Suggestions on civilian flight simulator

[ZQuickSilverZ]

Does X-Plane 10 have the same clunky interface X-Plane 9 does? If it does that is a deal breaker for me. X-Plane 9 may be more realistic than FSX but FSX has a much better interface. So for me its FSX. I think we can all agree that X-Plane 9's interface SUCKS.

 

Here is hoping they streamlined X-Plane 10.

 

I would like to reiterate I am not talking about the flying part itself. I am talking about the menu system, just to be perfectly clear.

Edited January 6, 2012 by ZQuickSilverZ

[effte]

Hours later, it still said I had four hours to go on the demo install. Abysmally slow download speeds from two servers (numbered 4 and 7 - what about 1-3 and 5-6?). How many copies sold at US$80 (without a retail chain to feed, mind you) does it take to actually provide bandwidth to potential customers?

 

Well, if you design your install as a torrent download of sorts there's gonna be a possibility to interrupt the install and continue from where it left off, especially when it's a multi-hour affair even with a high-bandwidth internet connection. Right. Right?!

 

Nope. When you hit "quit" you are informed that you will have to start over if you do quit the install. You are then offered a button to 'cancel'. Allright, I'll just let it run overnight, so I 'cancel' quitting.

 

Aha. The other button blanks out, leaving the 'cancel' button and the fine print next to it on-screen for a few seconds. You get ample time to read the text completing the 'cancel' button with 'the download and delete the partially installed demo of X-Plane 10'. Then the install quits, assumedly doing what it said and deleting the partial install.

 

Third page on The Book of interface design, I think. 'Cancel' is to be used to 'cancel' the current action and return to what you were doing.

 

ZQuickSilverZ,

120% agreed on XP9. Judging by my experience so far, I suspect you will find an interface in XP10 which isn't exactly following the established interface design guidelines. The PR feed probably calls it 'unique' and 'innovative'.

 

I will give it another chance. Don't miss it. Same bat time, same bat channel. I'd like to make clear that I really, really hope to be wrong and find a great sim. As I've stated, I have no love lost for FSX and FS9 is running on life support these days. We need a replacement to come along.

Edited January 6, 2012 by effte

[Yskonyn]

Don't forget that JRollon has provides several of the stock aircraft for XP10. He is a renowned aircraft producer for X-plane with some high quality offerings.

His Space Shuttle and 747-200, for example are very nice. And are miles ahead of any stock aircraft FS has ever brought to the table.

 

Most, if not all (havent checked yet) stock aircraft now have 3D cockpits out of the box.

 

Still no FMC's and no decent SID and STARs in X-plane yet, but stock FS does not come with any of this either.

[KLR Rico]

I *want* to like xplane 10, but I'm having a hard time... The VC's suck, the UI sucks, and it's just plain clunky... Trying to setup headtracking and the joystick just so I can fly the demo has been testing my patience.

 

I don't have much choice but to get used to it though... Unless they reincorporate the "simulator" part of the series, MS Flight is going to suck. Hard.

[213]

more "crap" to wade through has always been the mark of an easy to mod game. i find no difficulty in browsing and picking from the bunch, in fact it's a delight to do so.

[ZQuickSilverZ]

I *want* to like xplane 10, but I'm having a hard time... The VC's suck, the UI sucks, and it's just plain clunky... Trying to setup headtracking and the joystick just so I can fly the demo has been testing my patience.

 

I don't have much choice but to get used to it though... Unless they reincorporate the "simulator" part of the series, MS Flight is going to suck. Hard.

 

What makes you say that? They have not really even released any details about it. I am not trying to offend you but give it till a couple of months after release (patches, come on we KNOW there coming) before you pass judgment. People were saying Duke Nukem Forever was going to be great before it was released. That was June 10, 2011 and you can not even sale your used copy now at GameStop. They will not even give you two dollars for it. Maybe MS Flight will be awesome.

 

Probably not though.

 

Naa your right it will suck.

 

It might be good (SHRUGS).

 

At the very least it is going to energize the flight sim hardware market.

Edited January 8, 2012 by ZQuickSilverZ

[metalnwood]

OK, I have known about xpx for a little while but always been happy with fsx and its predecessors so I never gave xplane a whirl. I had only hear murmurs about it so I splashed out and bought it. I dont mind supporting devs, I have bought everything of ed's as well even though I dont fly them all, I just feel that supporting them is good for my simming future.

 

XPX is another deal though, it is different that what I am used to and a bit unexpected. The planes were not good out of the box and joystick twiddling was needed. No biggie but I then find that almost everyone is required to adjust settings to be able to control the aircrafts. So why dont LR set them up in a more typical way out of the box? Having setting work for 70% of people is better than having them work for no one.

 

Actually, before that the first impression came from installing it. There was a note on the disks saying do not install from the disks, download the new installer. A quick read showed me that they went gold without testing the windows installer and it did not work!

 

This could be a theme as an update was pulled the same day a few days ago because it did not work on windows. Once again updates were pushed out that were not tested for windows. They do their dev work on macs btw. I think thats criminal really. I mean come on, you don't check that the exe loads?

 

You then find out that you have bought a beta product. What, a beta? I bought A10 as a beta because I wanted it and they told me it was a beta. The xplane guys dont tell you its a beta but apparently you are supposed to know that this is how this crowd works. Go to their website, it doesnt say beta. Get pushed emails from various online sites you have bought flightsim addons from advertising 'xpx now ready'. They dont mention it's a beta but when you load it up you find out it is and then you find the bugs.

 

A plausible world that could be plausible before we had multi story buildings. It can look nice but it looks the same almost everywhere. If you get the demo you will take off from a nicely done KSEA airport. They dont tell you that is the only airport. What, 20k+ airports and only one has a building in it? Not one hand placed building or landmark representing something in the real world. VFR flying by landmarks is near impossible.

