X-Plane Steps up to the Plate

In case anyone is interested here are some shots from the just released x-plane11 beta to show how the scenery and aircraft from the latest version stack up to what we're used to seeing here in the world of FSX and P3D screenshots

 

I've played around with x-plane over the years but it's always been a disappointment to me - mainly because of a really klugy interface and sub par panel usability and graphics. This time around - for the first time - I'm not disappointed. There's still a ways to go in a bunch of areas - like ATC - but IMHO this version is on a par with current FSX & P3D models (aircraft and scenery), graphics, views, and easy point, click, and view panel and VC interfaces and functionality.

 

Will I leave FSX? Definitely not - but in the past x-plane has always been a temporary visitor to my sim PC. Will it have a permanent seat at the main hard drive table going forward? Sure looks that way :D

 

Here are some exterior and panel shots of 2 of the default airplanes. An American Airlines MD-80 and B737-800. The scenery is the default airport scenery for KSEA (MD-80) and KSAN (B737-800). Weather is the r/w weather for today at those airports

 

[click on the images for a full screen view]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks awfully good to me Bill! :cool: :cool: :)

Looks awfully good to me Bill! :cool: :cool: :)

 

Beta version downloaded. Looks good on my setup. Did my first very quick flight around SEATAC in the 737. The bank manageress has given approval for a snappy purchase.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

X-Plane 11 looks beautiful. The MD-80 and 737 are stunning for default aircraft.

Beta version downloaded. Looks good on my setup. Did my first very quick flight around SEATAC in the 737. The bank manageress has given approval for a snappy purchase.

 

My expenditure was "off budget" or - as the CIA might say - a "black" budget item :D:D:D:D

This are an excellent set of shots Bill, slowly but surely X-plane is making run for the money in the flight simulation world.

Thanks for sharing:)

 

Gonzalo

The last version of X-Plane I tried was 9 and I found no improvements on FSX worth the learning curve.

This version is getting visually close to FSX with all the trimmings. But why do we need a near copy of FSX?

What makes X-Plane better than what we already have? Considering the thousands of "off budget" dollars

I have invested to date, X-Plane will have to be much better than FSX to get my attention. — Bob

The last version of X-Plane I tried was 9 and I found no improvements on FSX worth the learning curve.

This version is getting visually close to FSX with all the trimmings. But why do we need a near copy of FSX?

What makes X-Plane better than what we already have? Considering the thousands of "off budget" dollars

I have invested to date, X-Plane will have to be much better than FSX to get my attention. — Bob

 

I can understand why you wouldn't want to change, but new simmers get most of FSX + many add-ons straight "out of the box" in XP11.

 

Granted, clouds, seasonal textures (or lack thereof) and in particular AI/ATC are still major issues, but unlike FSX (including the Steam version) XP is still under development. I also doubt that Dovetail's new flightsim will better XP11, or FSX + add-ons for that matter, so I'm sticking with X-Plane :)

My expenditure was "off budget" or - as the CIA might say - a "black" budget item :D:D:D:D

 

I utilized a protocol from the 90's. Don't ask, don't tell :D

The last version of X-Plane I tried was 9 and I found no improvements on FSX worth the learning curve.

This version is getting visually close to FSX with all the trimmings. But why do we need a near copy of FSX?

What makes X-Plane better than what we already have? Considering the thousands of "off budget" dollars

I have invested to date, X-Plane will have to be much better than FSX to get my attention. — Bob

 

For myself, the flight characteristics of the default Cessna was much closer to the ~feel~ of the actual one, particularly in the takeoff and landing phases. The question that I am in no position to answer is what is in the underlying code that will allow developers to enhance the virtual world in the way of environment, scenery, and aircraft.

 

It's far too early to tell, but at this stage I definitely see more than a 50/50 chance that XP11 will replace the FSX variants of flight sims.

 

For the record, this is the 1st version of XP that I've taken seriously.

