Looks like "Flight" is in for some tough competition....

[JSpahn]

Honestly though guys I do find issue with the development team for X-Plane. Personally I dont think they are willing to support third party development enough.

My recent example of this, REXplane hit the market and it was developed under version 9.21 of X-Plane. That version of X-Plane had an option in the rendering settings for cloud puff size and frequency. Under 9.21 REXplane looked fantastic, problem is if you upgrade past version 9.4x those settings are gone and the REX clouds look horrible. I took issue with this on the REX fourms and basically those guys were told that XP 10 is being worked on and there is no plans on developing XP9 anymore. Since that post XP9 has been updated about 3 or 4 times without an update to the rendering settings, so still crappy clouds.

Honestly feel bad for the REX team since they went out on a ledge and started developing for XP and this is how Austin pays these guys back. I can only assume that bad press killed REXPlane sales. So who would want to develop for XP knowing this?

Im excited about XP10, but honestly gave up on 9, I feel ripped off, and hope Austin pulls his head outta his arse in the future.

There is a segment of the community who are into eye candy and although there is debate on the aircraft physics being more realistic, I always thought the MSFS series was more convincing overall because of the fantastic scenery available....so I am on the fence again...lol

Hopefully flight changes enough to convince me to come back...

[Fr. Bill]

It's precisely because X-Plane's development environment is a constantly "moving target" that I won't invest any time or my money in developing for it...

[usapatriot]

Needs better GFX. FSX with REX + GEX + UTX = AWESOME.

[Daube]

Needs better GFX. FSX with REX + GEX + UTX = AWESOME.

Yes, but from what can be seen on the screenshots and what has been annouced on the future scenery technique, XPlane 10 = EVEN MORE AWESOME.

JSpahn, I just read your post and I'm extremely surprised by what you describe.
I feel sorry for the REX team that invested efforts into developping addons for XPlane9, as well as for the REXPlane customers. I really hope XPlane 10 will have a better "marketing" strategy...

[wifesaysno]

I have to say I will stick with MSFS unless Flight takes a radical departure. I have grown up in the aviation community, done some flying, and currently studying aeronautical engineering. Based on my experience and all the pilots and aeronautical engineers and professors that I have talked to about flight sims, they all agree MSFS wins hands down. When my dad goes to re-current for the Lear 45 and Falcon 10 they use a commercial version of MS FS2004 strictly made for those aircraft. The thing is, MSFS matches the REAL aircraft behavior to the sim, X-Plane (at least the one we all would buy) does not account for enough of the phenomenon that happen with aerodynamics. "Kite" feel and "lack of scale" are thrown around a lot when talking about X-Plane aerodynamics. Some of the specifics is X-Plane does not realistically match wing tip affects (which are HUGE) and does not match weights very well. Thats the advantage of MSFS' "tabular aircraft performance" method. You can take the real figures from the real aircraft thus making the sim version behave like a real one. That said, X-Plane does have $1,000-$5,000 improvements to the commercial sim (that we buy) to make it as real as it gets..BUT even though I would like that, no way in hell I am dropping over a grand for it.
One more thing, those of us that have aviation in our blood and LOVE flying and I stress that LOVE, know that the scenery is a big part of making a flight enjoyable. Its all about taking off on a nice cool fall morning and seeing deer through the shedding trees, the rising sun glistening off the thickening clouds, steam coming off from lakes and rivers, etc. FSX, and it looks like Flight will too, capture the beauty of the Earth below you as you fly, X-Plane looks like a game.
Lastly, MSFS is made by pilots, with the help of pilots, for pilots (and pilot wanna be's). X-Plane is made by aeronautical engineers for aeronautical engineers originally, they just decided to release a cheaper version albeit I am hearing $80+ for X-Plane 10.
In short, X-Plane and MSFS are too me two different classes of sims. X-Plane is something you would find in the aero lab while MSFS is what you would see at flight school.

[Steve M]

Very well said Wahubna, I really don't think MS wants to be caught with their pants down this time. If MS doesn't know what other flightsims are up to by now, they should hang up their hats and turn out the lights.

