PDA

View Full Version : Opinion on X-Plane 10



squirrel
06-02-2012, 04:12 PM
I have X-Plane 9 already. Say, you mates think if it worth to go ahead and buy the new X-Plane 10? Any substantial improvement from previous installments? I never really enjoy X-Plane since I can't afford a flight stick. I'm cheap, I know.

BTW, Hong Kong import of X-Plane 9 I bought has a stupid advertisement on its cover. It "proudly presents" that it has over 60GB data. Com'n, how would one want his HDD space gets filled up like that.

Harlander
07-02-2012, 02:09 PM
I never really enjoy X-Plane

I think you've answered your own question there ;)

squirrel
07-02-2012, 02:24 PM
Really not good? I thought it's the clumsy mouse+keyboard problem.

Harlander
07-02-2012, 08:17 PM
Oh, I don't know, I was just being needlessly facetious, I've never tried x-plane

soldant
08-02-2012, 02:50 AM
I've got X-Plane 10. It isn't particularly good in most respects. Firstly, the flight model isn't actually as good as real world performance data used in something like FSX; everything handles very differently and a lot of the aircraft are far too responsive and "bouncy" (for lack of a better term). Although the flight model is good for simulating something without real world performance data, it isn't 100% accurate and sometimes leads to really weird flight modelling.

As for scenery - it is and isn't an improvement. In X-Plane 9 my home city Brisbane was 20km of random urban sprawl surrounded by a desert. Anyone familiar with it will know that this isn't even remotely accurate. X-Plane 10 does use real streetmap data such that I can literally fly over my house (and see that there's a house model where my house should be), but this also comes with some serious problems. Although the streets are accurate, the buildings are not. Central business districts for example consist mostly of low-set housing. A Somalian city is made up of upper-middle-class Western housing. It's an improvement over the ridiculous X-Plane 9 scenery (which managed to take up even more space than FSX, and looked far worse), but although the roads are good, pretty much nothing else is. Pretty much all of the airports are still just a runway and taxiway, there are no buildings except for a handful which are populated.

The interface hasn't improved much, it's still very spartan but mostly functional for what it's worth. The new ATC feature is a mess. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, with the AI failing to call out appropriate instructions or not referencing taxiways properly (for some reason). Simulated traffic is also absolutely ridiculous; there are 747s lining up for take-off on small airstrips.

I mean FSX was released back in 2006, and it still manages to (overall) do a better job than X-Plane 10 at most things. The only real interesting feature of X-Plane 10 is the flight model in that it can model aircraft where no real performance data exists... but even then it's not always a true and accurate simulation. I really wouldn't bother with it.

squirrel
08-02-2012, 12:39 PM
I mean FSX was released back in 2006, and it still manages to (overall) do a better job than X-Plane 10 at most things.

Microsoft's Flight Simulator is a very well known flight sim here and almost every PC game store stocks Flight Simulator X and some 20XX something version all the time. I dont buy one just because I cannot afford a better game controller (but that's strange, I can't recall why I bought X-Plane 9 in the first place). I have to work harder to earn a flight stick.

soldant
10-02-2012, 02:04 AM
Microsoft's Flight Simulator is a very well known flight sim here and almost every PC game store stocks Flight Simulator X and some 20XX something version all the time. I dont buy one just because I cannot afford a better game controller (but that's strange, I can't recall why I bought X-Plane 9 in the first place). I have to work harder to earn a flight stick.
I was just commenting that X-Plane 9, despite being from the same time period as FSX, and X-Plane 10 despite being a brand new product, still can't match FSX's polish. XP9 is far, far worse than 10 though. It gets even more one-sided taking into consideration commercial scenery packages. I mean there's no Orbx for X-Plane!

remon
10-02-2012, 01:34 PM
I've got X-Plane 10. It isn't particularly good in most respects. Firstly, the flight model isn't actually as good as real world performance data used in something like FSX; everything handles very differently and a lot of the aircraft are far too responsive and "bouncy" (for lack of a better term). Although the flight model is good for simulating something without real world performance data, it isn't 100% accurate and sometimes leads to really weird flight modelling.

