Interesting X-Plane Project

[Major_Spittle]

A thread on a project that an X-Plane developer is working on.

http://www.jrollon.com/Forum/index.php?topic=37.0

It is very interesting, also it appears that X-Plane can have some nice virtual cockpits when you look at the youtube of his other creation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcNqsq6y4Qk&eurl=http://www.jrollon.com/Javelin.html&feature=player_embedded

It really makes me wonder if X-Plane may be close to passing up FSX but just doesn't have the developers yet. Lord knows Acceleration/sp2 came out for FSX quite awhile back but it took awhile before you started to see the Accusim Planes and planes of A2A's F-16 quality.

[Major_Spittle]

Here is a youtube of him testing the wing flex on the CRJ-200.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKtLGbkm2HE

:woot: I have been saving up for an FSX Accusim bird, but now I am thinking I might have to spend some money on X-Plane. Oh, the inner turmoil.

[Lionheart]

His work is extremely good.

Yep, X-Plane has a good platform. Just needs to be tuned and filled with some high detail planes and scenery.

[Major_Spittle]

Lion- do you know if they have any products/ability in X-Plane to model systems like A2A did with the 377 and Accusim?

[some1]

Yep, X-Plane has a good platform. Just needs to be tuned and filled with some high detail planes and scenery.
Yes, but currently, FSX is already tuned and filled with some high detail planes and scenery. ;) And there will be more of them.

To me the improvements Xplane could bring are not worth changing the whole platform. Not yet.

[Bjoern]

I wonder what it would take to get the hands on the source files for the CRJ-200 (if gmax)...I want it in FSX! Now!

[Kiwikat]

Comparing default FSX to X-Plane is a joke, let alone FSX with addons. FSX's models, textures, and autogen are FAR superior to X Plane's.

That CRJ does look nice, but I have no doubt any good FSX developer could make something just as good if not better. :typing:

[Major_Spittle]

Yes, but currently, FSX is already tuned and filled with some high detail planes and scenery. ;) And there will be more of them.

To me the improvements Xplane could bring are not worth changing the whole platform. Not yet.

That is what keeps freezing me, I got the demo of X-Plane and it was hit and miss. Certain things were better and Certain things were horrible compared to FSX. But with X-Plane the code is evolving and getting better constantly and other than the game interface and poor ground textures I think I would like it more. So do I dump another $50 or $100 in FSX add-ons and then decide to change when X-Plane 9.x or 10 gets released and is better, but then have no money for add-ons?

I think I would enjoy the A2A 377 with Accusim better now, but in my heart I know that FSX is going to be a legacy sim in no time with X-Plane's continuing development and this project is getting me pretty curious about what is actually out there for X-Plane now. If only I were rich, and $70 didn't matter. Try a new sim and a couple add-ons, or old sim add-on? :173go1:

[some1]

in my heart I know that FSX is going to be a legacy sim in no time with X-Plane's continuing development

Depends how would you define this "in no time". For me it's 3-4 years at least, longer life than it would have with FS11 right behind the corner.

FSX won't get "old" or "legacy" just because MS discontinued the series. There are still plenty of 3rd party developers willing to work on it.

[Bone]

I have X-plane 9, but it can't compete with FSX for the time being, IMHO. The X-Plane line will commercially evolve in strides, whereas the FS line is dead and FSX will only see tweak improvements. The result being that somewhere down the road, we will all most likely migrate to X-plane (unless something better pops up).

[Major_Spittle]

Comparing default FSX to X-Plane is a joke, let alone FSX with addons. FSX's models, textures, and autogen are FAR superior to X Plane's.

That CRJ does look nice, but I have no doubt any good FSX developer could make something just as good if not better. :typing:

Do you use X-Plane 9 and know what add-ons are out there? I never knew X-Plane could have Virtual Cockpits like the ones made by the guy doing the CRJ-200 until I stumbled across his site. Wing flex and suspension looks great and I thought the X-Plane 9 models seemed to fly better when stalling and slipping/crabbing than what FSX did.

I really don't think either game is anything to write home about when it comes to graphics. Flying through clouds in FSX is horrible. Completely unrealistic an not immersive. Look outside of flight sims and see what graphics could be with smoke and fire effects, damage modeling, physics. Two words: Volumetric Smoke

FSX is graphically comparable to Grand Tourismo 3 for PS2 that was released back in 2001ish.

