'USAF Prefers X-Plane'

[Panther_99FS]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123127059

[CodyValkyrie]

All things change with time....

I think now that MS knows what the potential of FS is, this might change.

[Panther_99FS]

this might change.

Keyword=*might*

[txnetcop]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123127059

Unfortunately the one the AirForce and Navy gets to use is not the one we all have to use at home.
Ted

[Panther_99FS]

Makes you wonder what ever happened to core sim generator that was supposed be instructional use by Microsoft ? (I forget the name of it)

[Overshoe]

Keyword=*might*

I *might* be the next Pope

[Prowler1111]

ESP and it´s VERY powerful

Prowler

[Panther_99FS]

ESP and it´s VERY powerful

Prowler

That's it...:applause:

Perhaps they were going to charge the DoD too much - hence the decision for X-Plane...:d

[CBris]

And yet one reads in that report that they add their own aircraft technology because


X-Plane software is known for its fluid graphics, realistic depiction of weather including volumetric (3-D) clouds, and attention to detail such as night-time ground lights and highway traffic. But its military aircraft performance is "low fidelity" relative to real aircraft characteristics and that's where the Air Force tailoring begins.

...just playing 'Devil's Advocate'

[jmig]

What aircraft is that? It looks to me like an early version of the F-35?

[Panther_99FS]

And yet one reads in that report that they add their own aircraft technology because



...just playing 'Devil's Advocate'

USAF could very do the same with ESP.... - However we still chose X-Plane as the "baseline"...

[JorisVandenBerghe]

What aircraft is that? It looks to me like an early version of the F-35?
I thought the F-35 wasn't using a HUD...only a JHMCS ? It's possible they used one in the early test stages on the X-variants, though.

[Prowler1111]

Just to make some of this clear:costumes:
(Not to hit on XPlane..i just bought 9 and waiting for the mailman)FSX ESP is actually FSX with ALL the tools you need to CREATE the sim you want using the FSX sim engine, weapons, complex missions, you name it, obvioulsy, you need to pay a license fee and obviously, you can´t use it to publish another sim, but it´s FSX with the instruction sheet included (and it works not just for planes, but vehicules, ships, trains...)and IMHO, the road towards FSXI..
Why the USAF chose Xplane?, well, maybe they recieved a better offer..or maybe MS didn´t know.....I still remember Airbuss winning over Boeing for the new KC contract...:173go1:

Best regards
Prowler

[Daube]

Just to make some of this clear:costumes:
(Not to hit on XPlane..i just bought 9 and waiting for the mailman)FSX ESP is actually FSX with ALL the tools you need to CREATE the sim you want using the FSX sim engine, weapons, complex missions, you name it, obvioulsy, you need to pay a license fee and obviously, you can´t use it to publish another sim, but it´s FSX with the instruction sheet included (and it works not just for planes, but vehicules, ships, trains...)and IMHO, the road towards FSXI..
Why the USAF chose Xplane?, well, maybe they recieved a better offer..or maybe MS didn´t know.....I still remember Airbuss winning over Boeing for the new KC contract...:173go1:

Best regards
Prowler

Or *maybe* because XPlane can model real physics such as correct ground contact, out of atmosphere flight and thrust vectoring without having to use an additionnal external module....

ESP is very powerfull, but it is still very limited for the physics engine.

[gera]

Big Deal.....so what???.......:isadizzy::isadizzy::isadizzy:

[JT8D-9A]

USAF could very do the same with ESP.... - However we still chose X-Plane as the "baseline"...
I don't read in your article that the USAF has compared ESP and X-Plane and has then chosen XP.
We know exactly nothing about their decision process and if they had considered ESP - ESP was announced end of 2007.

So what? If you like X-Plane, used it.

I want all what i can now do with FSX.
I don't want to buy 50 versions of X-Plane to come closer to the functionality and possibilities of FSX. But that's only my view.:wavey:

BTW, Here is an interesting article about ESP: click (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsoft-esp-showcases-future-immersive/story.aspx?guid=%7BD04C7BC4-4F0B-4088-ACCF-F35E6D395504%7D)

[CodyValkyrie]

Probably the main reason they used X-Plane was because there was no need to change horses. If it worked for everyone else, why wouldn't it work for them as well? We all know that FSX could accomplish the same thing. Since this is a baseline simulator, it isn't so much about physics probably and simply more about getting procedures and basic flight training down and perhaps some failures.

*shrugs*

As I said, I strongly feel that ESP will produce military contracts. All the marketing behind Microsoft's product leads me to believe that eventually the system will be used in one form or another. I would also think that from a development standpoint, it would serve the military better to utilize the same platform.

Since Panther posted this in the FSX forum, I see no reason not to compare FSX to X-Plane.

[tkyler]

A fundamental misconception about x-plane and MSFS is that too many people think the sim dictates the accuracy of any particular aircraft. A good 95% of flight simmers are probably interested in just plain ol' fun and mental relaxation, to which I say, pick whatever makes you happy.

BUT....aircraft modeling is both an art and a science, garbage in / garbage out. I've heard this mentioned many times, but people just seem to ignore it because then they can't argue as much if they actually tried to comprehend it.

Let's take an example from the world of finite element analysis. There are certain "elements" (read "computer algorithm") that can calculate certain thing. An element may be able to process rotational forces, some elements may not. If an "author" of a model doesn't use the right element, he will not be representing the model adequately, and consequently, if the author of the program has not included an element of the proper type necessary to model the system, then the simulation simply will not be accurate.

X-Plane provides "elements" or algorithms that empower the aircraft designer to attain greater accuracy in a simulation of the aircraft....a bigger tool set per se....IF the aircraft designer / modeler knows what he's doing.

Because the bulk of simmers are "hobbyists", engaging in such armchair technical jargon, such rhetoric is pretty much soundwaves to the wind in my opinion.

I'm an engineer, partial to x-plane, old enough to begin using flight sims in the early 80s when it was brought out by SubLogic. Using my education and experience, I can attain a more accurate model in x-plane than I can in MSFS.


We know exactly nothing about their decision process and if they had considered ESP - ESP was announced end of 2007.

Now you do...My neighbor is a PhD cognitive psychologist (i.e. the "behavior scientists" mentioned) for the Air Force here in San Antonio, who's job it is to evaluate systems and procedures for training and maximum mental comprehension. We discussed using x-plane and/or MSFS for evaluation by his department over two years ago.