[cavity]

Check out this plane and x-plane itself, it even has me interested and I have never thought of purchasing X-plane.

http://forums.x-pilot.com/http://forums ... 735#p18735

Todd

[JSpahn]

Check out this plane and x-plane itself, it even has me interested and I have never thought of purchasing X-plane.

http://forums.x-pilot.com/http://forums ... 735#p18735

Todd

That AC  uses an imbedded version of VAS FMC, think that idea is fantastic...It will allow aircraft designers to quickly develop complete systems without starting from scratch.

I've only read bits and pieces but from what I see, I think more developers are hopping aboard and using VAS FMC this way

It would be nice to see more aircraft that match the detail of any of PMDG's work

[Rocket_Bird]

Yeah, that CRJ-200 makes me drool, even though I'm not normally a fan of the CRJ-2.  Now I'm tempted to reload XP9

[rvtmendoza]

That video made is mouth-watery, very nice detailed aircraft. I hope Flight would be better than that, not in terms of graphics, but in improved flight dynamics and important things that make up a good simulation.
The first list on the things I am wishing for Flight is the panels, Microsoft please let us use all the buttons and switches you include in the aircraft
Next one is better simulation of emergencies and include more of them too. Maybe include also an option so that emergencies occur randomly. That would be very exciting to some or most of the players.
And last on the list is the improve graphics and environment

[wifesaysno]

I just bought, installed, and flew around my local airport (Tulip City KBIV) in X-Plane 9. FSX is FAR superior! The flight dynamics on the Cessna 172SP were so far off that I could do SNAP ROLLS right after take off nose high with less than 90kts airspeed. My roll rate must have been around 300 degrees per second! I could also side slip it wwaaayyy over 45deg with virtually no adverse affect on the aircraft. I would also like to mention that the graphics sucked a lot. I have FSX cranked 85%-90% (depending on how you define it) and it looks amazing. X-Plane....it reminded me of FS 98. The local scenery was no where near the same. I live near Lake Michigan and Lake Macatawa, Lake Mac did not even show up, the draw distance was so short I could not find Lake Michigan either which is sad to say the least. I was really disappointed, FSX is superior in almost every way except modding I think. I fiddled around with the plane maker, it is good and very easy to change aircraft and import them. Plus you can see the vector fields, pressure diagrams, and force vectors which as an aeronautical engineer student is very cool. So I will keep X-Plane for academic purposes but as for siming, STAY AWAY FROM IT!
Oh, the rumors of planes feeling like "kites" and not having correct maneuvering capability is dead on true. Snap rolls in a 172 below 90kts?!
Oh, I forgot too, I don think the gauges are accurate, I had to point the 172 nose down about 5 degrees at 80kts to stop climbing....at least according to the VSI...but the altimeter was barely moving (VSI was indicating over 500ftpmin +) and the ground was not moving away even after several minutes.....I dont know what to make of that. At any rate, looks like the 172 is a real acrobatic plane! lol

[wifesaysno]

Okay, I just did the same flight in FSX, same plane, same airport, same time, same runway. Hmm, the 172 stalled and crashed shortly after attempting a snap roll (big surprise lol). I also just noticed something that I missed before. The cockpit view in X-plane sucks, I could not zoom out enough to see even half of what you see in the FSX 172 VC at start up. Defiantly staying with FSX!

[nickle]

X Plane has a 2D look and is retro FS.
That needs to change to be a top flight sim.

[JSpahn]

Yeha the current version of X-Plane leave alot to the imagination....

[turbofire]

Been gone quite awhile due to illness, but I'm back.  I believe one's operating system has a lot to do with aircraft performance in turms or jitters or frame stutters so to speak. I have FS2000, FS9, and FSX on my computer and fly all three, depending on my mood.  If your system has the memory you should't be having any trouble with MSFS.  If you are experiencing problems, adding new type of FS most likely will conintue to be a problem.  The fix, upgrade your computer and you most likely will be fine.   :)