You ALWAYS take the time to bring your FM rant EVEN in threads where NOBODY had been mentioning or comparing FM's (like this one).

But, whatever...

This IS an X-Plane versus the "other" thread. Besides, if my RANT didn't continue throughout the last year, in addition to a few others who said the same.............then it could be another 10 years (or forever)..........before a few X-Plane FM problems are looked at by LR. In the meantime, you can read threads on various forums that go back years, in which these same problems exist, but were never fixed. In the meantime, a generation of X-Plane pilots have come to believe "false" flight dynamics, as being a representation of the real thing.

 

 

It seems that many would just like me to go away. There were plenty of thrilled simmers and developers who expressed that feeling last summer. Then it turns out I was right. Austin even produced a video to counter the physics I talked about............and he was wrong. It was pointed out by some with more pull than myself. Actually, I never cared about pull with LR, and still don't. Did like the fact, that he donated a very large check to the animal shelter. I just don't see eye to eye, with the marketing of BET, as being the best FM available for desktop sims.

 

 

All in all, the "torque" issue, is my only real and lasting complaint against X-Plane. I think it's quite worthwhile, otherwise.

Just to clear up this misunderstanding - there are about two dozen or so airports in FSX which are truer-to-life representations of themselves that are hand-created and placed, but all the other airports throughout the FSX world were automatically created using sources such as government and Jeppesen airport databases. This very item was raised almost two years ago over on the .org. I had to seek out Phil Taylor, one of the development leads on FSX, to get an answer "from the horses mouth".

 

Microsoft didn't hire an army of artists to hand draw and place buildings at all the airports in the world. They simply used technology to generate them from available data, a method Laminar Research opted not to pursue for their airports.

Actually the number is more in the 40's for detailed airports in FSX Here's a list, and there are a number still missing from it, like KATL, KSFO, KLGA, PHNL, KMCO, KMEM and I'm sure there are a few others around the world. FSX also has about 1200 other  (What I call) semi detail airports, with more generic buildings, but accurately placed (Relatively) with Jetways and tower. The remaining 22800+ airports mostly GA airports, and are use more generic objects. 

 

http://www.simtours.net/highdetailairports.php

Edited February 23, 201412 yr by tf51d

What has stalled 64-bitness for FSX and P3D?  The underlying code bed, and of course COMPATIBILITY with existing 3rd party products.

 

Laminar took a GIANT leap forward when they redefined the playing field and supported 64-bits.  No one else thus far has matched that herculean effort.

 

The stated flaws that still remain in XP are miniscule when laid against the backdrop of OOM's, CTDs and severe stutters and low frames that are part and parcel of some of the competition.  32-bits alone is troubling, but asking just ONE computer to do all the heavy lifting?  Honestly? 

 

Scalability to me is a HUGE difference in the platforms.  XPlane can divvy up the work and well-rewards those who plunk the huge bucks for Titan GPUs or 4GB GTX 770s.  Similarly, those with multiple multi-core PCs on their flight deck enjoy significant performance gains via the built-in Network support in XP.  XPlane can use all the VRAM you can afford on your video card. Competitors?  Not so much.

 

If wide angle and less-distorted Field-of-View is important, XPlane again takes the gold medal.

 

So you forfeit seasons?  No Lego-brick airports world wide?  Fuzzy optics at FL300?  The "torque" issue?  Let's be honest, if you fly jets, torque is a non-issue.

 

Fine by me, given the other pluses.

 

But to each their own.  If a person were just starting out in Flight Simulation, I would do all I could to recommend XPlane over other products for long-term ownership. Yes, the eye candy of some payware airports and Ground Services in FSX is a strong drawing card, but the monumentally complex and unending tweaking with the settings?  Not my cup o' tea. I'd rather fly.

 

I certainly agree that XP has some real work to be done, and things could be improved in several areas.  But ultimately, I see XP standing on the top of the mountain on a day not too distant.  As PCs continue to improve the 32-bit limitation of FSX will exacerbate the differences.  I don't see Lockheed Martin re-inventing the wheel in P3D v.2 or even v.3,  Simply put it means starting completely over and tossing most existing add-ons in the dustbin.  Once a pilot is willing to toss that investment, the allure of XPlane becomes compelling indeed.

Edited February 24, 201412 yr by Robert McDonald

Even though Robert and I prefer different sims I know we can agree Pilot Edge is the best for flying online hehe!

 

This is a pretty good thread that could have gone down the pooper but hasn't! Nice work everyone

Hey Ryan!

 

I'm a tremendous slouch!  Yes, I totally love PilotEdge, guilty as charged!  Only a person who flies a lot on PE knows why that is, yeah?  There is no 'wrong answer' for sim platforms.  It's all about your own personal joy.  If you are happy with Sim X, Y, or Z, more power to ya!

 

Fly more, post less!

Fly more, post less!

Amen to that.  I will add one more: I find it incredibly easy in XPX to create very decent airport using default objects and HDR light etc.  So I divide my time between sort of building simple GA airport and flying.  I don't know why FSX scenery designers have not provided more scenery for XPX. With some tweaks they can make more money and the airport look and feel much better in XPX, not to mention they will probably actually perform better too.

Edited February 25, 201412 yr by Anxu00

 

 

I don't know why FSX scenery designers have not provided more scenery for XPX. With some tweaks they can make more money and the airport look and feel much better in XPX, not to mention they will probably actually perform better too.

 

... that's something i also find somewhat hard to understand.

... that's something i also find somewhat hard to understand.

 

There are a few pay Airports available for XPX but often the freeware scenery is as good or even of better quality. Very few Third parties seem to have stepped up their game to the level of something like Beti-x, and given a choice between freeware and payware that's only marginally better (if at all) people stick with freeware.

 

I suspect until they step up their game, the X-plane market is going to be pretty soft for payware, and the payware developers might be reluctant to push big resources into a soft market, so.......

 

Round and round she goes.......!

 

Laminar could possibly push things by releasing a big high quality airport or two for a nominal fee to show how its done, but they have no history of being quite that proactive. Alternately, they might license or underwrite a few developers, but again, they have never that I know of been that aggressive previously, so........

 

"shrug"

Edited February 25, 201412 yr by HiFlyer

Round and round she goes.......!

 

Good old chicken-egg dilemma ...

Anyways:

Hoping for the best for various flightsimming platforms to either keep vivid and alive and/or evolve ... and i mean:

My future as a flightsimmer is depending on that to happen!

:wink:

Edited February 25, 201412 yr by wolke85

Sometimes I get so frustrated with flight simming that I turn to Train Simulator 2014, but it handles like it's on rails.  Sorry, I couldn't help myself.