Most people here aren't even qualified to discuss cognitive processing and whether or not a particular simulation can maximum a particular skill, most just know "hey, I like this"...not good enough for the Air Force.


We all know that FSX could accomplish the same thing. Since this is a baseline simulator, it isn't so much about physics probably and simply more about getting procedures and basic flight training down and perhaps some failures.

In THIS particular case, the cognitive recognition that was begin evaluated was the brain's relation and interpretation of aircraft performance relative to visual spatial inputs (very much about physics). X-Plane's models, when properly developed, were more consistent with pilot experiences in the cockpit.

So in discussion "what's real", it's important to focus in on just what cognitive process is being stimulated. Want to simulate mental dexterity during airport ops and flying in traffic? Don't look to x-plane! Want to simulate the visual cornucopia seen around airports? Don't look to x-plane! Want to best simulate the way an aircraft handles and performs, Don't look to MSFS. For procedures and failure modeling, both sims are fine.

X-Plane's SDK is also C++ based, which gives further access to flight model control, allowing one to really customize performance.

There is no "x-plane" vs. "MSFS" argument as to which is best. We all have different mental processes and perceptions and one or the other will appeal to us; however, if flight model fidelity is sought, x-plane is the better choice when evaluated from a technical viewpoint". It's my contention that too many x-plane authors out there make junk flight models, thereby causing many to think x-plane is a junk simulator.

[CodyValkyrie]

There are interesting ways around the physics problems in MSFS too. For example, I heard at FANCON test trials were utilizing FSX and ignoring the in game physics by using slew mode and having another computer calculate the physics. If this is true, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be, then the physics system in FSX could be completely worked around... essentially using it as a shell platform to portray graphics and an environment while allowing a computer (or a set of them) to deal with the real calculations of aerodynamics.

There was buzz of this at FANCON, and that was back in 07, over a year ago. If this has any quantative (forgive my spelling if I got anything wrong) substance, then you could simulate many of the flight envelopes that both sims do not handle well using a built from the ground up platform. Knife edges, stalls, and pretty much anything you can imagine. All you need it an output through the slew mode for FS to give a visual feedback. I would assume ESP allows much higher control of this, or even offers a better overall approach to accomplishing this.

Food for thought anyhow...

[IanP]

Even more so that that, Cody, look at the gauges a certain "RCB" has produced for VTOL aircraft - coding an entire new flight model into a gauge, which can be switched in and out within MSFS at will (or, well, by extending the flaps...)

There is definitely no "better" sim between X-Plane and MSFS - they're just different. I have a lot of problems with even the default aircraft in X-Plane, but the sheer fact that it is used to "flight test" real designs before building them shows the capabilities of it. I have my own issues with it, as I have previously discussed, but the two are not directly competitive for simmers, I'd say.

Ian P.

[Lionheart]

X-Plane has weapons and bombs capability.


I think that is bottom line.



MSFS is GA based. X-Planes includes weapons, VTOL, space travel, rockets, even other planets. War planes are only part of the package.

Funny how this comes up. I was just flying in XP9 last night. Tried a demo of 'Arizona' photo real scenery. The demo is Scottsdale. THE ENTIRE STATE!!!! lol.. pretty cool. I will be getting that.

I noticed at the XP9 website in the addons department, that they have 2,500 (approximately) aircraft downloads on 1946 and later, civilian planes (small) alone... Many categories. Now these are more 'basic' then MSFS. We have been spoiled. The models can look very antiquated. But you have autogen, clouds, cloud shading, interactive tools for visualizing flight model performance and flight plan interaction (training for doing patterns), etc.


Bill

[CodyValkyrie]

The omission of weapons systems simulation and ease of access with the engine without resorting to 3rd party coding is something that FSX severely lacks. Whether or not this pertains to ESP is to me unknown. I always felt that this was one of the biggest limiting factors to FS.

Could you imagine the combat simulation payware companies those existing or new that would crop up if FS allowed weapons systems? Microsoft wouldn't have to build a new combat simulator.. the community itself would provide one!

I have always wondered why FS cannot be all things to flight... not just GA.

Some teams out there have done their best to work around it. VRS Superbug to note.

[Lionheart]

I agree with Ian on the modularity of MSFS. That has always impressed me, but FS does have alot of hard coded (hard wired, unchangeable aspects or barriers) that cannot be crossed. With the military, its weapons they need, and the FSX platform doesnt account or allow for that.



Concerning ESP, many aerospace sector designers have purchased 3DS Max for exporting models to ESP only to find that it doesnt work with the ESP SDK. Max version 9 does, but Max is up to version 11 now, so alot of these guys have no way to take their work that is in engineer programs such as Pro Engineer, FormZ, etc, migrate them to Max, and export into ESP. They need proper model compilers that work with their versions of Max. But thats a diff story altogether. (There are ways to get models from various programs to Max, and to export to FSX ESP, but a large bulk of these guys dont know where to start. They also have to negotiate with Autodesk to get a older version (9) of Max to work with FSX, and that was at first not possible.


Bill

[CodyValkyrie]

I think if a bit more care were injected into FSX and the ACES team with regards to the commercial applications of FSX, it could literally sweep the market both in military/government contracts but also commercially in the private sector.

If we were allowed more backdoor use and had better SDK functions with reference to newer pieces of software such as Max 11, then FSX could as I suggested be everything to everyone.

I believe from my conversations with some of the guys at ACES that they are now realizing FS to be more of an operating system on which developers can build upon. If this is the case, than FS11 and the future of FS is secure as it becomes VERY commercially viable and with less limited scope than the GA croud of simulation enthusiasts.

The future of FS will be VERY interesting indeed to watch. We are just now tapping into what is possible. As you suggested however Bill, the engine itself has hard set barriers. If those barriers are removed, whole new markets could spring up. Just as people utilize the Unreal engine to build games, the FS engine could be built to do just about anything... including for example tank simulators, ship simulations, advanced military simulations, car simulations... etc etc etc. A whole new world and market of gameplay for consumers as well as governments could be built almost overnight. I would think that many of the large addon developers would also take leads in roles moving into this sector.

