423 replies to this topic

[ChaoticBeauty]

Dr...Watson, on Nov 27 2011, 03:17 PM, said:

Just tried the demo, it's very strange.  FLight dynamics in particular seem way off.  I tried adjusting all settings but it just doesn't feel right.  Barrel role the Baron at 100 kts on approach, same with the 747!!!  The aircraft bounce around like they are flying in bad turbulence even when you set the weather to as calm as possible.

I feel exactly the same about the demo!

Now, are those real problems, or are the X-Plane dynamics supposed to be THAT different from MSFS?

Edited by Kaotika, 27 November 2011 - 11:41 AM.

[Jambone]

I think they're in way over their heads with the placement of roads and houses. It is just TOO far off for the moment to be considered an acceptable end-product. Roads and houses simply disappear into the ground.

[CaptainG37]

Jambone, on Nov 28 2011, 05:25 AM, said:

I think they're in way over their heads with the placement of roads and houses. It is just TOO far off for the moment to be considered an acceptable end-product. Roads and houses simply disappear into the ground.

And in FSX they don't?

[Jambone]

CaptainG37, on Nov 27 2011, 09:31 PM, said:

And in FSX they don't?

Not to the same extent, the landform almost seems too complex for the autogen placement.

[Peter797]

Kaotika, on Nov 27 2011, 11:33 AM, said:

I feel exactly the same about the demo!

Now, are those real problems, or are the X-Plane dynamics supposed to be THAT different from MSFS?

Pretty sure they're supposed to be comparable to real life. And they sure as aren't right now. Flying the 172 in no wind, feels like flying a 172 with half its rudder torn off.

[CaptainG37]

Peter797, on Nov 28 2011, 09:02 AM, said:

Pretty sure they're supposed to be comparable to real life. And they sure as aren't right now. Flying the 172 in no wind, feels like flying a 172 with half its rudder torn off.

Unless the flight model is made properly, they will NOT be comparable to real life aircraft.  
Garbage in=garbage out.
Read some reviews on some of the payware.

[CaptainG37]

BTW Peter.  You never got back to me about the "blurry and bad" C172 panel textures.  
Genuinely curious to what you thought of the screenshot I posted compared to what you see in the sim.

[Peter797]

Woops, didn't see it. Which Post #?

[CaptainG37]

Peter797, on Nov 28 2011, 12:58 PM, said:

Woops, didn't see it. Which Post #?

http://www.flightsim...x...t&p=2450467

[_BD6_]

CaptainG37, on Nov 27 2011, 09:16 PM, said:

http://www.flightsim...x...t&p=2450467

Sorry for not reading through the thread, but how did you zoom out on the VC?

[nickname]

Peter797, on Nov 25 2011, 09:55 PM, said:

As for X-Plane 10. Really not impressed right now. Horrible textures, the random splotches of little urban areas are pretty bad looking.

An entire thread of unbiased non fan boys (xplane or fsx) tend to agree with you. That is why I posted the thread over there because the xplane crowd here is stricken with "the emperor has no clothes" phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia....9;s_New_Clothes

http://www.bikeforum...t=#post13506160


Anyway is Xplane freeware or something because from the screenshots you can not only rule out realistic but you can forget about plausible too. I garauntee I would not spend one minute flying around if that is what I had to look at...orbx has spoiled me I suppose. Now let me just say that fsx default is nothing to cheer about for scenery either...but the weather is far superior as well the default planes. I have active sky advanced, evolution, rex and a host of carenado aircraft and I still find my way back to the default planes...and I even use the default weather engine when creating custom weather.  So consideing this is a new release...and looking at what Flight has done so far with default....shouldn't Xplane 10 be aiming to be at least on par with Flight and not fsx which is more than 5 years old?

Edited by nickname, 27 November 2011 - 10:33 PM.

