106 replies to this topic

[jcovelli]

x plane 10 is based on a plausible world. this is the MAIN goal of xp10... if u don't know that... it's not surprising you know nothing else about it.

and yes... i can post probably over 100 screens shots of fs9 and fsx where there are gaping holes in the ground, water and trees in the middle of runways, ai planes stuck in the side of a hill, houses on top of hwys, square patches on the ground, etc...... guess i better uninstall it huh?

[Peter797]

jcovelli, on Jan 15 2012, 12:32 PM, said:

x plane 10 is based on a plausible world. this is the MAIN goal of xp10... if u don't know that... it's not surprising you know nothing else about it.

and yes... i can post probably over 100 screens shots of fs9 and fsx where there are gaping holes in the ground, water and trees in the middle of runways, ai planes stuck in the side of a hill, houses on top of hwys, square patches on the ground, etc...... guess i better uninstall it huh?

I can guarantee you won't post a screenshot of a major airport like FRANKFURT's where there is anything wrong with it in FSX.

And atleast FSX is capable of properly drawing cities OTHER THAN Seattle.

[jcovelli]

frankfurt in fsx.. is totally messed up unless you have an addon. in fact all airports are. the taxiways and aprons are not even close to real world accuracy and in a lot of places... not even remotely accurate.

x planes man mad scenery is based off of a highly accurate road map for most parts of the world.. since modern cities are built around these roads, i would say xplane is MUCH more capable of drawing cities.  again it's NOT based on the real world with real life buildings in there exact locations. it's based off a plausible world.. one that could exist. which btw.. is a HUGE improvement over the way msfs does it. and in time (again you would know this if u bothered learning anything at all) xplane will introduce more real world things like scenery.. and based of the plausible world theory and they way it constructs the cities and landscapes... eventually x plane will be way more realistic, based on real world, than any msfs. this is thei plan and their model. if you know nothing at all about it then don't say anything.

Edited by jcovelli, 15 January 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[Jonay]

Wait is this XP10 or 9?

I thought the release date was 17th Feb? That's when I'm getting mine

[LA_PHX]

jcovelli, on Jan 15 2012, 12:25 PM, said:

again it's NOT based on the real world with real life buildings in there exact locations. it's based off a plausible world.. one that could exist. which btw.. is a HUGE improvement over the way msfs does it.

How is that better?  If I'm simulating a flight from, say, Boston to Chicago, I'd rather see a good representation of the two cities rather than what might be Boston and Chicago if you use your imagination.  Surely MSFS doesn't have amazing looking cities but at least it has a decent, default representation of the main, actual buildings that exist in real life.

[162db]

Jonay, on Jan 15 2012, 12:58 PM, said:

Wait is this XP10 or 9?

I thought the release date was 17th Feb? That's when I'm getting mine

XP-10 released around Christmas http://www.x-plane.c...esktop/landing/

LA_PHX, on Jan 15 2012, 01:01 PM, said:

How is that better?  If I'm simulating a flight from, say, Boston to Chicago, I'd rather see a good representation of the two cities rather than what might be Boston and Chicago if you use your imagination.  Surely MSFS doesn't have amazing looking cities but at least it has a decent, default representation of the main, actual buildings that exist in real life.

Maybe with add-ons but certainly not default, unless you call misplaced buildings and inaccurate landclass a decent default representation.

People are forgetting. XP-10 was only in beta for a month before they rushed it out for release. People also are forgetting that it's not the final product. There are still bugs but the big difference between XP and FSX is the support. They will continue to improve upon XP and people can help by submitting bug reports rather than to troll along on forums. So let's give it some time before we judge it.

Edited by 162db, 15 January 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[Jonay]

162db, on Jan 15 2012, 10:16 PM, said:

XP-10 released around Christmas http://www.x-plane.c...esktop/landing/

Must be when the boxed version reaches the UK

[LA_PHX]

162db, on Jan 15 2012, 03:16 PM, said:

So let's give it some time before we judge it.