If FS was less out of the hand of a small team and broadened as an engine overall, we could see some very drastic and sweeping changes. Guys like you and me Bill could make some SERIOUS cash doing what we do. The impact to the FS enthusiasts could be very dramatic however...

[Lionheart]

The future of FS will be VERY interesting indeed to watch. We are just now tapping into what is possible. As you suggested however Bill, the engine itself has hard set barriers. If those barriers are removed, whole new markets could spring up. Just as people utilize the Unreal engine to build games, the FS engine could be built to do just about anything... including for example tank simulators, ship simulations, advanced military simulations, car simulations... etc etc etc. A whole new world and market of gameplay for consumers as well as governments could be built almost overnight.

CodyValkyrie



Yep.. And the key word here is 'world'. Well, 'barriers' also. An entire planet or world in VR with no barriers.



To point out the possibilities; I had dreamed of being able to get out of the plane (like with that program where you can walk around your plane). But in my idea, you could disembark a plane, walk away from it, and check out a territory, or say an terminal that is modelled in the 'inside'. Then you could walk up to a plane or a car or a tank for that matter (boats included) and now you are accessed or linked to that new vehicle platform. So, you could land, walk accross the tarmac to the terminal, go through it to the car park / parking lot, get in a car, take the highway to a location, etc. With roads all becoming actual locations, you could find yourself driving around on a highway in downtown Milan at 5PM, making your way to the Colliseum in your SmartCar, then back to the airport, board your Airliner, and back to London / Heathrow.


So much you could do...

The roads and terrain though for ground level 'action' would in my humble opinion need a new LOD that is high detail, activated when you are about to touch down. For instance, roads could be much better in detail, then go to low grade resolution as soon as you are say 20 or 40 feet up, etc. (Ultra close, high rez LOD's). This way, frame rates stay high up and fluid when in flight, with the high rez objects auto-hiding or degrading to low rez. (Sort of like the FS9 highway signs that appear when you are at very low altitude).


Bill

[CodyValkyrie]

Or even simpler, the LOD could switch in when you leave that particular craft... although I am sure the load times would be attrocious lol!

I'm going to build a program that interacts with multiple games. I land in some place in Africa and the program I build loads up Far Cry 2. LOL, maybe not, but you get my point. Perhaps I land in New York and it loads up Grand Theft Auto? ROFL... Ok, now I am being silly.

You get my point though Bill. I'm sure everyone else however has zoned out at this point.

[warbird861]

Let me just brake this dialogue.

[JT8D-9A]

Now you do...My neighbor is a PhD cognitive psychologist (i.e. the ..
Do you mean that seriously?

[jmig]

A fundamental misconception about x-plane and MSFS is that too many people think the sim dictates the accuracy of any particular aircraft. A good 95% of flight simmers are probably interested in just plain ol' fun and mental relaxation, to which I say, pick whatever makes you happy...
(edited for brievry) <--screw it, I am tired of trying to spell the word
It's my contention that too many x-plane authors out there make junk flight models, thereby causing many to think x-plane is a junk simulator.

That was an interesting post you made. Welcome to SOH. I hope you stick around. We could learn from you.

[tkyler]

thank you for the kind words.


Do you mean that seriously?

Yes I do. A certain Dr. Ashworth, PhD from Yale in Cognitive psychology is a good friend and neighbor. Some deft googling will even put us in the same neighborhood :-). Dr. Ashworth works for a research department based here in San Antonio for the Air Force.

Dr. Ashworth's job is to evaluate cognitive performance under a variety of conditions and based on the research, devise/recommend training methods or procedures useful to armed forces. I should really clarify and say he heads up the group that does so and does less of the grunt work himself now.

I basically BBQ, drink beer and smoke cigars with him while talking psychology. One of the few people who understands the brain such that you'll rarely find him discussing superlatives like "best" or "better" when it comes to people because we're all just wired so different.

He knew I developed for x-plane and mentioned that he was evaluating the effectiveness of COTS software. I mentioned both x-plane and MSFS, told him what I thought and he worked it into his research. I never followed up though...can't say the government moves particularly fast.


That was an interesting post you made. Welcome to SOH. I hope you stick around. We could learn from you.

Thanks again. Though I sit on the x-plane side of the flight sim fence for a majority of my sim time now, I routinely have to listen to constant x-plane vs. MSFS banter on x-plane forums...can't say I like to hear it there. People are so vastly different in what they enjoy from a sim that you just can't say one is better for someone else when you're dealing with an immeasurable element like "enjoyment".

I will say that x-plane is pretty much mis-understood by non-users. The author of x-plane is relatively "infamous" for his lack of information. This lack of information leads to real quick and unjustified judgments about it's abilities. I try to clarify those to folks without telling them that x-plane is best for them, because it may not be.

For me, I like to simulate IFR flight mostly...smooth gauges and subtle weather / lighting effects are my visual interface and x-plane fits the bill here. I don't care if there's not much scenery because I'm in the clouds anyhow. If I wanted to simulate airline or ATC activity, or VFR flight with lots to see, then I definitely don't look to x-plane.

It'd be nice of more information was available about the x-plane process.

[Lionheart]

TKyler,

You say you develope things for XP9. I was wondering what you use to export / compile models into XP? Also, do you think its possible to export models from Gmax?

Also, can one adjust the inertial movements of aircraft? For instance, the 172 rolls very stiffly. Can it be adjusted to move more fluid like? Another words, is it possible to adjust the planes handling characteristics? or is that all governed by the sim engine?

And.... Welcome to the Sim Outhouse.

:ernae:

Bill

[Panther_99FS]

I don't read in your article that the USAF has compared ESP and X-Plane and has then chosen XP.


I never said that it did.

The ESP part/insertion was me only....:mixedsmi:

[tkyler]

You say you develope things for XP9. I was wondering what you use to export / compile models into XP? Also, do you think its possible to export models from Gmax?

I like typing and talking....so bear with me :-)

One area of confusion for x-plane is the flight model vs. the visual model. X-Plane comes with a program called "plane-maker" as you probably know. This program is what is typically known as a "pre-processor" in computer modeling lingo. You define the aircraft characteristics in "plane-maker" It just so happens that this is done be creating a shape that is similar to the real aircraft. The shape is somewhat simplified for real-time calculation purposes. Some of these shapes are used in the real-time calculation of flight performance and some shapes you add in plane-maker are visual only for eye candy reasons.