Guys - many thanks for looking and all the interesting comments and thoughts

 

The last version of X-Plane I tried was 9 and I found no improvements on FSX worth the learning curve.

This version is getting visually close to FSX with all the trimmings. But why do we need a near copy of FSX?

What makes X-Plane better than what we already have? Considering the thousands of "off budget" dollars

I have invested to date, X-Plane will have to be much better than FSX to get my attention. — Bob

 

Bob: How many flight sims are enough? That's certainly a legitimate issue and a question which I guess can only be answered by each one of us on an individual basis. XP's claim to fame has always been that the flight dynamics programming was accurate enough to be used for actual aircraft design and flight tests as opposed to FS which is (allegedly) less precise. I don't know enough about the underlying code to say if that's true or not. I'm not an aircraft designer or flight test engineer but I do like planes that fly accurately

 

For years XP poo paahed graphics and scenery as unimportant eye candy but what has radically changed recently is that they've caught up on the visuals + user interface issues and their latest aircraft models, cockpit graphics/systems, and scenery are on a peer basis with the latest FSX and P3D stuff. In looking at available payware addons I was surprised at the number of famous names making XP stuff & the very high quality

 

For example check out these 2 panel shots from add ons - a B737-300 and B727-200F

 

 

 

 

 

For the record, this is the 1st version of XP that I've taken seriously.

 

Me too Karl. I like your "don't ask don't tell" budget approach - I don't tell but I do get asked! ;):D:D

I am duly impressed by the improvement in graphics. Perhaps the next iteration will entice me to try again.

As far as the old precision vs eye-candy argument goes, I want both! Always chasing the "As real as it gets" mantra.

 

If it costs less than a real plane, all the better. :o — Bob

As far as the old precision vs eye-candy argument goes, I want both! Always chasing the "As real as it gets" mantra.

 

If it costs less than a real plane, all the better. :o — Bob

 

Hurumph, Hurumph!

I am duly impressed by the improvement in graphics. Perhaps the next iteration will entice me to try again.

As far as the old precision vs eye-candy argument goes, I want both! Always chasing the "As real as it gets" mantra.

 

If it costs less than a real plane, all the better. :o — Bob

 

I couldn't agree more! And a hearty thanks to Bill for pointing this out! However, considering the volume of people using FSX and P3D, I consider the success of this version X-Plane to be successful also depends on one issue. WILL IT UTILIZE ALL THE HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ALREADY INVESTED IN FSX AND P3B SOFTWARE?

 

I know I have more invested in FSX, P3D and compatible software than I had in my first new car. And no it wasn't a Model A! I just look that old! It was a '66 Pontiac Catalina. Unless all this cross flies, I'll have a really tough time justifying new to get back to where I already am.

 

So WILL THIS NEW X-PLANE WORK WITH THE HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE WE ALREADY OWN?

1. 64 bit computer operating systems, yes.

 

2. Software you already own, NO.

But the bullet, downloaded over night, 36 Gb. Next to install and test.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rupert, your important question "WILL THIS NEW X-PLANE WORK WITH THE HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE WE ALREADY OWN" I think gets to the true core of the matter for me. I have hundreds of programming, build, and setup hours. My expensive hardware would become much much less useful if I can't get the functionality/accessibility that FSUIPC (after many years of evolution) give me to FSX. Even though I will probably miss out on advancements eventually since FSX is frozen, I will not switch until I am desperate and willing to abandon all my current efforts. I hope FSX effectively will be "advanced" and ported to 64-bit software taking advantage of multi-core, or perhaps we can get an FSUIPC equivalent for X-plane. But none of this, if it happens, will come over night.

However, considering the volume of people using FSX and P3D, I consider the success of this version X-Plane to be successful also depends on one issue. WILL IT UTILIZE ALL THE HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ALREADY INVESTED IN FSX AND P3B SOFTWARE?