Seriously? You give FSX as an example of a good flight model?

soldant
11-02-2012, 01:40 AM
Seriously? You give FSX as an example of a good flight model?
You need to go back and read that one again: I said the flight model isn't actually as good as real world performance data used in something like FSX. That is to say games that use a similar approach to FSX of lookup tables for performance specifications. X-Plane's great at simulating aircraft that have no real performance data, but it deviates from real life where real performance data is available. For a really accurate simulation in X-Plane the aircraft model has to be exceptionally detailed, increasing stress on the software. Even then X-Plane blade element theory has some quirks which don't truly simulate the real world.

X-Plane's flight model isn't as good as most of its fans seem to think it is.

Capt. Eduardo del Mango
11-02-2012, 02:20 AM
A fully sorted, augmented copy of FSX is a pretty cool bit of software. But...

If a plane in FSX handles something like a plane then it's an addon and probably a payware addon. Planes in X-Plane - especially light single engined prop aircraft - move, shift, wobble and slip in a massively, massively more convincing fashion than the out-of-the-box FSX flyables (I've seen episodes of Jimbo and The Jet Set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_and_the_Jet_Set) that flew in a massively more convincing fashion than the out-of-the-box FSX flyables). I know nobody actually bothers with any of the default content in FSX so it's probably irrelevant, but I think you should note you're not strictly comparing apples and apples here.



I was just commenting that X-Plane 9, despite being from the same time period as FSX, and X-Plane 10 despite being a brand new product, still can't match FSX's polish. XP9 is far, far worse than 10 though.

FSX development team. (http://flyawaysimulation.com/downloadimages/Image/microsoft-aces-building.jpg)
X-Plane development team. (http://techhaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/DSC01822.jpg)

And that's without the development teams for the addons that turn FSX into a genuinely good product. Yeah, of course X-Plane lacks FSX's polish. Which isn't to say that a lack of polish isn't a valid reason to prefer FSX - you don't play games based on effort or good intentions - but you do sound kinda surprised by what I'd have thought would be a predictable disparity.

I'm sorry for the slightly sniffy tone, but whilst FSX with all the add-ons installed is a superb experience, it seems rather unfair to give unquailfied praise to an enormous company/team that failed to move their product on to such an extent that you now basically have to replace all the actual content with 3rd party material, whilst ragging pretty hard on one guy's effort which has done a reasonable job against an absolutely gargantuan opponent. X-Plane and FSX is about as David and Goliath as you can get.

In my opinion - and I haven't followed X-Plane in a fair while - it was always a pretty handy way of ensuring things had at least a half decent (and in some cases very good) flight model, but as soldant quite rightly says it was never the home CFD-sim that it claimed to be, and given flying a civilian aircraft involves an awful lot more than just how the plane handles (traffic, ATC, navigation, avionics - admittedly all of which are fairly shoddy on vanilla FSX too), X-Plane's flight model never made up for its shortcomings. Not for $80, at least. But kudos to Austin Meyer for giving it a go, and whilst I didn't find enough in X-Plane to stick with it I'm at least happy enough that an enthusiastic maverick like him got the cash from the two versions of it that I bought way back when.

soldant
11-02-2012, 03:24 AM
And that's without the development teams for the addons that turn FSX into a genuinely good product. Yeah, of course X-Plane lacks FSX's polish. Which isn't to say that a lack of polish isn't a valid reason to prefer FSX - you don't play games based on effort or good intentions - but you do sound kinda surprised by what I'd have thought would be a predictable disparity.
X-Plane 9 and 10's scenery data is massive. 60GB to cover the globe. It simultaneously manages to take up more space than FSX, and looks worse. The autogen in XP9 was abysmal. VFR is pretty much useless beyond obvious terrain features in both X-Plane and FSX by default, though FSX tends to do a better job overall (particularly in the more detailed cities). I know that X-Plane is an "evolving product" but it never seems to make any major headway. I know it's a smaller development team, but XP's progression is incredibly slow, lacks polish (particularly in the UI), and again 60GB of scenery data? Where the hell did it all go? FSX manages to do much less and looks slightly better by comparison. The exception being the OSM data in XP10, but that comes with its own list of problems, namely that the world consists almost entirely of Western low-set housing. A more damning point though is that most commercial scenery (or the good stuff like Orbx) is for FSX/FS9, not X-Plane, which has nothing to do with the development team's size.

There's also a bunch of stuff I'd like to say about Flight, but Microsoft still haven't released testers from the goddamn NDA. Does it really matter by this point?