This paradigm goes back to the very beginnings of x-plane. Therefore, if you wanted an aircraft "onscreen" that looked like the real aircraft, you actually textured the physical model used for the flight model calculations.

The problem with this is that there is a finite number of polygons that can be used for physics calculations. If you increased the number of physics polygons too high, then the sim would slow to a crawl. That means that the finished visual model seen onscreen was ALWAYS low-poly.

The x-plane developers then developed a proprietary 3D format called *.obj. A bad choice of extension obviously because Alias Wavefront also shares the *.obj extension. Folks were trying to export *.obj out of popular 3D programs and couldn't get them into x-plane.

Well the *.obj format is officially supported on two 3D platforms. Blender 3D and AC3D. AC3D is low-cost payware and Blender 3D is free. Blender is ridiculously powerful but tough to learn, this is what I use myself.

With the ability to create visual models in a 3D program like blender, x-plane has the option to render the physics based meshed invisible and allows a proxy 3D object/s to be the visual model. This allows an F-15 to look like a Volkswagen Van. Before Obj 8, that was impossible. Make a plane that looked like a van, it'd fly like a van. But now you can attach high fidelity 3D shapes to the base physics shapes in plane-maker.

So finally to the issue of GMax. The trick is getting the model from GMax to some format that Blender or AC3D imports. There's a few Studio Max scripts out there, but they're not quite mature. Because I started with Blender, I don't have a easy answer for you. There is a developer named "Japo3D" that I believe uses GMax..but it might be studio max. If you can get your models to 3DS format, then getting them into Blender should be a no-brainer. It's a heck of a dance though and one thing that keeps x-plane development down. X-Plane has the base infrastructure and architecture to match anything in the MSFS world visually and animatically, but the tech is relatively new...so what you have is a vast "west" expansion with few pioneers to venture into the abyss and do development to attract others.

I hope to change that, my first product coming out in a week.



Also, can one adjust the inertial movements of aircraft? For instance, the 172 rolls very stiffly. Can it be adjusted to move more fluid like? Another words, is it possible to adjust the planes handling characteristics? or is that all governed by the sim engine?

Definitely one of my pet peeves. Yes it can be adjusted. X-plane will, based on the Cg of things like fuel tanks, center of lift and center of gravity, calculate the moments of inertia about pitch, roll and yaw. You can move the Cg of the wing tanks outward in order to slow and smooth roll movement. Lots of developers will just enter the max fuel value in the "fuel load" dialog and not bother to specify the outboard location of wing tanks. This has a HUGE effect on roll feel. The Cg setting also has a forward / middle/ aft range. Adjusting those values will cause the pitch intertia to change.

And when you finally can't get it quite right...and in the case of my own work, you can select a checkbox to override x-plane's intertia settings entirely and enter your own intertia values for pitch, roll and yaw. This is the ultimate way to gain control of the "feel" of your aircraft. My aircraft has one of the heaviest roll action in it's class and I had to really bump the roll intertia a bit to get it to feel realistic (yes I fly in the real thing.)

The sim uses very well proven algorithms for calculating forces on an aircraft, but you need to have a decent understanding of physics to get the most out of them. If an airplane doesn't "feel" right, it most assuredly can be quickly adjusted in plane-maker. Close x-plane, open plane-maker, change a value, save, close, relaunch x-plane. In the "tweaking" stage, I do this all the time.

For the 172..if you're talking the default one...the first thing I'd do to change the roll performance is play with the location of the fuel tanks in the wings. Move them in or out.

If that doesn't fly, then you can set the moment of interia values manually. This is a bit tricky because x-plane give no hint (in planemaker anyhow) of what these values are. Calculating true moment of inertia is out of the question for such a shape....BUT x-plane outputs a text file log during startup that gives you ALL the fixed parameters that govern the plane...even as far as the pitch of the prop every few inches along the blade.

Well among these values are the moments of intertia that x-plane has calculated. You could copy these values down, then in plane-maker, enter the same values for the pitch and yaw, but then enter a higher value for the roll. Launch x-plane and retest until you get the feel just right.

For dabbler's it's great fun. For more "I want to fly" oriented individuals, this would probably be a chore.

hope that helps...sorry for the long wind! I love talking about this stuff.

[n4gix]

Even more so that that, Cody, look at the gauges a certain "RCB" has produced for VTOL aircraft - coding an entire new flight model into a gauge, which can be switched in and out within MSFS at will (or, well, by extending the flaps...)

ESP allows developers to drive the sim via external applications directly, without having to use "Slew Mode" as was necessary in FS9 (and earlier versions.).

"- A demonstration produced by the School of Engineering Sciences at the University of Southampton, United Kingdom, made using Microsoft ESP and Windows HPC Server 2008, showing a helicopter landing on a moving ship. A white paper, "Real-Time Computational Fluid Dynamics for Flight Simulation," describing the process used by the scientists has been published by the I/ITSEC conference."

I've been involved with ESP since before it became public, and having seen what's coming up soon in ESPv2.0 it's going to be revolutionary across the board... :applause:

[Lionheart]

Thanks TKyler for that invaluable bit of information.

I'll look around for Japo for info on exporting to XP9.

I was afraid that the airfiles for a plane in XP9 were more hard coded to the actual model. I didnt know that they can now do 'VW Vans'. That is very good to know. :d

I have such a blast with Gmax. I can practically sketch airplanes in 3D in it. I would hate to have to change over to another 3D design program, unless it was for 3DS Max.

Thanks again for the info.

What kind of plane are you doing, if I may ask?



Bill

[tkyler]

It's a Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise.

Just to clarify...the process of creating aircraft for x-plane involves

1.) Creating the physics based model in plane-maker...the only way to do it...ALL performance / shape modeling is done in this application.

2.) Option 1: Texture this physics based model (it will be low poly and the UV layout is somewhat "fixed") OR

3.) Create a 3D model in some 3D program, tell x-plane to make the physics shapes invisible and add / place these 3D objects over the physics model in plane-maker.

Note that there exists a basic set of animation commands within the object specification to animate things like Virtual Cockpits; however, the process is "embedded" within the native AC3D and Blender toolset. So if you modeled in GMax, you'd have to move your model over to Blender or AC3D to animate it. A definite pain, but once learned, it's not bad.

[Rimshot]

Yawn...

