X-Plane 10: Not worth the $$$

I am not a hater. I have used and enjoyed X-Plane 9 for years. But having recently acquired a top-flight iMac, I took the plunge and downloaded version 10.

Big mistake. Waste of $60.

I realize that scenery isn't the #1 reason to purchase a particular flight sim, but in XP10 the scenery is atrocious (and, yes, I have all the rendering settings cranked up to near max). I enjoy flying a sim over the same areas I fly in real aircraft, and in XP9 I can easily do so flying VFR--cities appear where they should, highways are accurate, building density is more or less correct, terrain is lifelike. I can navigate on sight alone. In XP10, though, I can be flying over downtown Chicago and it looks like a farm in Ohio. Trees everywhere, huge open areas of ground, few buildings ... where am I? I've tried pushing all the rendering options to MAX with little to no effect.

Also, frame rates have plunged with the new version. In XP9 I get 35+ FPS easily at 2048 x 1152 and most of the options set to high or insane. In XP10, same resolution, I barely get 20 FPS--and the scenery is far worse! If I crank the settings up to attempt to match XP9 the frame-rate drops to unusable. Also, it takes XP10 forever to load, whereas XP9 loads in just a few seconds.

The aircraft: nothing new to report. If you have XP9, you're not going to find anything new and delicious waiting in the XP10 hangar.

ATC: remains terrible. But then, it's never come close to the real thing so I never use it anyway.

The ONLY advantage to XP10 that I can see is the ability to use 3rd-party aircraft and scenery that don't work in XP9. Then again, what good are new airplanes that only fly in a sparsely modeled, jerky world?

I post this only as a caution to forum users considering an XP10 purchase. My computer is cutting edge, with 32GB of RAM, 4MB of VRAM, and a blazing processor. XP9 runs great. XP10 doesn't--and looks awful in comparison. I can't imagine how XP10 would perform on a less robust system.

If you're looking at X-Plane, save yourself $20 and get XP9. If you already have it, save yourself the $60 I threw away on XP10.

I'm sorry to hear about your troubles with XP10.

I'll say this though, one cannot make inferences based on a one element sample. Plenty of simmers, including iMac users, are not experiencing those problems.

As for scenery, with exception of the ill-fated MS flight, I find the sceneries in XP10 among the best, albeit not the out of the box ones. The one thing I really miss, even in third party software, are landmark buildings.

Hi cessnafreek,

I respect your opinion. It is yours, and you are the only one to decide what is good for you.

You can sale it on ebay as used goods and save some wasted money though...

Second thing is that I'm in this hobby for years, and I've never seen any X-Plane'r enthusiastic says, loud and clear:

"I have bought X-Plane 10, and it is awesome! so many free airplanes and scenery to download, really good physics, global scenery which is not perfect but good enough. I can design airplanes and test it in the simulator! it is really fun even though it's not perfect. it seems that the simulator is under constant development and I can't wait to see what will happen next year! I've spent 60 bucks three years ago and it was my best 60 bucks- investment ever!"

Two options for not seeing such comment:

Or - There is no one who really enjoys X-Plane.

Or - Who ever feels like in the comment above is really busy enjoying his time flying in X-Plane and he doesn't have the time to write things on public forums.

LOL

Hey...I've just wrote such comment myself! Its a world record! :pilot:

Anyways, cessnafreek, I hope (and sure) for all of us, that lots of issues (including the ones that you have correctly described) will get better in X-Plane, that's for sure...

Happy new year to come :)

JetManHuss.

I bought X-Plane10 earlier this year but wasn't impressed because single-engine propeller planes have no natural stability, which means they can't be trimmed to fly straight and level because sooner or later a roll will begin to develop.

I read in the forum that it's a longstanding issue with all versions of X-plane and has never been properly fixed, so I went back to FSX until a fix is hopefully done..;)

I bought X-Plane10 earlier this year but wasn't impressed because single-engine propeller planes have no natural stability, which means they can't be trimmed to fly straight and level because sooner or later a roll will begin to develop.