Capt. Eduardo del Mango
11-02-2012, 03:52 AM
Soldant - like I said, I'm in no way disputing that (modded) FSX is a much better product than X-Plane. Also, yes - vanila FSX does autogen and scenery better than X-Plane - but it should! I can't find anything specific on what the X-Plane 'team' is now, but certanily as of v6.99 the 'team' was that one bloke in that photo, Austin Meyer. He wasn't letting anybody else touch anything on it. I dare say he's taken on some assistance by this point, but I'm also sure he'll be doing the bulk of it. So, yeah, the scenery isn't as good, and it's not as polished - of course!

It's the labour of love of one guy, and the 'thing' - the unique selling point - is that it does its flight model in a very different way to its (enormous, produced by one of the world's biggest companies) main competitor. So he's gone for that and worked on it, make of it what you will, and unsurprisingly is lagging somewhat behind elsewhere.

Most commercial scenery is for FSX because FSX sold a gazillion times more copies than X-Plane because FSX comes from a long established 'first and only choice' for a genre produced and marketed by an absolutely enormous company and X-Plane was, as of four versions back, being made solely by one man and so didn't sell as many copies. It's daming in terms of which you should buy if you like good scenery, but I don't think it reflects badly on X-Plane.

I know vanilla FSX does lots of things better than X-Plane and does pretty much everything better with mods, but cut the guy some slack man.

soldant
11-02-2012, 06:18 AM
It's the labour of love of one guy
You said you haven't been following X-Plane's development, so you can be forgiven for not knowing that X-Plane 10 (and 9) is not the work of one man on his own. You can read the dev blog here (http://developer.x-plane.com/). It's not Aces, but Laminar Research is not a single person anymore.

And really, taken as a whole package with the rest of the extensibility, I can't really find a reason to recommend X-Plane 10. It's a smaller team but all that there is in X-Plane 10 is the flight model, which has its own quirks. I won't apologise for that.

Capt. Eduardo del Mango
11-02-2012, 12:25 PM
Editing (for swearing and caps)...

Eeesh. All I wanted to say was "cut X-Plane a break, it's doing the best it can against a huge competitor", but it's taking a few posts. Soldant - I'm beginning to think you're deliberatly misrepresenting what I say, so we're going to do this bullet point stylee;

1.

You said you haven't been following X-Plane's development, so you can be forgiven for not knowing that X-Plane 10 (and 9) is not the work of one man on his own."


I dare say he's taken on some assistance by this point, but I'm also sure he'll be doing the bulk of it.

You are quoting me incorrectly - I did not claim that X-Plane was the work of one man its own. I said that as of 6.99 Meyer was doing everything himself (which is factually correct) and that he'll still be the main figure doing the development. The devblog names five people that I can see - when you compare that to the ACES team that was easily 100+ and had been operating with lots of manpower for years.


2.

And really, taken as a whole package with the rest of the extensibility, I can't really find a reason to recommend X-Plane 10. It's a smaller team but all that there is in X-Plane 10 is the flight model, which has its own quirks. I won't apologise for that.


Soldant - like I said, I'm in no way disputing that (modded) FSX is a much better product than X-Plane.


I know vanilla FSX does lots of things better than X-Plane and does pretty much everything better with mods, but cut the guy some slack man.

I have explicitly agreed with this - that there is no reason to recommend X-Plane 10 - at several points in this thread, that you feel the need to restate this implies you have not read my posts.

We are agreed, then, on the two points you have made - that X-Plane is not the work of one man but has a much, much smaller team and budget than Microsoft Flight Simulator, and that a modded FSX is a much better flight simulator than X-Plane.

OK, now - I'm going to restate the points I've been making as individual bullet points. If you disagree with one of these, tell me - specifically - what you disagree with.

3.
Whilst vanilla FSX does do many things better than X-Plane, much of FSX's vanilla content is relatively poor and will be replaced by someone wanting to play FSX 'seriously.' I for example use UTX, GEX, REX2, Radar Contact ATC and some payware aircraft, and this is a relatively modest spend.

4.
The X-Plane flight model is not as good as many claim it to be, but vanilla aircraft in X-Plane fly in a much more convincing fashion than the vanilla aircraft in FSX.