Darn, wrong thread :wavey:

[robby88]

It's going to be interesting to see how all this shapes out.

MS have recently announced some of the features of ESP 2.0 which will feature ground vehicle simulation. It appears to have strong military applicability, both in the air and the ground. There's certainly some interesting solutions under development.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/dec08/12-02MSESPPR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases

The new MS ESP page looks cool too.

http://www.microsoft.com/esp/

I think in the long term esp might be the more robust platform.

[N2056]

Hey Rob!
Good to see you back :wavey:

[Lionheart]

Hey Rob,

Thanks for the heads up on that.

I hope all is well.



Thanks TKyler.

I will certainly be looking into this.


Bill

[Helldiver]

X-Plane was developed around Flight Dynamcs.
Microsoft built their Flight Simulators around the Visual elements, both Aircraft and Scenery.
Since the Air Force is vitally concerned how accurate the plane flys and not so concerned if all the rivets are there, they'll settle for X-Plane.
Of course Aces stating that the next Flight Simulator wll have absolutely no backwards compatibilty, just might have something to do with it.
Again, like in Vista and Windows 7, Microsoft is bent on shooting it's foot off.

[txnetcop]

Your bitterness toward Microsoft is showing again, Amigo. I don't know what the problem is this time Bob, but you need to research before you go jump off a cliff. I like X-Plane 9.21 better than I did version 8 but you need to understand Bob that the version the Air Force and Navy use is not the X-Plane you can buy for $39.95. It is a highly specialized version, but even with that X-Plane being better than FS is a myth anyway. Let's reserve judgement on FS11 until FS11 is here. I think you may be pleasantly surprised if you give it half a chance. If you have tried Windows7 Beta you will see that Microsoft is listening and they just proved it in a new OS that is pretty neat.
Hang tough I think things will get remarkable better
Ted

http://www.simpilotnet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=9

[Drake]

Plus I don't believe the government is using Windows Vista from what I've heard. They stayed with XP.

[tigisfat]

Plus I don't believe the government is using Windows Vista from what I've heard. They stayed with XP.

We're using Vista on super slow computers at least in the AF. I love vista at home on my dual core processor, but hate it on a pentium III.

[tigisfat]

I read the article this whole thread is discussing, and it drove me nuts to see the phrase 'low-fidelity' used in such a manner. Does it bug anyone else when people try too hard to sound smart? An intelligent and educated gentleman can and will use common words to get a point across clearly. You're only hurting your original intent if you use abstract words so far out of context that they're just wrong....

:173go1:

[Lionheart]

X-Plane was developed around Flight Dynamcs.
Microsoft built their Flight Simulators around the Visual elements, both Aircraft and Scenery.
Since the Air Force is vitally concerned how accurate the plane flys and not so concerned if all the rivets are there, they'll settle for X-Plane.
Of course Aces stating that the next Flight Simulator wll have absolutely no backwards compatibilty, just might have something to do with it.
Again, like in Vista and Windows 7, Microsoft is bent on shooting it's foot off.


HD,

I see your point.

Perhaps if a company quit reinventing the wheel, and worked on polishing up the existing one...

But.. What do I know. ;)



Bill

[krazycolin]

As far as I know, and being an ESP developer as well as an FSX developer, FS11 will be 100% backwards compatible with FSX.

That said, even ESP is compatible with FSX...

[SkippyBing]

Again, like in Vista and Windows 7, Microsoft is bent on shooting it's foot off.

I'm using the Win 7 Beta as I type this and so far I'm loving it over XP on exactly the same rig. FSX seems to run at pretty much the same frame rates, possibly smoother if I turn on DX10, and even loads quicker. I'm really only keeping XP on the system as I don't want to loose everything when the Beta expires so development et.c I stick to XP.


Of course Aces stating that the next Flight Simulator wll have absolutely no backwards compatibilty, just might have something to do with it.

Nopt sure where you've seen that, I've seen ACES state that there will be compatibility for aircraft models at least, bear in mind they probably haven't started coding it yet I think it's a bit early to make such calls. I'm also of the opinion they shouldn't restrict what they can do in FS11 by commiting themselves to backwards compatibility which would eat into the resources available to work on other aspects of the sim, like ATC with an IQ above room temperature...

[kilo delta]

From what i've heard , FSXI will be backwards compatible with FSX native addons (as in compiled with the fsx sdk). I haven't tried the beta Windows 7 yet (might throw it on a spare hdd and test it at a later stage), but I think that it may be a little early to be speculating on it's performance just yet.....at least until the full retail product has been developed. :)

[IanP]

The "end of backwards compatibility" statement for FSXI was made - but it was specifically the fact that FSX still contains code that dates back to FS95, particularly in gauges. I believe that the exact statement made was that FSXI would only be backwards compatible with FSX SDK add-ons, so don't expect the PMDG MD-11 for FSX, or Accu-Sim, to work straight off with FSXI. The visual models probably will, though (subject to confirmation, yadda, yadda, yadda...)

[SkippyBing]

I haven't tried the beta Windows 7 yet (might throw it on a spare hdd and test it at a later stage), but I think that it may be a little early to be speculating on it's performance just yet.....at least until the full retail product has been developed. :)

Fair one, I've heard conflicting reports on the exact status of the current 7 beta, although most seem to think nothing much is going to be added more that things that cause problems might be fixed! Certainly if the 7 beta is the equivalent of the FSX beta it's looking promising!

[harleyman]

Well to change the topic back to where it started...I got X-Plane 9 for Christmas and have not made up my mind to open and install or not..

I want to see it,but fear that it will become a 45 dollar backseat to my favorite sim....

What do you all think?

[Helldiver]

Ted, Well old Amigo, I'm not talking off the top of my head. You look at Windows differently from a business. They use 85% of all computer use.
Used PCs are being bought not for for the hardware but just because companies want to get their hands on a copy of Windows XP. Many consumers and businesses prefer used PCs loaded with XP because they have a lot of machinery and applications that won't run on Windows Vista.
In one company I know they have two IR Spectrometers and one basic Spectrometer and a Tensile Test machine plus an Electron Microscope that will only run on XP. To convert, it would have cost them $80,000 on software, not to mention down time while operators get trained.
The other reason people are staying with XP for standardization. You can't have five computers on XP and five on Vista. They create training issues and compatibilty issues. Buying a used PC is a cheap way of getting a XP license. The other altenative would be to buy a business class computer with Vista and then downgrade it to Windows XP, which can be expensive.
So you see that a radical change in an operating system can cause havoc with business. Thats one shot in the foot for Microsoft.
I just read on a Aces blog that the new Flight Simulator would not be backwards compatible. That's the second shot in the foot for Microsoft.