If people are already paying money for it, they have every right to judge it.  If it was not ready for release, it shouldn't have been released yet (same could have been said for FSX when it was released and believe, I criticized it a lot - in fact, I STILL use FS9).

The coastline, building placement, road structure, etc., may not be close to real life, but at least you can still say, "oh I can tell that is Chicago," or, "I can tell that is Boston."  I, personally, would rather not fly around an area that doesn't even have the major landmark buildings that identify what a city looks like from the air.

[CaptainG37]

Alex
To someone who has never touched x plane before, and has never had a look at an x plane forum before, this is all new territory.
FSX represents cities a lot better than X plane.  That's obvious.  X Plane represents rural and country areas a lot better than X Plane.  (My opinion)
Nothing can touch X Planes clouds and night lighting.  That's been agreed upon by the most hardcore flightsimmers.
What FSX users don't realize is that there are dedicated x plane forums that are full of relevant information to the new user.  Blindly shelling out $80 on a product, expecting it to look and feel like a product you've been using for 5-10 years is a little ignorant.
There is a fully functioning demo available, limited to Seattle, for people to try x plane.  If people aren't happy with the demo, then go back to your preferred choice.  If you're not happy with the demo, why buy the full version??
It's fine to judge a product when you pay for it.  But is it a fair and unbiased judgement or is it simply taking the piss?  Most judgements I have seen are taking the piss.  And it's not just in x plane.  I've seen it for Flight as well and I have come out defending THAT thing against stupid and ignorant posts from people just wanting others to agree with them that it's not as good as they expected it to be.  Seriously, it's like watching a bunch of 5 year old kids whine about not getting McDonalds for dinner.
If someone is genuinely interested in x plane, then go to the dedicated X Plane forums and get clued in to what is happening.  This is NOT a dedicated X Plane forum.
To find one, just google "X Plane forums".

Edited by CaptainG37, 15 January 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[LA_PHX]

CaptainG37, on Jan 15 2012, 04:52 PM, said:

Alex
To someone who has never touched x plane before, and has never had a look at an x plane forum before, this is all new territory.

What makes you say that?  I have tried X-Plane.

Quote

FSX represents cities a lot better than X plane.  That's obvious.  X Plane represents rural and country areas a lot better than X Plane.  (My opinion)

I would agree.  I find X-Plane to do a fine job in the rural and country areas, as you mentioned.  But the bulk of my sim. flying is from major city to major city.

Quote

Blindly shelling out $80 on a product, expecting it to look and feel like a product you've been using for 5-10 years is a little ignorant.

I would never expect that.  My MSFS setup is heavily modded with addons.  But I would expect it to work right and be a bit more user friendly.  The UI for X-Plane is horrendous and, while I wouldn't say that FS9 or FSX looked great out of the box, they do work and look good for a default product that covers the entire world.  I honestly don't expect more than an okay looking default because I expect to heavily mod it.

Quote

There is a fully functioning demo available, limited to Seattle, for people to try x plane.  If people aren't happy with the demo, then go back to your preferred choice.  If you're not happy with the demo, why buy the full version??

Good question.  I didn't buy X-Plane 10 and I am happy with that decision.  I see the same problem over at FSDreamTeam's forums with people complaining about certain things that, if they decided to try out the product before they threw their credit card at it, they would have notice things and perhaps have asked questions before buying or just not buying altogether.

Quote

Seriously, it's like watching a bunch of 5 year old kids whine about not getting McDonalds for dinner.

I'll end with this...

486fKX2efck?

Edited by LA_PHX, 15 January 2012 - 08:10 PM.

[CaptainG37]

I'm saying "in general".
This whole thing started with Peter posting screenshots of some "faulty" scenery and then others coming in and stroking his ego and saying "yeah, it does look like ..."
If people bothered to check other forums, they would see that cities are already getting populated and that LR is planning improved scenery in the cities...among many other things.
My point remains the same.