5.
Given the disparity of resources between Laminar Research and Microsoft could not be greater, and that this is just about as good an example of 'David and Goliath' as you can get in gaming, X-Plane deserves recognition for firstly 'having a go', and secondly for at least doing some things (flight modelling) better than an enormous development studio backed by a gargantuan budget managed with their out-of-the-box product.
5b.
It is worth noting that the biggest issues you appear to have with X-Plane are the poor scenery and the 'lack of polish' - processing large amounts of scenery data and quality assurance testing - are the two things that are almost guaranteed to be most helped by a massive budget and team. It is as such not surprising that FSX excells most in these two areas as compares to X-Plane.

6.
FSX with the correct mods installed is a much better, much more complete flight simulator than X-Plane 10.

I hope this clears up my position, Soldant. Please by all means disagree with me, but it feels like you're disagreeing with things I haven't quite said.

soldant
11-02-2012, 01:18 PM
Editing (for swearing and caps)...
I find it pretty amusing that you're defending X-Plane like this. Tell me, do you frequent AVSIM and scream about MS Flight? If not, you'd fit right in! About the dev team: I don't know what point you're trying to make here. I said that the team was small, and I said that it isn't one man doing everything on his own. Your post implied that you weren't keeping up with development. I was just stating that it isn't one man on his own doing everything, and 6.x has nothing to do with 9/10. There's no point to disagree on here.


Whilst vanilla FSX does do many things better than X-Plane, much of FSX's vanilla content is relatively poor and will be replaced by someone wanting to play FSX 'seriously.' I for example use UTX, GEX, REX2, Radar Contact ATC and some payware aircraft, and this is a relatively modest spend.
X-Plane's included content is pretty poor too. The problem for X-Plane is that most content (including the important commercial part) focuses on FSX. That's not a commentary on the devs. 3rd party support for the software is an important consideration and isn't a commentary on the devs.


The X-Plane flight model is not as good as many claim it to be, but vanilla aircraft in X-Plane fly in a much more convincing fashion than the vanilla aircraft in FSX.
Again I can't speak for big iron, but most of the props don't. Custom content is better, but the same is true of FSX. Blade element theory is not the superior flight model that its fans like to believe... except in the very obvious case of aircraft for where there is no real data available. Quite frankly neither do a particularly good job, but again blade element theory has its flaws where it won't match real-world situations.


Given the disparity of resources between Laminar Research and Microsoft could not be greater, and that this is just about as good an example of 'David and Goliath' as you can get in gaming, X-Plane deserves recognition for firstly 'having a go', and secondly for at least doing some things (flight modelling) better than an enormous development studio backed by a gargantuan budget managed with their out-of-the-box product.
Sure they do. I never said they didn't. But I'm not going to say "Go get XP10. It's got a boatload of problems and FSX has better support, but at least they're having a go!" That's the whole point of my post. XP10 is a fairly good achievement from a small team, but it's just not there yet. FSX as a base package is better than XP10, and with addons it's far and away superior. XP10 went a long way to fixing the scenery problems but there's still 60GB there which has done into who knows what.

For what it's worth I sort of like the XP10 flight model and the most awesome part of it for me was being able to fly by following the major highways around my local area, right down to flying over my house. I can't do that in FSX. Hell it even has an airport on an island off the coast which doesn't even get a mention in FSX (albeit entirely empty, like all the airports). But as great as that is, it still pales to the FSX experience, particularly with addons. I know XP10 is made by a smaller team, but at the end of the day I don't really care, and few others do too. All anybody cares about is the product that's delivered, and you said it yourself, it's not enough for $90 or however much it is now.

Capt. Eduardo del Mango
11-02-2012, 01:32 PM
X-Plane's flight model never made up for its shortcomings.

I'm in no way disputing that (modded) FSX is a much better product than X-Plane.

vanilla FSX does lots of things better than X-Plane and does pretty much everything better with mods

modded FSX is a much better flight simulator than X-Plane

FSX with the correct mods installed is a much better, much more complete flight simulator than X-Plane 10.

All I wanted to say was "cut X-Plane a break, it's doing the best it can against a huge competitor."

...


I find it pretty amusing that you're defending X-Plane like this.

OK man! You're impenetrable. I give up. Enjoy the thread.

soldant
11-02-2012, 02:02 PM
OK man! You're impenetrable. I give up. Enjoy the thread.
Did it occur to you that you're not actually reading anything I'm posting? I responded to each of your points. All you're saying is "mods mods mods" and then ignored my point about the flight model in XP. If you completely agree with my points, then there's no reason to make up all those points and expect a response!

As for "cut it a break" I've already made it very clear that I really couldn't care less about the developer, just the delivered product.