[txnetcop]

Ted, Well old Amigo, I'm not talking off the top of my head. You look at Windows differently from a business. They use 85% of all computer use.
Used PCs are being bought not for for the hardware but just because companies want to get their hands on a copy of Windows XP. Many consumers and businesses prefer used PCs loaded with XP because they have a lot of machinery and applications that won't run on Windows Vista.
In one company I know they have two IR Spectrometers and one basic Spectrometer and a Tensile Test machine plus an Electron Microscope that will only run on XP. To convert, it would have cost them $80,000 on software, not to mention down time while operators get trained.
The other reason people are staying with XP for standardization. You can't have five computers on XP and five on Vista. They create training issues and compatibilty issues. Buying a used PC is a cheap way of getting a XP license. The other altenative would be to buy a business class computer with Vista and then downgrade it to Windows XP, which can be expensive.
So you see that a radical change in an operating system can cause havoc with business. Thats one shot in the foot for Microsoft.
I just read on a Aces blog that the new Flight Simulator would not be backwards compatible. That's the second shot in the foot for Microsoft.

Here we go again old Amigo. I can't tell you how I know you are wrong, but you are wrong. SimObjects can be easily transitioned into the new sim. I also have X-Plane 9.21and like some of it and I can tell you from experience that there are planes and scenery from X-Plane 8 that do not work in version 9.21. So are we supposed to remain stagnant just because you're unhappy with new development?

I assure that Austin Meyer at Laminar Research is not going to keep building his sim the same way it is now for the sake of compatibility anymore than Microsoft will as new technologies emerge. However, the neat part about all of this is we can pick and choose what we like and what we fly according to what we have on hand to use. FS9 is still a very viable alternative and will remain so for some time to come. FSX is more playable now as new technology becomes more affordable. It has always been that way Helldiver. I honestly understand why you don't remember how the transitions to each flight simulator has been this way.

BTW FSX plays just fine on the new beta without any hitches. I am sure we will be leaving some things behind as technology in operatings system become more sophisticated-that's fine with me and most people. I just used the touch screen this last weekend to activate switches on some of my aircraft panel from the VC I thought that was pretty cool.

Ted

[SkippyBing]

I just used the touch screen this last weekend to activate switches on some of my aircraft panel from the VC I thought that was pretty cool.


Not jealous, much! Now where can I get a touch screen...

[gera]

Well to change the topic back to where it started...I got X-Plane 9 for Christmas and have not made up my mind to open and install or not..

I want to see it,but fear that it will become a 45 dollar backseat to my favorite sim....

What do you all think?

I have X-Plane 9 and think its real nice. It is totally different than FSX but once yu get used to it , its just fine. They have some lousy airplanes, like FSX, and some that are real beauties...............go ahead, install the thing. I would suggest you don´t install the whole 60Gig of scenery though, just the ones you will be flying at the start............have fun the water is great!:wave:

[PhilTaylor]

I just read on a Aces blog that the new Flight Simulator would not be backwards compatible. That's the second shot in the foot for Microsoft.

Lets stop fearmongering about FS11 and back-compat.

The definitive quote is here
http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/10/02/acceleration-and-sp2.aspx

Which states:
The first is to send a message that we are going to change the backwards compatibility story moving forwards.

Note I don't specifically state what the plan is, just that there will be a change.

As others have noted, the place where backwards compatability starts is with the FSX SDK.

If an add-on was compiled using the FSX Acceleration or SP2 SDK, it is *very likely* that it will be compatible.

If an add-on was not compiled using the FSX Acceleration or SP2 SDK, it is *very likely* that it will not be compatible.

That is the best explanation anyone is going to get until the FS team releases an FS11 beta, which is quite a ways off.

http://wing-fell-off.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-is-true-fsx-aircraft-part-1-some.html is another good post that discusses this from a developers perspective. Developers have had plenty of time to adjust. Those that do, will continue to provide quality add-ons with a long shelf-life to their customers.

[gera]

So what if the USAF uses it.......the Israeli AF is better!!!!!!!:amen:

[gera]

Hey Phil....I thought you were off to Timbaktu or something???:173go1:

[Lionheart]

Well to change the topic back to where it started...I got X-Plane 9 for Christmas and have not made up my mind to open and install or not..

I want to see it,but fear that it will become a 45 dollar backseat to my favorite sim....

What do you all think?



Hey Mason,


First, to prep you on XP9, note, that its keyboard controls will be totally different. Second, setting it up is at first glance 'complicated', but once you learn the system of where the list is for activating or changing keyboard controls, you are set to go.

When I would transition between CFS and FS, the hard part was always the keyboard. That was the primary reason I just didnt fly CFS enough was remembering all the diff keyboard commands. (FS seems to have logical letters applied to controls, and CFS has what I would call random key assignments, so memorizing them was difficult).

With that said, I think that the keyboard will be the deterrent with XP9 for you. You will want to adjust the Mixture, lower the flaps a notch, go to 2D panel view, zoom out in VC view, go to top down view, and not know where in the heck those keys are. Also, some will not be activated, (not on the keyboard layout list), so you will need to activate them.


This, for me, is the biggest hurtle on XP9. People that have never flown FS have never had to deal with the change in keyboards, so they fly it with absolutely no complaints whatsoever, while FS guys get on it, (install it) and find that cant control anything, throw their hands in the air, and write it off, taking it back off their hard drives.

So, that will be the one thing that you need to brace for is the keyboard and controls for XP9.

The Cessna 182 and Avanti Turboprop are the nicest planes in there. The rest arent that great. But there are some awesome payware and freeware planes available for it now. The Super Cub is brilliant, and they now have an awesome Mu-2 Mitsubishi available also.

The terrain seems far more real then FSX, and you have things like clouds casting shadows, brilliant water effects, and amazing autogen.

At airports like Innsbruck, you have extreme detail at airports (when the detail settings are cranked up). Details such as parked cars, picknick tables, trees, fences, ground equipment, static aircraft.