 

I know I have more invested in FSX, P3D and compatible software than I had in my first new car. And no it wasn't a Model A! I just look that old! It was a '66 Pontiac Catalina. Unless all this cross flies, I'll have a really tough time justifying new to get back to where I already am.

 

So WILL THIS NEW X-PLANE WORK WITH THE HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE WE ALREADY OWN?

 

I hope I'm wrong but I think the answer to that question is most likely "no" - at least as far as software goes. Joysticks and other plug in stuff will certainly work or be easily convertible. Maybe someone will come up with a conversion program sort of like FSX to P3D for aircraft/scenery but it's safe to say whatever happens won't likely be free.

 

I think that it's a sign of things to come that PMDG chose to introduce their latest frontline product - the DC6 - on XP rather than FSX

 

BTW - did you keep that Catalina? It would easily fund a conversion today! :D:D:D

X-Plane 11 is a major improvement on 10. Well, after 2 flights, one low and slow and the other high and fast, that's my early opinion. The interface is much more user friendly, the menu dropdowns clean and crisp. The initial controller setup is basic, but once you are in your plane, clicking on the controller icon in the top right gives you an in depth setup option.

I set up my Saitek Yoke, Throttle and Rudder pedals in minutes. The map screen can be natively displayed on a 2nd monitor, that alone is a big plus over v10. Scenery is basic but fairly accurate except YSSY is in the middle of the ocean. (In v10 it was landlocked). Sliders vastly improve scenery and graphics, (I bought my i7 with 16gig ram to its knees). I can't remember what the vanilla FSX scenery looked like, I have added so much payware and freeware, so I will not suggest a comparison. Given we are still in Beta, v11 is looking good.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Looks just fine to me Bill. I hear that the physics within XPlane are better than FSX in terms of realism. Mike

Looks great Bill, but like Bob I have to much invested in FSX to switch. That's not to say I won't buy it out of curiosity sake!! :)

Adam, Mike, & York - thanks for looking and the comments

 

 

Looks great Bill, but like Bob I have to much invested in FSX to switch. That's not to say I won't buy it out of curiosity sake!! :)

 

I've got mega $$ invested in FSX too so I'm not going anywhere either ;)- - just looking & investing enough to see if XP has advanced the technology some. Interestingly I recently saw a freeware FSX MD-11 model converted over to XP so there may be a way to get dual use sort of like P3D. Here are some shots of that FSX airplane ported over to XP - only has a 2D panel but the exterior looks pretty good ;)

 

One cool thing about XP that you can see in the panel shot is that it appears to accurately model runway slopes - this is KSEA Rwy 16L and you can clearly see the upslope looking down the runway. This is the stock airport/runway scenery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks just fine to me Bill. I hear that the physics within XPlane are better than FSX in terms of realism. Mike

 

XP has always claimed to have super accurate flight physics - accurate enough to use for r/w aircraft design engineering and flight testing. I can't say whether that's true or not but the planes definitely have a different feel - for example heavy jets feel "heavy" and jet engines take a while to spool up when adding power. Other folks have commented that the GA airplanes like the C172 have a feel like the r/w versions

I've been doing some reading on the new program and the posts. Could be in the future. Looking good!.. Please keep us up to date.

I've been doing some reading on the new program and the posts. Could be in the future. Looking good!.. Please keep us up to date.

 

Thanks David - here are a few more random shots. The airplanes in these shots are payware addons but the scenery (including the animated taxi director and gates at PAJN) are the stock or freeware addons. The DC8 shot is from XP10 - the others are the XP11 beta release

 

 

Switching to the XP forum for future XP shots/posts - frequency change approved :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice shots Bill, but like Adam I too have a lot of time and money invested in FSX. I bought P3D a while back but still seldom use it, somehow I like the way FSX renders ground textures better, specially photoreal, and with the fixer you can have shadows now. Nice United retro by the way.:)