106 replies to this topic

[_TW_]

Probably because he will be quite busy exploring the new game  

[Chief NWA]

I can't believe I just spent 20 minutes of my life reading this topic.
Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go ding dong ditch the neighbors house.

[LA_PHX]

Toby Werner, on Jan 16 2012, 05:12 PM, said:

Probably because he will be quite busy exploring the new game  

Oh...I took what he said literally!

[Jonay]

LA_PHX, on Jan 17 2012, 01:47 AM, said:

Oh...I took what he said literally!

No no.. it's genuine!

Importing realworld FDR data into Xplane for visual references for a certain company as the one that is used as standard across the industry is a bit naff. The FDM approached me asking if I would be interested if I could do it for them!

I'm working off the demo at the moment - which is naff as the long + lat coordinates I have are for the Netherlands - which as you know are not included in the demo (seattle only)- so it just doesn't look right - never mind the elevation data being negative MSL data at ground level so it starts off under water!

[162db]

Well for anyone who cares, I found this statement from an X-Plane dev.

Quote

I could take 2 hours right now, place some buildings at KBFI, KDFW, KORD, etc.... upload them to the xplane server and you guys would have them at the next update...which I think might be this afternoon. So why don't I? Well because we have some features...optimization features... that we want to implement before we begin placing buildings on a "production level", but I have to wait for Ben and crew to debug other issues first. So it is simply a matter of a full inbox and many items have to wait for others. We will approach the point very soon where my instructions will be to start populating airports as fast as I can.....followed by, "make the default library more diverse and add new buildings and facades. So hope for around Feb/Mar 2012 for x-plane to start getting fun. This "engine start" has a few cylinders not fully fired up.

[LA_PHX]

162db, on Jan 16 2012, 07:10 PM, said:

Well for anyone who cares, I found this statement from an X-Plane dev.

Maybe it's just me, that statement sounds like one that would be made in regards to a product still in production.

[suraj]

On a serious note, don't complain, but do your part to improve on the game and report this issue to xplane.com, or ask for help from those that are familiar with xplane. Don't come on here and make sarcastic remarks about the game, because seriously, that won't solve anything. I agree I would love to have a game that worked perfectly out of the box, but we all know that isn't possible. Even the PMDG, working really hard for that exact thing not to happen with the NGX, and now we already have two service packs. Its just the way things go.

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

Yeah, because you completely missed what I stated.
Yeah, I'm trolling when I haven't called you any names or said anything even remotely bad about x-plane.

Everything you said about it in this topic.

You aren't helping your cause. No one ever asked for your opinion about FSX. You're the one that went on a rant about it.
'flying experience' varies from one simmer to the next. FSX out of the box is NOT realistic. Neither is x-plane. Neither is PMDG, Level-D, Active Sky, whatever. It all depends on the user. Saying one is better than the other is completely biased.

30,000 airports like the one posted in the OP? With trees in the middle of the runway? No autogen? Doesn't seem like a 'simulator' to me if I cant fly to these airports without crashing, or if I can't recognize a landmark during a visual approach.

I'm sorry, but PMDG is probably one of the most realistic planes ever, I'm certain I can go out and fly myself a 737NG no problem

[jcovelli]

LA_PHX, on Jan 16 2012, 10:36 PM, said:

Maybe it's just me, that statement sounds like one that would be made in regards to a product still in production.

xplane 9 is still in production...........

xplane 10 will be in production for years as well. that's the best thing about xplane

[LA_PHX]

jcovelli, on Jan 16 2012, 08:24 PM, said:

xplane 9 is still in production...........

xplane 10 will be in production for years as well. that's the best thing about xplane

I get that, and it is certainly a good thing to a certain extent.  I suppose some of the things that they are saying though, I would prefer being done before I buy the game.  So, I guess it is a good thing I haven't bought yet.  Maybe in a couple of years though, it sounds like something I would certainly be interested in purchasing.

[CaptainG37]

I might correct you on one thing.  X Plane is not a game.
Flight is a game.
X Plane, like FSX, is a flight sim.

[CaptainSpeaking]

CaptainG37, why are you so full of hate?

[CaptainG37]

What an unusual question!!
What makes you think I'm full of hate?
I'm a straight shooter and I'm honest.  If people cannot respect that, then that is their problem.  I'd rather respect people and be honest than blow smoke up their butt.  
If you can confuse that with hatred, then I really don't know what to tell you.

EDIT: And just for the record, I did PM Peter and answered his question regarding scenery.

Edited by CaptainG37, 17 January 2012 - 07:14 AM.

[Shamir]

Never liked x-plane.. prefer FS09 or FSX...

X-plane looks like a game not like a simulator to me.. and again.. just my point of view, we all have one!

[CaptainG37]

Shamir, on Jan 19 2012, 09:27 AM, said:

Never liked x-plane.. prefer FS09 or FSX...

X-plane looks like a game not like a simulator to me.. and again.. just my point of view, we all have one!

No it doesn't.

I WISH X Plane looked like a game!



If X Plane, fsx, fs9 looked like that, we'd all be happier.

Edited by CaptainG37, 18 January 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[Peter797]

No doesn't have to look like that lol,

but Toronto:



should at least look similar to that like in FSX, and not how X-Plane portrays it:

[CaptainG37]

But then the same thing can be said "FSX should have X Planes rural areas, weather effects and flight model".
It's what I keep saying, there are things missing from both platforms.  Just go with whichever one satisfies you.

[162db]

Peter797, on Jan 20 2012, 09:53 AM, said:

No doesn't have to look like that lol,

but Toronto:



should at least look similar to that like in FSX, and not how X-Plane portrays it:

I don't remember Toronto in FSX looking anything like that either so what's your point  

Edited by 162db, 20 January 2012 - 08:58 PM.

[Peter797]

My Toronto looks VERY similar to the one in the picture with my autogen actually turned up.

Even if I have my buildings and objects at its max level in Xplane Toronto still looks like the rural picture I posted. That's my point :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Edited by Peter797, 20 January 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[CaptainG37]

Is that it??!!!
THAT is the level of detail people are complaining about?
I could model and texture those buildings in about an hour and add them to X Plane in about 2 minutes.
Give me a day and I could have about 12 or 13 cities done.

[162db]

Peter797, on Jan 20 2012, 07:29 PM, said:

My Toronto looks VERY similar to the one in the picture with my autogen actually turned up.

So you're comparing an FSX add-on to XP default now?