sets of any sims that I purchase, just in case the media fails.
From my perspective there seems to be a level of arrogance, at the decision making level, that will never allow the sim to be much better than the original version. TV

[MdMax]

Unfortunately XPX does not do either well, the C172 behaves like desert tumble weed, with some realistic xwind, on the ground and in the air, and the view out the window is much too short to be of any VFR use, unless you want to follow the freeways / highways at 50 Ft. AGL. On their site they explain the behavior as an desired feature???

What's what you call "XPX" ? Because everything you're trying to describe is not X-Plane... Just start to test the X-Plane demo here, and then install good add-ons.

But don't expect a game where the goal is to perform stunts between hot air balloons or at "50 ft AGL".



Here's a solution for the C162: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?...10#entry645429

[alaskancrab]

MdMax: never underestimate the power of eye candy, It's all smoke and mirrors when it comes to realism! If there was an easier way to pull down scenery and aircraft I think you'd have a better chance of convincing folks of the value of XP. But having the user go through the x-plane.org is just wrong. Look at MS, they're not allowing anyone to mess with the formula, end result is a game that will always work perfectly at 30/60 FPS.

[flytv1]

Hello everyone.
To MDMax, you seem to ignore everything that is important. Typically you post a pic at 4-500 ft. with about a radius of 5SM. I hate to tell you but that is NOT VFR. You can be a train / car sim, or something similar, but Not a flight sim. The fact that MSFS is older does not make it worse. see my other pics here:

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showth...&highlight=xpx.

You can see in the pic here that the scenery gets blurry at a very short distance and it disappears beyond about 20SM. I will repeat, that is No tVFR. XPX has a setting of 100 but it's just that a setting, it is not better than XP9. Not to mention the flight dynamics and other hundreds of problems that one can put up with. TV

[MdMax]

Hello !

MdMax: never underestimate the power of eye candy, It's all smoke and mirrors when it comes to realism! If there was an easier way to pull down scenery and aircraft I think you'd have a better chance of convincing folks of the value of XP. But having the user go through the x-plane.org is just wrong. Look at MS, they're not allowing anyone to mess with the formula, end result is a game that will always work perfectly at 30/60 FPS.

Can you tell a bit more about what you call "realism" ?

With X-Plane it's very easy and it works also without X-Plane.org. Just go to websites like Zones-Photo X-Plane for ground textures, and OSM2XP for OpenStreetMap 3D buildings, download the files and install them inside your Custom Scenery folder. You can find awesome planes @ XPFR.org or X-Aviation.com...

You don't need to spend months editing a "cfg" file in order to avoid crashes, avoid blurry textures, or trying to get 10 FPS. You don't need to buy the most expensive hardware and over-clock everything in order to be able to install an add-on. But if you prefer Microsoft games, why not, it's fine, just use your favorite software.

To MDMax, you seem to ignore everything that is important. Typically you post a pic at 4-500 ft. with about a radius of 5SM. I hate to tell you but that is NOT VFR.

Yes I don't know everything that is important to you. And I did not post a pic but a link to a YouTube video from Poland with nice sceneries. Now I'll show you pictures I made at 5500 or 6000 ft AGL:





Here's a RW picture with similar atmospheric conditions:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Cessn...awk/1019284/L/

If you need to see detailed sceneries at 100 statute miles for VFR, then show me a simulator where this is possible.

Not to mention the flight dynamics and other hundreds of problems that one can put up with.

?

Happy flying !

[alaskancrab]

Realism as in FSX users base realism by what they see coming out of 3dsmax.. not out of any of the hundreds of equations X-plane uses. Like I said it's a magic trick. Same problem with Flight, looks too good to be a real sim I have no problems with X-plane.. just waiting until the price drops really before I upgrade to version 10.

[flytv1]

To MdMax

see my other pics here:

http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showth...&highlight=xpx.

[callmecapt]

Look at MS, they're not allowing anyone to mess with the formula, end result is a game that will always work perfectly at 30/60 FPS.

No one can mess with the formula because Microsoft shut the whole department down.
I guess you're 1 of the very lucky ones that has never had a CTD or OOM error.

[Ebodee]

Laminar Research has made the business decision to release a product which is arguably incomplete -

X-Plane, as envisioned by Austin Meyers, was intended to be an IFR currency tool. I plugged into X-Plane many years ago when it was fledgling and that was when there were no virtual cockpits, no scenery, not even the semblance of cockpit ... just an instrument panel.

Microsoft makes games, not currency simulators. Two different ideals at work from two very different ends of the spectrum. To compare FSX to X-Plane is like comparing an orange to the orange peel. When I owned a version of X-Plane, I enjoyed it. The fact that the developer was an Aeronautical Engineer and understood principles of finite element analysis was a huge sales pitch ... a different approach compared to FSX which uses look-up tables that approximate performance.

Being a PPL/SEL, I chose X-Plane because I was looking for a simulation that provided true simulation. Now, X-Plane 10 is out and all Austin and his team are doing is bringing it up to visual appeal of FSX users to sell more product. I moved away from X-Plane and chose FS98, FS2000, FS2004, FSX because that was where add-on development was and what I was accustomed to.

Now, I am actually thinking of incorporating X-Plane 10 into my flight simulation experience. I don't fly much anymore because I don't trust the aircraft I rent so flight simulation has become a natural extension of my real world experience. For those so concerned with visual appeal in a game, go ahead. But X-Plane was not developed for visual appeal and now that it is here with XP10, which looks gorgeous as Austin was demonstrating it, I think it is definitely on the table again.

My only concern with XP10 is whether or not my HP Pavilion can handle it. Dual Core iNtel 2.5 GHZ with iNtel graphics chip .... anyone have some idea let me know please.