[Major_Spittle]

Depends how would you define this "in no time". For me it's 3-4 years at least, longer life than it would have with FS11 right behind the corner.

FSX won't get "old" or "legacy" just because MS discontinued the series. There are still plenty of 3rd party developers willing to work on it.

I don't think it will last 1-2 years because X-Plane's core code is evolving still and being taylored to todays hardware and customers wants (or could be).

FSX's code has been frozen since the release of Accelleration.

X-Plane's only competition now is a 2 year old product. I think X-Plane will soon (if not already) surpass FSX's ability to simulate flight physics and surpass its graphics.

[JT8D-9A]

Holy sh### after seeing that: http://x-plane.indexf1.hu/an2/
i'm in a serious conflict :help:

[Bone]

I've read that X-plane is used in University level Aerodynamic Engineering courses, and the U.S. Air Force chose X-Plane over MSFS for AE research. Now that MS has ditched the FS program, X-Plane is virtually guaranteed to be the ascendant flight sim program. The die-hard hold-outs will most likely use FSX for Eons, but there will be something far better in the future for those that don't mind change.

[Lionheart]

The main thing that freaks out FS guys when trying out XP9 is;

* Controls are totally different. Flaps, throttle, tuning elevator trim, landing gear, click points, panning view around a plane, panning view in VC, etc, is totally diff and requires a chart or memorization. Also, XP9 probably has 3 or 4 times more controls and options then FS. For tuning, if you start going into everything, you can access anything anywhere with what ever key strokes you wanted....


* They also have only two really good planes that match FSX technologies; the Cessna 182 and the Avanti. The rest are more like FS2002 era or earlier. But there are quite a few addons now for XP9, some payware, and a zillion are freeware.



Bill

[Lionheart]

Lion- do you know if they have any products/ability in X-Plane to model systems like A2A did with the 377 and Accusim?

I hear that Jean Luc, the famed Gauge C++ guru with Flight1 is working on a system for XP9. Other then that, I do not know if there is a 'communication link system' like FSX has for enabling an Accusim type arrangement. With that though, anything is possible. This is the future and gaming and sim technologies are increasing exponentially. Graphics cards alone have jumped up so much the past year alone...

Also, I believe Austin (CEO of XP9) will play it smart on the XP sim engine and keep it stable instead of changing things around, so thus people (devs) can continue to learn, build, grow on the platform.



Bill

[SkippyBing]

As far as I can tell the majority of people are saying X-Plane 9 has potential, which it does, but I don't see it being exploited and the things I didn't like seven years ago haven't been addressed now. Things like the UI which seems to be designed from the programming point of view rather than a users point of view. The AI which basically consists of some randomly chosen aircraft flying random circuits in the vicinity of the user aircraft as opposed to FSX where aircraft are operating to a schedule and flying IFR routes and lower level GA stuff. The ATC which apart from doing radar talkdowns is just woeful compared to FSX, which is saying something.
Now I'm not saying the capacity for improvement isn't there but it hasn't happened in the last seven years. I wouldn't like to guess at a time frame for it happening because it's essentially a one man show and if it isn't a priority for him then I can't see it happening because I doubt there are the hours in the day for him to include stuff he wants as it is.
Unless the modelling tools have massively changed I also don't think it's as easy to develop for as FSX (I actually made my first aircraft for XP7 before I even started with FS) and I don't think the flight modelling is any better, different but not better.
Personally I see FSX as a more rounded and entertaining experience than X-Plane, X-Plane may come to be as rounded as FSX but while we wait for that I'm sticking with FSX rather than getting frustrated waiting for XP to give me the experience I can get now.

[some1]

I don't think it will last 1-2 years because X-Plane's core code is evolving still and being taylored to todays hardware and customers wants (or could be).

I don't see that Xplane is being taylored to modern hardware or customer needs more than FSX, despite being released less than a year ago (version 9) and being patched ever since. In fact this is the first version that offers fully functional virual cockpits. Sure it has potential, but is also very different from FSX from developers point of view, which would make the transition from FS engine to Xplane engine rather long and quite painful.