Lastly, the ATC isnt really 'realistic'. Its there, but its 'electronic voice' and rather archaic. They need to take a week or two and convert their electronic voices to people recordings like FS did.


That aside, its like CFS and FS, an entirely new, different sim. A change of pace, a different kind of car to drive, something fresh and different. It is behind the times in a few things, and more advanced in other things. Its flexibility and simplicity are like big open doors for developers.



Bill

[harleyman]

Thanks for that Lionheart...........
:ernae: UGH...new key Commands? LOL I've just conquered these after years.....:help:


And thanks for your corrections Phil..it is good to see you out and about .... Hoping things are good for you sir....:wavey:

[FLighT01]

Lionhearts got it right. My experience is the same, I'm so ingrained in the MS FS keyboarding that was the biggest stumbling block for me with X-Plane and the fact that I've got my yokes, sticks, rudder pedals and throttles memorized cold so I don't spend much time looking around for "how do I do this". It definitely looks different too, couldn't decide if I liked it better or not, but it was not bad, just different. Not sure if X-Plane is as happy running at the 1900 X 1200 resolution I like either.

If I had more than a few hours a week to devote to the flight simming in general I'd probably get more focused on X-Plane. If I live long enough to retire, (Pretty much not gonna' happen any time soon as I look at the recent events in our economy and the probability of a long wait before things start reversing let alone getting back to where they were in the middle of last year. And I'm not getting any younger, running out of time.) I may get into exploring it more.

If you have it, load it and see if you like it. The Cessna is okay. Remember, you need to have the Disc 1 (I think) in the drawer to boot it up.

[harleyman]

The thing is I can now return it and spend the money on my fav sim...LOL

Decissions...Decissions.....:wave:

[FLighT01]

The thing is I can now return it and spend the money on my fav sim...LOL

Decissions...Decissions.....:wave:


I notice on the X-Plane site the price is going up / back from $40 to $60.

You might want to hold on then sell on e-bay for $50!!!

Course, in a couple years could be a collectible if unopened packaging.

Could be!

[Helldiver]

For validaton of what I told my Amigo, look at page 20 of PC Worlds current magazine and read the Gartner study and titled "Used PCs Sought for Copies of Windows XP'.

[SkippyBing]

The one thing I've learnt from reading articles in the press about things I know about is that journalists seldom know what they're talking about.

Of course my organisation is buying PCs with XP as part of it's current IT upgrade, and you can bet they aren't buying second hand computers to get the licenses. If only because that's probably cheaper....

[txnetcop]

For validaton of what I told my Amigo, look at page 20 of PC Worlds current magazine and read the Gartner study and titled "Used PCs Sought for Copies of Windows XP'.

Bob you have had validation from Phil, and there are other Microsoft sources that could be quoted, that should be the end this stupid argument.
Ted

[Lionheart]

For validaton of what I told my Amigo, look at page 20 of PC Worlds current magazine and read the Gartner study and titled "Used PCs Sought for Copies of Windows XP'.


I'll tell yah what. If I see XP CD's for sale, even scratched, I will purchase them. I have purchased 2 new XP Media Center packs in the past year so far.

XP on todays new computers runs like exotic rocket fuel.


Could you imagine if XP could be run with 8 to 12 gigs of Ram? A new XP? lol... Freaking powerful.... (excuse my French).

<--- imagines XP having a CFG file where you could add a line; 'max_ram=48 gigs' :d






Bill

[txnetcop]

For validaton of what I told my Amigo, look at page 20 of PC Worlds current magazine and read the Gartner study and titled "Used PCs Sought for Copies of Windows XP'.

Since Windows 7 is only a beta release Bob, this argument is invalid. I also prefer XP over current version Vista SP1 and SP2, but that does not mean that Microsoft shot itself in the foot where Windows 7 is concerned. The jury is still out until we get a full version release.

You seem to have used selective memory on part of your argument. You also argued that FS11 was not backward compatible and you were proved wrong.

So, I guess we will have to wait until Windows 7 is released to see if any permanent damage was done to Microsoft. Right now I can tell you Windows 7 opinion is more positive than negative from not only everyday users but from IT professionals as well.

You should remember how bad the press was concerning Windows XP in light of Windows 98 popularity. Public opinion takes time to change. I do doubt that Vista will ever be seen in good light by a majority of people, but progress isn't easy as you well know.

I do agree with you that X-Plane 9.21 has some very good points. It is in need of some of the quality developers that FS has enjoyed. There are a few good aircraft for X-Plane but they are in the minority. Even most of the payware aircraft are sadly lacking in good flying characteristics and detail.
Ted

[Lionheart]

I think we can always look for the bad in things, be it Sims or computers.

I think XP9 has alot to offer. I think FSX has alot to offer. I think FS9 has alot to offer. I think vista has some things to offer. I think XP offers alot. I even think Apple has alot to offer.


Dwelling on negative issues will only get negative results.. Lets play happy. That way we sleep happy, we fly happy, we 'forum' happy...

Kind words turn away confrontations.

:d



Bill

[Wiens]

It took almost four hours to install X-Plane with all the scenery DVD's. I'm going to start it up now. I understand the complaints about the key commands being different from MSFS......that's the reason I had uninstalled it earlier. I'll give it a fair shake this time.

Kevin :focus:

[Lionheart]

Kevin,

I was going to release a config for the keys. Before my recent crash, I had most of the keys transferred to FS keyboard assignments. If I do it again, I'll certainly put it up online for all XP9 pilots to download.

Really makes it easy.



XP9 has files similar to cfg files. (Forgive me, dinner guests here and cannot look up the name of the file types). But you can more quickly go into the XP9 configs (like the keyboard config) and reset them to the keys you want, rather then dealing with the XP9 system. Saves you some time. (The format of the file types is not 'cfg', but when opened in TXT mode with Notepad, they are in raw english as like FS is).




Bill

[harleyman]

I saw today the MS was having its very first downsizing / layoffs ever.....


That being said........ I like XP and the wife likes Vista.....

After my XP loads I swivel my chair around and watch hers being busy,thinking about what to do next......

Its true...Not a cut against Vista......But I see it daily...LOL:focus:

[heywooood]

windows Vista = windows ME : fact

M/S lost thousands of customers with Vista...straight to Mac

and lost the trust of most of the rest of us...a new OS does NOT equal improvements and should NEVER be forced on consumers.

