X-Plane 10 questions

[ladamson]

As a real pilot, I'm shocked you disagree, Larry. For I'm a real pilot as well. And I am rated in several GA aircraft. So you tell me...why would your opinion be more valid than mine?

You've known for years, that I disagree. No surprise here. You know as well as I do, that you've never tried "RealAir" products, which quite frankly have been some of the best created for FS2004/FSX.......or any sim for that matter.
They've been setting flight model standards in MSFS for many years. And then I read absurd comments from MdMax about no basics modeled, such as adverse yaw or propwash in FSX..........which is redicoulous. And yet, a RealAir product (the Spitfire) which is quite old now..........could run circles (in flight dynamics) around a well know X-Plane P-51 addon, which had no appeal to me, whatsover. My complaints even got me semi banned from X-Plane org. And what was much of that (Spitfire) appeal ? You guessed it.............. yaw & adverse prop wash. It was a favorite of mine to land, as well as the takeoff. Of course, many of the "real" aircraft, that I've flown are heavy in the yaw and adverse prop scenario (Pitt's, Marchetti SF260, my RV6 on takeoff). Geeze...........wouldn't I notice the lack in fsx, considering it's the first thing I check with any new flight model?

So no, I do not respect your opinion, since it's extremely one sided. Just looking at comments from you, in the last 2 months on this forum, clearly demonstrate this. FSX isn't even being close to dead.............at least for years to come. It's been third parties for years, that keep it alive, and keep raising the bar. Your best hope in X-Plane is for a large amount of additional 3rd party intervention, as the "core" producers will never have the manpower to put X-Plane at a point, where a large group of consumers will want it.

L.Adamson

[callmecapt]

Ok, Larry.
By all means, enjoy FSX and it's add ons.
I hope it lasts another 6 years for you.

[ladamson]

Okay.....

[Hydra]

Having to buy an over-clocked high-end CPU, deal with many CTDs and the need to edit a file called "fsx.cfg" is not what I call "user friendly". I prefer the X-Plane user interface and performance.

I haven't had any CTDs with FSX yet, let's hope I don't. Fortunately I already had a fast machine to run it on. What kind of stuff is good to edit in fsx.cfg?

With other operating systems or version 10.10 (for now a beta), you should be able to set this by assigning the controls and buttons.

I'm using Windows 7, call me dumb, I had no idea this was a beta version!

[Hydra]

I am afraid you are NOT wrong, it is an inferior product and by the attitude of the developers it will never be better than a 10 year old app. If you are satisfied with flight models that don't come close to reality, a muddy view anything between 10 SM and nothing beyond about 30 SM than it may be for you. On my system I get a much better performance on FSX than XPX with better resolution, well beyond what XPX is capable of. Add to it the only constant, incompatibility between the versions, and you get XPX.

Unfortunately, I'm not a real pilot (though I'm considering the pursuit) and I wouldn't notice poor flight models.

[Hydra]

The attitude of Laminar Research is far better than Microsoft's attitude with this unfinished unreliable FSX beta 2 (called "SP2") that still needs a 4GHz+ CPU for most add-ons:

I didn't know there were service packs for FSX. I bought the gold edition, which comes with acceleration and deluxe (I think). Would that include the service packs, or do I still need to download them?

[JSkorna]

You are up to date.

[MdMax]

I had no idea this was a beta version!

X-Plane 10.10 is a beta version for now, 9.70 and 10.05r1 are the stable versions: http://wiki.x-plane.com/Beta

A new feature in the next 10.10 Beta 5: "Quick-Look Views"



Alabeo released a beautiful Pitts S-2S for X-Plane, but why isn't this in the FlightSim.com NOTAMS ?
http://www.alabeo.com/index.php?acci...duct&correl=79

[JSkorna]

It was on 7-14 and maybe Alabeo has not sent a news release since then.

[ocseong818]

Having to buy an over-clocked high-end CPU, deal with many CTDs and the need to edit a file called "fsx.cfg"

I don't understand what you mean. At KJFK in FSX for example, if I turn off scenery object and reduce traffic to 5%, similar to xp10 with no terminal building or tower, no landmark, max 20ai, I got more than 40fps in FSX with my 5 years old Intel Q6600 (and New York scenery in FSX looks so much nicer than xp10!) Also, since migrating to Windows 7 and the discovery of BP=0 in fsx.cfg, I have never get any CTD and edit the cfg for more than 2 years.