[Boomer]

One thing I think many of you have lost sight of when comparing XP to FSX is the business model of each.

Each incarnation of FS brought improvements but they only came every 2 yrs. XP is a continually evolving sim. Each "patch" as it has been called is actually a newer version with more content & features.

I enjoy XP but prefer FSX. In time I have no doubt that XP will evolve beyound FS given its current stagnant state.

[EgoR64]

:wavey:

I Like it !! Crj-200 is lookin Sweet !!

:ernae:

[CG_1976]

I have XP installed and hate it due to deer hazards ai, Errrrrrrr. Nothing like rwy kill.

[n4gix]

I hear that Jean Luc, the famed Gauge C++ guru with Flight1 is working on a system for XP9.

Yep... He'll get that done about as fast as he's done the Airbus that was started - what? - about two years ago?

The guage system in X-Plane is a C programmer's nightmare. There's nothing remotely close to the flexibility of FS's C++/GDI+ gauge system for easy of coding... :whistle:

No multi-monitor support makes it a non-starter for me... :hand:

[d0mokun]

Theres no doubt that the screenshots of the model look excellent and that the chap has talent.

I just cant help but think though that its lost on xplane. Sorry but compare the screenshots to the in-game shots, and it looks like half the magic is lost.

One thing I really dislike about Xplane (and I have no knowledge of whether or not it can be manipulated) is the environment and render engine. It looks old by default. Everything looks dark and harsh compared to FSX, sort of like HL looks compared to HL2.

I guess there is promise in the engine and sim but I cant agree with the people that think FSX will fall over and die instantly. Theres plenty of life left in FS9 and FSX yet.

[JT8D-9A]

Holy sh### after seeing that: http://x-plane.indexf1.hu/an2/
i'm in a serious conflict :help:
Not anymore. I did install the XP 9.30 beta demo and the An-2 and i'm very disappointed.
Not many switches are working in the VC, she is a big frame hog and looks not as good as i had hoped.
Overall i'm very disappointed about the XP performance, the strange effects and the terrain.
The performance is really terrible if you consider that the terrain is not rendered on the fly and that there is no ai traffic. I was very open minded, especially after the positive reviews of Geoff (Avsim) but i'm not sure if i should invest anymore time in this Sim - at least not in V9 :(

[Major_Spittle]

Not anymore. I did install the XP 9.30 beta demo and the An-2 and i'm very disappointed.
Not many switches are working in the VC, she is a big frame hog and looks not as good as i had hoped.
Overall i'm very disappointed about the XP performance, the strange effects and the terrain.
The performance is really terrible if you consider that the terrain is not rendered on the fly and that there is no ai traffic. I was very open minded, especially after the positive reviews of Geoff (Avsim) but i'm not sure if i should invest anymore time in this Sim - at least not in V9 :(
I actually spent awhile with the demo again today and got all the controls mapped and cranked up the graphics all the way. I found it to be different graphically than FSX, but I would not call one much better or worse than the other. I did find the flight modeling to be superior to FSX and that is what got me to finally order a copy. The runways not being flat was also a very nice change.

I wonder how the X-Plane Area on this board is coming along? :wave:

[datter]

That guy has done an awesome model, but you know... nice render so that's one thing.

As for X-Plane, I tried it on a friends system some years back (ver 7 or 8?) and absolutely hated it. A few reasons for this are:


It is (was?) as ugly as hell.
It very much feels like a Mac application, and while that may float some boats it fills mine with water.
The aircraft my friend had were few, and unimpressive in as far as modeling and most everything else.
Frame rate problems galore.
Lack of focus. I seem to recall my friend showing me how to fly a plane on Mars and how to go into orbit. I want a flight sim., you know... for Earth, not a swiss army knife that does a hundred things and nothing very well.
It is (was?) as ugly as hell.

Maybe it's improved since then mind you, and who knows where it will go in the future but I'd guess it's literally years from catching up to FSX in many ways, and likely a few more to surpassing it. I wonder if the developer has those kind of legs, and even if he does... it doesn't take long for a niche to fill up when there is a clear void. If MS doesn't make a return at some point, someone else will pick up the slack. I think to maximize the demise of Aces and FS, X-Plane needed to be able to stand up now and from what I can tell, it can't... and won't be able to for quite some time.