I read in the forum that it's a longstanding issue with all versions of X-plane and has never been properly fixed, so I went back to FSX until a fix is hopefully done..;)

Hi there,

Try to fix your airspeed and power setting before trimming, it might help...

And...you can adjust X-Plane's pitch/roll/yaw stability augmentation to minimum (via the setting/joystick/nullzone window).

Last thing in this matter - check if your trim sensitivity is fine enough; there are some aircraft with sensitive trim (degrees per second) and you can never fine tune it. This issue can be solved via plane-maker/controls/trim speed adjustments.

Don't give up :)

Final thought: I've flown real aircraft for decades, none of them had the feature of trimming, and then, flying hands-off in a level flight forever. They all eventually develop roll/pitch moment...

Cheers :)

JetManHuss.

I read in the forum that it's a longstanding issue with all versions of X-plane and has never been properly fixed, so I went back to FSX until a fix is hopefully done..;)

At least part of that problem has been fixed

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?295478-Prop-torque-is-fixed-in-X-Plane-10-45

And what JetManHuss writes is correct:

They all eventually develop roll/pitch moment...

Thanks guys but I'm not sure I follow.

Jetman says all aircraft eventually develop roll/pitch moment, but Ratrace says it's been fixed?

Anyway my understanding of the subject (as an ex-member of a gliding club and an ex-radio-control model flyer) is that most real-world aircraft have natural stability built into them on the drawing board with wing dihedral, so that even if a roll begins to develop, it automatically stops after a few degrees, and real-world high-wing aircraft are even more stable because of the pendulum effect of their weight below the wing.

But in X-Plane single-engine prop aircraft behave as if they're balanced on a knife edge tending to tip one way or the other no matter how carefully we try to trim the wings to stay level, and until I get cast-iron guarantees that it's been fixed I'll have to stick with FSX.

PS- FSX has faults in other areas but at least its aircraft have natural stability..;)

Thanks guys but I'm not sure I follow.

Jetman says all aircraft eventually develop roll/pitch moment, but Ratrace says it's been fixed?

This is really OT, but in a nutshell: an XP10 user from Italy named Murmur discovered that the XP code calculated total torque acting on the aircraft as the sum of the torque acting on the propeller and the torque transmitted from engine to propeller. The latter should be excluded. Austin fixed this in release 10.45.

There is roll-wise stability, but in reality this is rather weak. Unfortunately, going into this topic in detail is opening a can of worms.

I appreciate the level-headedness that everyone is bringing to this thread. Again, I'm really not trying to troll XP10. I've pored through a number of other forums and YouTube videos and see that quite a few others have the same issues with XP10's lackluster scenery (at some more remote airports it's all but non-existent) and the surprisingly poor cockpits of many of the aircraft. As as ScatterbrainKid noted above, the lack of natural stability gets old during a long flight. Set trim, level the wings, and still the light aircraft roll.

I've also seen that a huge number of XP10 users only seem to get the software to their liking (or partially so) after extensively modding and tweaking it with aftermarket extras (much of it admittedly free). I've tried some of this myself (adding higher-resolution mesh layers, etc.)--at the expense of a frame-rate hit. It's great that such extras are available in this remarkably lively sim community, but it amazes me that a program with, at least on my system, roughly 40 GIGS of basic content looks so unauthentic. I made the mistake of trying to fly out of an airport in Switzerland (hoping to enjoy a flight through the Alps), and the runway was artificailly surrounded entirely by water--no scenery available at all.

X-Plane in general certainly has many strengths, and as I noted above I've enjoyed XP9 for some time; it works fabulously on my new system, too--dusk/night flights are particularly breathtaking. And most of the flight dynamics are quite good.