[Peter797]

@jcovelli, ? No, last time I checked the aprons and taxiways are almost identical to realworld at major airports in FSX haha.

@CaptainG37, if you have the right to say I'm ignorant for shelling out 80 bucks on X Plane and not getting what I expect. I have the right to say their screenshots have falsely advertised what it's all about.

The ONLY "unfaulty" scenery I've experienced is KSEA. Cool. 80 bucks for KSEA.

[CaptainG37]

You have the right to say whatever you want.  I'm certainly not holding a gun to your head.  But if you're going to post things ONLY to criticize and your opinions to go with them, then I'm going to post corrections and opinions.
And if you think you spent $80 JUST for KSEA, then you're extremely narrow minded, and cannot see the weather, rural scenery, flight model, night lighting, support from Laminar, constant updates, etc, etc, etc...

The screenshots of xp10 were taken in sim.  Nothing was photoshopped.  So you are getting what X Plane 10 is capable of doing.
A very far cry from this...



But, well, let's excuse that lie the FSX marketing team did, shall we.  Just like everyone has been doing...and let's focus on the few faults x plane has and blow them up out of all proportion and say that every single airport has trees on it.  When was the last time you could email ACES (When they were around) and report a bug and get it fixed?

I'm not picking fights.  I'm trying to keep it FAIR.

[Peter797]

You do know.....that picture you posted is fan-made art and not actually done by Microsoft right?

[THBatMan8]

CaptainG37, on Jan 15 2012, 02:21 AM, said:

Yes, there are problems with X Plane. The intelligent ones file bug reports.  The trolls post screenshots of the problems, make some smart remark and get their dick stroked.

Watch your tone. That language isn't appreciated by anyone here.

[CaptainG37]

Peter797, on Jan 16 2012, 01:27 PM, said:

You do know.....that picture you posted is fan-made art and not actually done by Microsoft right?

It was released before FSX was made available and touted as how FSX will look with DX10.

[THBatMan8]

CaptainG37, on Jan 15 2012, 07:45 PM, said:

It was released before FSX was made available and touted as how FSX will look with DX10.

And if you run FSX with nothing but defaults (like the game was made to be run), it does look like that and run flawlessly on most high end machines. Microsoft never advertised what the game would look like when your folder is filled with addons galore and you're running every possible setting maxed out.

You want to avoid topics like this? If you're a dev, then you NEED to have a disclaimer stating that not the entire world is duplicated. For me, this is everything in a flight simulator. The aircraft doesn't matter. ATC doesn't matter. 3rd party devs take care of that fairly well. If you guys aren't going to release a 'completed' game then I'm not going to waste my money on your product.

Edited by THBatMan8, 15 January 2012 - 10:13 PM.

[jcovelli]

THBatMan8, on Jan 15 2012, 11:06 PM, said:

And if you run FSX with nothing but defaults (like the game was made to be run), it does look like that and run flawlessly on most high end machines. Microsoft never advertised what the game would look like when your folder is filled with addons galore and you're running every possible setting maxed out.

[_BD6_]

Captain, just give it up. Haters are gonna hate.

Peter, I've done quite a bit of flying in the demo in different areas and have not experienced any cloud problems or trees in middle of runways so far. Are you sure it's not a corrupt piece of scenery/install? Highly unlikely a game would go throughbeta without that noticed by testers.

THBatMan8, on Jan 15 2012, 09:32 PM, said:

Watch your tone. That language isn't appreciated by anyone here.

Lighten up.

THBatMan8, on Jan 15 2012, 10:06 PM, said:

And if you run FSX with nothing but defaults (like the game was made to be run), it does look like that

wait, what?

[THBatMan8]

jcovelli, on Jan 15 2012, 08:09 PM, said:

Someone had to say it........ It's sad, but true.