[GT182]

I was in Game Stop the other day and X-Plane 9 is now selling for 29.99. Before Christmas it was 59.99. That says something about it I'd think.... it's not as popular as FS.

Tell me, are there patches and Service Packs like what MS had to with FSX? I don't have X-Plane so I don't need them .... just curious.

[Major_Spittle]

I was in Game Stop the other day and X-Plane 9 is now selling for 29.99. Before Christmas it was 59.99. That says something about it I'd think.... it's not as popular as FS.

Tell me, are there patches and Service Packs like what MS had to with FSX? I don't have X-Plane so I don't need them .... just curious.

It is constantly being patched. Version 9.3 is the beta now. I just paid $39 for XP9, wal-mart and gamestop sold out of them around here and I was told that the supplier no longer sells them to stores.

[JT8D-9A]

I actually spent awhile with the demo again today and got all the controls mapped and cranked up the graphics all the way. I found it to be different graphically than FSX, but I would not call one much better or worse than the other. I did find the flight modeling to be superior to FSX and that is what got me to finally order a copy. The runways not being flat was also a very nice change.

I wonder how the X-Plane Area on this board is coming along? :wave:
The legendary flight model, which is not always accurate. All depends on the work of the developer - reminds me to MSFS.
And sloped runways are also possible in MSFS. The only problem is the AI - which XP still totally lacks. And if the sloped runways are like ski jumps it's even harder for me to see the advantage.
ATM, it's a collection of cool features but there are also downsides and a lot has to be done.
Unfortunately, i don't see that XP is moving in a direction so that it will be stable and easy to develop for.
The main answer to the demands of FS user seems to be "Plugins" - how many FS user are able to write a Simconnect application or even a simple XML gauge?
Fundamental things which are easy to make in MSFS are very hard in XP (e.g. correcting airport layouts or the terrain).

[EMatheson]

That guy has done an awesome model, but you know... nice render so that's one thing.

As for X-Plane, I tried it on a friends system some years back (ver 7 or 8?) and absolutely hated it. A few reasons for this are:


It is (was?) as ugly as hell.
It very much feels like a Mac application, and while that may float some boats it fills mine with water.
The aircraft my friend had were few, and unimpressive in as far as modeling and most everything else.
Frame rate problems galore.
Lack of focus. I seem to recall my friend showing me how to fly a plane on Mars and how to go into orbit. I want a flight sim., you know... for Earth, not a swiss army knife that does a hundred things and nothing very well.
It is (was?) as ugly as hell.

Maybe it's improved since then mind you, and who knows where it will go in the future but I'd guess it's literally years from catching up to FSX in many ways, and likely a few more to surpassing it. I wonder if the developer has those kind of legs, and even if he does... it doesn't take long for a niche to fill up when there is a clear void. If MS doesn't make a return at some point, someone else will pick up the slack. I think to maximize the demise of Aces and FS, X-Plane needed to be able to stand up now and from what I can tell, it can't... and won't be able to for quite some time.

Agreed.
Is XPlane 9 any better performer than Xplane 8? On my system, just 2 months ago, the Xplane 8.5 (or thereabouts) demo would not run with much more than 10 mile visibility , next-to no autogen, no AI, and no terrain mesh detail at all! With environment settings akin to what I have mentioned and flight-model fidelity turned down low so that the sim would run faster, I still never maneaged more than about 15 FPS in XPlane 8.something.
Whereas, in FS9, I can run a high-detail aircraft with realism settings maxed and terrain settings fairly high (mesh at 70, terrain textures at high, ground and water details at high, scenery complexity maxed, autogen dense, AI at 70, and rendering options maxed in game and on card, with Ultimate Terrain and FSGenesis 38m mesh, and visibility on unlimited), with between 20 and 50 FPS (typically about 35, although some -like the VRS Superbug- will hit me down to frame-rates of 15 or so).
To summarize - Xplane 8, at minimum settings on my current machine as mentioned in my sig, default aircraft only - would only give me 15 FPS max.
FS9, nearly maxed, with some very detailed addon aircraft and scenery gives me on the same machine gives me more than twice that.

Where is the legendary XPlane performance?