That said, from much of the breathless promotional material I expected XP10 to represent a quantum leap forward, and to me it just doesn't. The scenery isn't as good, the aircraft are essentially the same, and the frame rates are down.

Ok. I won't delete it. For the time being, though, I'll be using XP9 in the hopes of XP10 eventually getting to where I'd hoped it would be now.

You mentioned you took off from a runway surrounded by water. No scenery. You don't have the scenery installed for the area. That is the only reason there would be a runway surrounded by water.

I'm not sure why you're framerates are so bad with that kind of system. Your system smashes mine, and I get over 100fps with the default Cessna with settings at near max and all scenery installed. I'm suspecting something else is going on with your installation or your system.

Yes, understand the water means no scenery installed for that area. My point was that, despite the massive install I do have, it doesn't include, say, the Alps. And the areas that ARE covered (US), the view is disappointing.

As for the frame rates you mentioned, I'll explore more. I will say, however, that my searches have turned up many others having the same rates (or worse) as mine. Yes, I would've expected a system as robust as mine to perform better ...

You mentioned you took off from a runway surrounded by water. No scenery. You don't have the scenery installed for the area. That is the only reason there would be a runway surrounded by water.

I'm not sure why you're framerates are so bad with that kind of system. Your system smashes mine, and I get over 100fps with the default Cessna with settings at near max and all scenery installed. I'm suspecting something else is going on with your installation or your system.

At least part of that problem has been fixed

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?295478-Prop-torque-is-fixed-in-X-Plane-10-45

 

And what JetManHuss writes is correct:

Only took what 10 years to fix?

Only took what 10 years to fix?

Having a sim in constant development means issues can be fixed.

O.K. guys...

Here are a few things to add to this thread so far...

There is so "natural stability' issue in X-Plane (addressed to a quote up this discussion)...

The term is not being used correctly...it doesn't related to an aircraft tendency to roll slowly out of trim. Every aircraft which utilizes tail fins (horiz/vertical), and it's c.g is ahead of it's center of lift, has a 'natural stability'; It's the ability of the platform to overcome abrupt changes and "remain in the equation". (candard wing layout or delta is much the same).

Wing dihedral do affects roll stability by contributing a restrain by countering a bank, but it will not overcome other reasons for unwanted roll.

X-Plane's 'Torque issue' which was solved was a fix to the calculations and not a major, "game-changer" fix.

I create airplanes for X-Plane for years. Because of lots of X-Plane's limitations (and any other flight simulator software), usually, an aircraft will not fly 'out of the box' as in real life once it went out from plane-maker to the maiden flight in X-Plane. A lots of tuning must be made in order to make its performance or handling resemble or get near the real thing (involving even changes to control throws, engine's actual power, control surfaces actual size, drag values etc...).

Not all of the add-ons airplanes in X-Plane are fine tuned; it may have designed in plane-maker based on the perfect specs and "by the book", but as I said, usually it isn't enough. Bottom line here: If you are not satisfied with a particular aircraft, try to get a better version of it, or even tune it yourself. You can also ask for someone else to do it in the community.

alaskancrab said that "it only took 10 years...", he is right 100% ! well, such simulation software is so complex that it does takes yeas to develop. I remember operating my PC with a DOS or Windows 95 operating system, using a VGA (640x400) high-end video card?...well, I can say, and be 100% right: "ok, but it took 25 years to fix" ;)

I still don't think that buying X-Plane is a waste of money, but you know, as it says: "one's treasure is another's trash"

JetManHuss.

Having a sim in constant development means issues can be fixed.

Yeah as long as issues are not ignored, that's a great place to be.

I am not a hater. I have used and enjoyed X-Plane 9 for years. But having recently acquired a top-flight iMac, I took the plunge and downloaded version 10.

 

Big mistake. Waste of $60.