[Peter797]

CaptainG37, on Nov 27 2011, 09:16 PM, said:

http://www.flightsim...x...t&p=2450467

lol, I don't need glasses for that

But yeah, mine is completely zoomed in and blurry. Doesn't look like yours.

[CaptainG37]

nickname, on Nov 28 2011, 02:20 PM, said:

An entire thread of unbiased non fan boys (xplane or fsx) tend to agree with you. That is why I posted the thread over there because the xplane crowd here is stricken with "the emperor has no clothes" phenomenon.

http://en.wikipedia....9;s_New_Clothes

http://www.bikeforum...t=#post13506160
Anyway is Xplane freeware or something because from the screenshots you can not only rule out realistic but you can forget about plausible too. I garauntee I would not spend one minute flying around if that is what I had to look at...orbx has spoiled me I suppose. Now let me just say that fsx default is nothing to cheer about for scenery either...but the weather is far superior as well the default planes. I have active sky advanced, evolution, rex and a host of carenado aircraft and I still find my way back to the default planes...and even the default weather engine sometimes.  So consideing this is a new release...and looking at what Flight has done so far with default....shouldn't Xplane 10 be aiming to be at least on par with Flight and not fsx which is more than 5 years old?

I'm assuming you downloaded the demo and made a thorough examination of all the default aircraft and gone through all the settings before passing such an assessment.
Dude, it's obvious you don't like X Plane.  So stop hanging around here.  
No matter what Laminar research does, as far you're concerned, X Plane will NEVER be on par with your beloved MSFS franchise.  Even if it looked IDENTICAL to Flight, you would criticize the fact that it looks like Flight.
Go do something useful with your time and let the rest of us have an intelligent discussion.  

b0gey_dead_six, on Nov 28 2011, 02:17 PM, said:

Sorry for not reading through the thread, but how did you zoom out on the VC?

Under Renderring and Settings, change the Lateral Field Of View to around 70.  The higher you go, the more you see of the panel and vice versa.
For a clearer panel, change the texture resolution to the highest setting and turn off Texture Compression.

Edited by CaptainG37, 27 November 2011 - 10:37 PM.

[nickname]

CaptainG37, on Nov 27 2011, 10:35 PM, said:

I'm assuming you downloaded the demo and made a thorough examination of all the default aircraft and gone through all the settings before passing such an assessment.

If orbx, active sky, rex, gex, etc get on board with Xplane then I would consider to try it out if Flight was not an option...but until such a time there is nothing Xplane can provide me that is not already being provided by MSFS.

[Buziel-411_RED]

nickname, on Nov 27 2011, 09:20 PM, said:

Anyway is Xplane freeware or something because from the screenshots you can not only rule out realistic but you can forget about plausible too.

Did you join this forum just to criticize X-Plane? Most of your posts seem to be in this section.

[CaptainG37]

nickname, on Nov 28 2011, 02:40 PM, said:

If orbx, active sky, rex, gex, etc get on board with Xplane then I would consider to try it out if Flight was not an option...but until such a time there is nothing Xplane can provide me that is not already being provided by MSFS.

So it's not X Plane that bugs you.  It's the developers that havent come over.
It's not the platform, but the 3rd party developers.
Did you know REX have developed their weather graphics for x plane 9?
And with REX on board, why would you even want Activesky.  They essentially do the same thing.
The fact you are assuming that x plane developers cannot do what FSX developers can do, I find insulting.  You might be surprised what x plane developers are capable of.
Research thoroughly first.  Then come back with an opinion.

[nickname]

CaptainG37, on Nov 27 2011, 10:46 PM, said:

So it's not X Plane that bugs you.  It's the developers that havent come over.
It's not the platform, but the 3rd party developers.
Did you know REX have developed their weather graphics for x plane 9?
And with REX on board, why would you even want Activesky.  They essentially do the same thing.
The fact you are assuming that x plane developers cannot do what FSX developers can do, I find insulting.  You might be surprised what x plane developers are capable of.
Research thoroughly first.  Then come back with an opinion.