A few years ago I bought a new rig and was so pleased with it I had the same shop build an identical one three months later for my son...only this time the shop tech told me he had to use VISTA and could not install XP or he would lose his M/S certification.

well - the performance on that rig is just sad in comparison to this one - and the extra steps and whatnot for installing software and peripherals is rediculous.

I got burned twice by M/S as the very first PC I bought was a DELL rig and I was forced to have ME installed on it - same situation - they were being forced by M/S to install ME and that friggin thing had to be rebooted and defragged and reinstalled every 6 weeks it was so wonky

Sometimes I wonder why I dont just go Mac

[tigisfat]

Vista has never burned me. In fact, it's my dream OS. I've never downloaded a virus with it, and eveyrthing is SUPER easy. For me, it runs faster than XP once all the detail is turned down.

[IanP]

Unlike ME, which was a nightmare from beta to thankfully short end-of-life, the vast majority of Vista's bugs and problems were fixed with SP1.

HD is right, however, that most businesses are avoiding Vista. That's not because it's a bad OS any more, it's because they don't gain by switching. If you have to put forward a business case for changing Operating System on several thousand PCs, you have to have a very good reason to do so and the changes that Vista has brought - some good, some dire - are nowhere near enough to tempt companies away from their stable, understood, XP infrastructures.

Microsoft did shoot themselves in the foot, by pulling XP early to try and boost Vista sales. That was stupid. Windows 7, so far, looks like what Vista should have been at release: Still bloated, still full of unnecessary rubbish and restrictions, but it runs a lot better on the same hardware than Vista does, according to most accounts I've read so far. Will the release version? Dunno. The same as Vista, I won't be touching Windows 7 until after SP1 is released to fix the most glaring problems.

[Lionheart]

windows Vista = windows ME : fact

M/S lost thousands of customers with Vista...straight to Mac

and lost the trust of most of the rest of us...a new OS does NOT equal improvements and should NEVER be forced on consumers.

A few years ago I bought a new rig and was so pleased with it I had the same shop build an identical one three months later for my son...only this time the shop tech told me he had to use VISTA and could not install XP or he would lose his M/S certification.

well - the performance on that rig is just sad in comparison to this one - and the extra steps and whatnot for installing software and peripherals is rediculous.

I got burned twice by M/S as the very first PC I bought was a DELL rig and I was forced to have ME installed on it - same situation - they were being forced by M/S to install ME and that friggin thing had to be rebooted and defragged and reinstalled every 6 weeks it was so wonky

Sometimes I wonder why I dont just go Mac



Im dang glad my computer fried at Christmas Eve.. I have Mac now, learned all about it, found out what I was missing.. Their Office software make windows look terribly old and archaic..

and..


It can load up XP and I can run FS on it..


Thank you God! Thank you Jesus! Thank you Holy Spirit!!!





Bill

[txnetcop]

windows Vista = windows ME : fact

M/S lost thousands of customers with Vista...straight to Mac

and lost the trust of most of the rest of us...a new OS does NOT equal improvements and should NEVER be forced on consumers.

A few years ago I bought a new rig and was so pleased with it I had the same shop build an identical one three months later for my son...only this time the shop tech told me he had to use VISTA and could not install XP or he would lose his M/S certification.

well - the performance on that rig is just sad in comparison to this one - and the extra steps and whatnot for installing software and peripherals is rediculous.

I got burned twice by M/S as the very first PC I bought was a DELL rig and I was forced to have ME installed on it - same situation - they were being forced by M/S to install ME and that friggin thing had to be rebooted and defragged and reinstalled every 6 weeks it was so wonky

Sometimes I wonder why I dont just go Mac

Heywood I don't know where that shop owner got all that crap. I am MS Certified and they never sent down a directive that I had to load Vista on a system or else lose my certification. I would really like to see that one in print. It actually sounds to me like he bought a bunch of Vista packs and couldn't get rid of them. I worked for Dell many years ago for a short time at Christmas while in job transition, in Austin, and I can tell you that did not come from Microsoft, but instead from the product manager who wanted the ME packs sold instead of Windows 98. We were told to push ME-talk it up...we didn't do that for long. If a customer wanted Windows 98 bad enough we gave it to them.
Ted

[Lionheart]

Heywood I don't know where that shop owner got all that crap. I am MS Certified and they never sent down a directive that I had to load Vista on a system or else lose my certification. I would really like to see that one in print. It actually sounds to me like he bought a bunch of Vista packs and couldn't get rid of them. I worked for Dell many years ago for a short time at Christmas while in job transition, in Austin, and I can tell you that did not come from Microsoft, but instead from the product manager who wanted the ME packs sold instead of Windows 98. We were told to push ME-talk it up...we didn't do that for long. If a customer wanted Windows 98 bad enough we gave it to them.
Ted



HP (hewlett packard) told me if I loaded XP on my vista scrap, they wouldnt cover it, or back it up. vista 'had' to be my OS for my computer to be covered by hp.

I was way upset over that....


Bill

EDIT: I later found out, through a phone conversation with a hp rep, that they will make a computer (for businesses only) with XP on it.. But its not advertised and its a substantial price...

[IanP]

Dell did the same, but later backed down and made XP available to all - at a massively increased price.

Lenovo only made XP available as an (unsupported) downgrade option with the notebook PCs we bought at work, but that was on DVD. The PCs themselves came with Vista, Vista or Vista.

Yes, Microsoft did tell resellers that they would no longer have certification should they try to sell XP to non-business clients. I've heard that first hand from too many resellers and press reports for it to be someone making it up, I'm afraid.

It wasn't subtle pressure either, it was outright threats.

[Lionheart]

Yep..


Being forced to run an OS when the one I had was brilliant and fine, and the other was bugged and goofy (it wouldnt even run on my desktop, lol)...

I had purchased a new HP laptop which had vista. It would take several min's to bootup. When I had XP installed on it (cost of just over $400.00), that thing booted up so dang quick, my nose hairs almost fell out from pure shock! Lightning fast....


Bill

[Wiens]

Bill,

Speed is King!!!!! :woot:

Kevin

[crashaz]

Hey Phil!! Nice to see you back here visiting. Hope things going well Amigo!:rapture: