My thoughts

[Wulf190]

Now this is coming from a guy who has spent maybe 30min messing around with XP, and has been using M$ flight sims for at least 9 years. I picked this up out of curiosity and to learn the program since my airport has simulators based on the Certified copy of XP.

First off, its different....

In some cases I like the options menus. Everything is right there in front of you. I always found my self hunting around flight sim's buttons menus looking for an elusive key command. With XP its a very simple list. But I do admit it got alittle frustrating trying to figure out how to configure my HAT on my X-52.

One thing I DONT like is that when you update, all your setting revert back to factory standard. Why should I have to go back and reset every key and setting agian after what should be a simple update? M$'s flight sim doesn't do that. Though I must admit, I like how XP is supported more with updates. With M$ flight sim (and combat sim) we were lucky if we got one or two updates for the program....

Sound wise so far everything seems just OK. The engine sounds seem generic, which starting out is alright. I just wonder if there are sound packs out there... Oh yeah, the background radio chatter. Thats annoying and I cut that out right away. Especialy when they are talking about New York city traffic and I'm in LA. The computerized ATC has got to go as well in future editions.

Graphics. Its no FSX, and in cases lags behind FS9. Detailed airports? I tried to take off out of my home airport, and while they got the taxiways and runways just fine, where are the buildings? At least in FS9 M$ tried to feign that they knew what the airport lookes like. (FSX finally got it, mostly, right) The Dunamic virtual cockpits arn't bad either, but nothing much in the new department. They work just fine and thats it.

As far as the world, now I'm impressed by the weather graphics, and the Mesh is top notch stuff! M$ drived me crazy. No valleys where there should be a canyon, and hills where there should be flat terrian, and the mountians don't really match like they should. In FSX that changed alot I know, but I would have thought that if 3rd part devs were doing that how many times would it take for M$ to do it as part of the package.


As far as flight sdymanics. I can see where people really praise XP. I like how the Skyhawk flies in XP versus the stocker in FS9.

Over all I'm going to have to experiment some more, but so far its interesting, and different...

[Lionheart]

Its a different sim alright..


I like it alot.. I can see its potential. Its not there yet, but I see where it can go..




Bill

[Wulf190]

Its a different sim alright..


I like it alot.. I can see its potential. Its not there yet, but I see where it can go..




Bill


I totally agree with you. One thing I do like about it is that its still a flight simulator. I'm not trying to knock (much) on what M$ was trying to do with FSX. By incorporating missions, even the music, they were trying to expand the the reach of Flight simulator to a wider audience rather then the aviation enthusiast, which is not a bad thing. But I could also see where they were less interested in it being a flight SIMULATOR and more of a flight GAME.

Another thing right now that has me buggered is the lack of freeware aircraft. Don't get me wrong, I've bought my share of freeware aircraft, but I wonder when I find that the vast majority of all current aircraft add-ons are all payware, or so it seems.

[Lionheart]

There are alot of freeware planes for it, but not with VC's and nice texture packs.. at least yet.

Figure this is also their version of our FSX. They are new to VC's and all. They have a new sim platform just like we do.



Bill

[grunau_baby]

I am still thinking of ordering X-Plane, too. Lately got a bid "used" to FSX and looking for something new.

I like the openSource aspect of this sim and the water and weather effects look great on the screenshots I´ve seen so far. The lack of airport buildings is one of the things that actually still hold me back a little.

How about the development area of the sim, did you look into that allready, Bill? Is it easier to work on than for FSX?

Alex

[Lionheart]

If you mean me (Bill unit number 4), I havent found that out yet. Still finishing up the Kodiak.

If you mean Bill unit number 2 (Mr. Womack) then I think he said its not too difficult except that scenery objects must be on one bitmap each, not 2 or more, and that he hasnt figured out how to do ground textures yet, which Plum Island will need.


For planes, they say it must use Blender or a XP9 Plane Maker program (forget the name), which has their compiler tools. Supposedly you cannot import a Gmax mesh into Blender.

But.... I do remember a year ago that Austin did say there was a way. I didnt want to ask him again, but I guess I must... I wish I would write these things down when I hear them. arrghh..

:banghead:




Bill

number 4

[txnetcop]

I'm glad to see people experimenting with X-Plane. I also see a lot of hope for future use for MSFS pilots with X-Plane. I'm not real crazy about the Kool-Aide they swallow at x-plane.org. They seem to do somersaults over everything about X-Plane and forget about "what-if we did things a different way." It would be exciting to have our MSFS devs get a handle on X-Plane and change the things that most need changing.

Unlike Wulf I find the flight dynamics really goofy, and I have 12 years experience as licensed pilot in R/L, and still go up with a friend at Arlington Muni once in while and fly his 172. I have been flying X-Plane since version 7 and this is mostly what I complain about. It seems to fall on deaf ears at Laminar Research. It feels like the aircraft is attached to an invisible surveyor's bob and just twitchy. I have used sticks and yokes and tweaked until blue in the face and still hate the feel. There are a couple of exceptions where payware guys have taken the trouble to get it right.

I do agree with most everything else you guys are finding about X-Plane and there is definitely good, fertile ground here to work from. I am especially pleased to see our "Bills" involved with this product.

I wish I had more time to fly the puter, but I am keeping abreast of what you guys are doing. Keep up the great work. I really appreciate having our own X-Plane forum... so hats off to Ickie, Canelo Kid, and Harleyman.
Ted

[harleyman]

HeHe All I'm doing is watching the big boys play....

[Wulf190]

I'v done some more mucking around, and I'll retract my feelings on the flight dynamics, particularly of the C-172. it's not bad... till you add 20 then 39degrees of flap. The nose pitches up way too much! I'd expect a nose pitch up with 10 degrees, but as you add more that creates more lift then drag. I'd never had the nose pitch up like that on any of the Sky Hawks I've flown.


...Oh well

...this is just a very different sim...

[Milton Shupe]

I'v done some more mucking around, and I'll retract my feelings on the flight dynamics, particularly of the C-172. it's not bad... till you add 20 then 39degrees of flap. The nose pitches up way too much! I'd expect a nose pitch up with 10 degrees, but as you add more that creates more lift then drag. I'd never had the nose pitch up like that on any of the Sky Hawks I've flown.


...Oh well

...this is just a very different sim...

Well, keep in mind this could be just one developer's idea of a flight model, and that hopefully those responses could be tuned to a RL response.

I sent the A-26 gmax source to a gentlemen interested in converting to X-P two weeks ago. Hopefully, we will see something from that down the road. His handle is iamfallen, last name Mitchell.

[Wulf190]

I'd like to add that adding further flap adds for DRAG than LIFT! oops on typo...:help:

[Lionheart]

Hey Milton,

Man, that would be wild! That would be about the most detailed bird in the entire XP9 world....!

I hope it goes well.


Bill