Firstly, nothing bugs me about Xplane...I'm just not impressed with it as a product.  Secondly I am not assuming anything...you seem to think that the average consumer appreciates the difficulty involved in making a simulator...they don't care. They just want to see the best product for the money. Currently MSFS is the best simulator option out there along with all of the addons available.

CaptainG37, on Nov 27 2011, 10:46 PM, said:

The fact you are assuming that x plane developers cannot do what FSX developers can do, I find insulting.  You might be surprised what x plane developers are capable of.
Research thoroughly first.  Then come back with an opinion.

Why are you still comparing xplane 10 to fsx...you should be comparing it to Flight.
And anyway...if Xplane developers can do what Flight developers can then why aren't they? I watched the video...and I'm sorry...this "plausible" approach is a cop out.  Simmers want realistic more than ever before now and will not accept anything less...especially considering what is already available on the market.  If the Xplane developers cannot deliver that then they need to go back to the drawing board.

Edited by nickname, 27 November 2011 - 11:39 PM.

[CaptainG37]

nickname, on Nov 28 2011, 03:24 PM, said:

Firstly, nothing bugs me about Xplane...I'm just not impressed with it as a product.  Secondly I am not assuming anything...you seem to think that the average consumer appreciates the difficulty involved in making a simulator...they don't care. They just want to see the best product for the money. Currently MSFS is the best simulator option out there along with all of the addons available.
Why are you still comparing xplane 10 to fsx...you should be comparing it to flight.
And anyway...if Xplane developers can do what Flight developers can then why aren't they? I watched the video...and I'm sorry...this "plausible" approach is a cop out.  Simmers want realistic more than ever before now and will not accept anything less...especially considering what is already available on the market.

oh wow. Ok, I'll try to explain it to you as best as I can.
Firstly, EVERYTHING bugs you about x plane.  Your very first post here was comparing X Plane 10 to The Simpsons.  Then you expected it to look like google earth and were talking about how technology has increased over the years and it shouldnt be a problem.

If MSFS is the "best" product out there for the consumer, then why have there been 40 000 downloads of X Plane 10 in the first 24 hours?  Why has Austin Meyer made millions from every x plane version since 1992?  Are we all just "wrong" because we don't follow your ideal?  I've had every incarnation of MSFS since FS5.  My mind was changed with X Plane 9.  X Plane is now the best flight simulator FOR ME.  Stop shoving what you believe to be the best down everyones throats.  

I would love to compare X Plane to Flight.  How can I?  It's not even out yet.  And it's far from being out.  I'm comparing with what's on the market at this point in time.  

Why aren't X Plane developers making high quality add ons?  *sigh*  They are.  If you check the various x plane forums, you would see it.  Study level 737-300, 747-200, 747-400, Saab 340, DC-3, A320.  These are all being made and they are being programmed to match their real world counterparts.  

We get it.  You hate x plane.  No one is telling you not to hate it.  So if you hate it so much, then hang around that biking forum you went to.  Go to the OrbX forums.  Go to the Flight forums.  I just don't get why you want to hang around here if you are so against X Plane.

[nickname]

Well if you are comparing the new xplane to fsx...and fsx is over 5 years old then it obviously does not measure up to Flight. Apparently I have struck a nerve...if you were truly content with the xplane product you would not be so easily rattled by criticism.

Edited by nickname, 28 November 2011 - 12:22 AM.

[_BD6_]

nickname, on Nov 28 2011, 12:19 AM, said:

Well if you are comparing the new xplane to fsx...and fsx is over 5 years old then it obviously does not measure up to Flight. Apparently I have struck a nerve...if you were truly content with the xplane product you would not be so easily rattled by criticism.

Its funny.. Flight isn't even out and none of the big add-on devs like ORBX know what it's going to be like.. and you assume it's going to be full of add-ons?


And btw CaptainG37, thanks for the info! Will play around with the field of view tomorrow.