 

I realize that scenery isn't the #1 reason to purchase a particular flight sim, but in XP10 the scenery is atrocious (and, yes, I have all the rendering settings cranked up to near max). I enjoy flying a sim over the same areas I fly in real aircraft, and in XP9 I can easily do so flying VFR--cities appear where they should, highways are accurate, building density is more or less correct, terrain is lifelike. I can navigate on sight alone. In XP10, though, I can be flying over downtown Chicago and it looks like a farm in Ohio. Trees everywhere, huge open areas of ground, few buildings ... where am I? I've tried pushing all the rendering options to MAX with little to no effect.

 

Also, frame rates have plunged with the new version. In XP9 I get 35+ FPS easily at 2048 x 1152 and most of the options set to high or insane. In XP10, same resolution, I barely get 20 FPS--and the scenery is far worse! If I crank the settings up to attempt to match XP9 the frame-rate drops to unusable. Also, it takes XP10 forever to load, whereas XP9 loads in just a few seconds.

 

The aircraft: nothing new to report. If you have XP9, you're not going to find anything new and delicious waiting in the XP10 hangar.

 

ATC: remains terrible. But then, it's never come close to the real thing so I never use it anyway.

 

The ONLY advantage to XP10 that I can see is the ability to use 3rd-party aircraft and scenery that don't work in XP9. Then again, what good are new airplanes that only fly in a sparsely modeled, jerky world?

 

I post this only as a caution to forum users considering an XP10 purchase. My computer is cutting edge, with 32GB of RAM, 4MB of VRAM, and a blazing processor. XP9 runs great. XP10 doesn't--and looks awful in comparison. I can't imagine how XP10 would perform on a less robust system.

 

If you're looking at X-Plane, save yourself $20 and get XP9. If you already have it, save yourself the $60 I threw away on XP10.

No wonder you get low framerate, you run it on a imac.

No wonder you get low framerate, you run it on a imac.

I'm run X-Plane on an iMac and have hardly any issues. This is with HDR and global shadows enabled. My PC on the other hand...:D

How I love my 386SX:p

Dominic

I like general X-plane visual look, it's superior to FSX with Orbx. Airport sceneries are somewhat inferior but the world looks awesome and yammie. X-plane users are being treated well, lately they get more and more tasty fantastic add-ons (Airbuses, Boeings, MD, regionals... one add on supersedes another) I feel really jealous about X-plane users!

I failed to go X-plane because filing flightplans is beyond my understanding and the general interface is a real pain. Had it (the interface) been the same as MSFS, I'd pay $300 for X-Plane.

...I realize X-Plane airplane addons may be inferior to FSX NGX & ASE, but (example) Captainsim 757 is nonsense, so it QW. So in the end it equals out. I wish I could use X-plane together with FSX.

I wish I could use X-plane together with FSX.

Hi alexzar14 :)

You can use both simulators, why not? Thing is that there is a learning curve in any kind of conversion, advantages and disadvantages, and you'll have to get yourself ready for it (if you want to).

Having a real aircraft conversion is pretty much the same...the cockpit (interface) could be very different, the world could get very different also: moving on from the General Aviation world into the Airliners world...used to fly VFR in your hometown or local airports, suddenly you are cruising at 40,000ft over the Atlantic, using an autopilot....

Eventually, the only useful rule is to do what makes you happy and excited. It is 100% fine to stick with your preferred flight simulator :)

Ok will try another attempt. Problem is the time is very limited and FSX so far is the only "game" I play. Reading various forums it appears to me that it takes the know-all simmers a COLOSSAL amount of time in front of their PCs no matter where they are - US, EU, Russia or SA - minimum half a day dedicated to simming and learning the stuff out there ;-))))))

1/2 year ago I did one flight with a FF 757 manually entering the waypoints sids/stars into the FMC just like in FSX, of course I filed no flightplan having no idea how, just flew it straight. LDS and PMDG experience obviously came handy, but the flying experience wasn't smooth - the thing feels and flies absolutely differently than in FSX, it's like a simulation of 2 different planets... I guess it's a matter of getting used to.