 

They do not have a roadmap, they do not have timeframes and they have not met half of the things that austin has talked about in blogs over the last 6-9 months.

 

Whatever my feelings, this is what I suspect a lot of people are going to think if they purchase it without doing some research.

 

My biggest gripe is that the big online sellers of flightsim addons are selling this and advertising it as if it was a fully featured final product. A beta is a beta and this certainly is.

Edited January 8, 2012 by metalnwood

[Yskonyn]

While most of your points here are hitting the mark, I am surprised you were surprised to find it this way.

This thread and the other Xplane thread already mentioned all your gripes / findings several times.

It could've saved you some money. ;)

[metalnwood]

This thread started about 8 days after I received it. I ordered it around the 7th december, I am not often in this part of the forum.

 

My post doesn't truely represent how I feel about it. I am not too concerned, I am not putting hours in to it but I am downloading the betas to see what is changing. Civ sims are a small part of my simming so it is no big deal to me really.

 

The marketing for it is so misleading though. To have to research it to find out that it's usually a year after the first version comes out that it's considered out of beta is not the best when it's selling at a number of online shops.

Edited January 8, 2012 by metalnwood

[ZQuickSilverZ]

If you ask me the way they sell flight simulators is all wrong. What they should do is give away the base engine (or at least make it low cost) and charge a licensing fee to third party developers to sell their product. They can even release first party aircraft packs every 6 months for a nice revenue stream. Why sell X-Plane 10 for 80 dollars (a price that is sure to go down) when you can get a nice revenue stream going years after the initial purchase? Most of these companies are finding "free to play" is more profitable than retail or even subscription based sales.

Edited January 8, 2012 by ZQuickSilverZ

[Conure]

For an incredible flight simulator experience which is extremely realistic and looks great, I suggest the following package:-

 

Flight Simulator X + acceleration

Ground Environment X

Ultimate Terrain X

Real Environment X (It cannot be overstated as to how good this addon is)

MyTraffic X

PMDG 737NGX

 

I believe that this package gives you an extremely realistic and beautiful base flight package, and you should also add a few airports for what you want to fly. Just be aware this will require a 4ghz CPU to be smooth over city areas.

[Conure]

If you ask me the way they sell flight simulators is all wrong. What they should do is give away the base engine (or at least make it low cost) and charge a licensing fee to third party developers to sell their product. They can even release first party aircraft packs every 6 months for a nice revenue stream. Why sell X-Plane 10 for 80 dollars (a price that is sure to go down) when you can get a nice revenue stream going years after the initial purchase? Most of these companies are finding "free to play" is more profitable than retail or even subscription based sales.

 

Completely agree - that's what Rise of Flight does and I believe it's doing very well (given the rate of improvement and new aircraft).

[Yskonyn]

For an incredible flight simulator experience which is extremely realistic and looks great, I suggest the following package:-

 

Flight Simulator X + acceleration

Ground Environment X

Ultimate Terrain X

Real Environment X (It cannot be overstated as to how good this addon is)

MyTraffic X

PMDG 737NGX

 

I believe that this package gives you an extremely realistic and beautiful base flight package, and you should also add a few airports for what you want to fly. Just be aware this will require a 4ghz CPU to be smooth over city areas.

 

Indeed a great lineup. How many FPS do you get with this?

I think many people's PC's will fry running this setup. :joystick:

[Conure]

Indeed a great lineup. How many FPS do you get with this?

I think many people's PC's will fry running this setup. :joystick:

 

I've given up playing it :D Until I can get a decent Sandybridge CPU @ 4.2ghz + it's just not worth it. At Heathrow for example, I'd get 15fps and that's just not playable for me. It's the NGX that does it, I can get 45fps in any other aircraft, but NGX...15..I guess that's the price we pay for an airline simulator that is always within 5% of real world boeing published specs :) If you add vatsim to the list then I believe that's probably about as realistic as it's possible to get from home!

[Conure]

 

Without a doubt the most gorgeous simulator to date! If you have the money and equipment to run it :)

[ZQuickSilverZ]

I just read that Microsoft Flight will be free to play. Guess Microsoft thought free to play was a good route to go to. Are you listening X-Plane???

[cichlidfan]

I just read that Microsoft Flight will be free to play. Guess Microsoft thought free to play was a good route to go to. Are you listening X-Plane???

 

That might be because there is nothing inside MS Flight worth paying for? Not that I am thrilled with Xpain either!;)

[Inseckt]

 

Without a doubt the most gorgeous simulator to date! If you have the money and equipment to run it :)

 

that did indeed look stunningly realistic. Is this using the addons you mentioned?

[ZQuickSilverZ]

Xpain HA HA HA your killing me.

 

I work for American Airlines M&E base in Tulsa, OK. It is the biggest commercial airline maintenance base in the world. I have had the opportunity to see 777, 767, 757, 737, MD80, MD11, A300, and Fokker's cockpits over the years (I hope to see the 787 soon). Of course they are not so exciting sitting on the ground...

 

I posted that to post this.

 

I am going to take a screenshot of the stock aircraft cockpits that AMR and FSX share. I am going to see just how accurate they really are.

 

I posted that to post this.

 

I do not know how accurate FSX stock cockpits are (yet). I will however say that for all the people that say the stock aircraft suck, they look really good to me, and I am in them 5 days a week (or more). Are the stock aircraft really THAT bad?

Edited January 9, 2012 by ZQuickSilverZ

[Yskonyn]

If you're in those cockpits 5 days a week you aren't using your eyes correctly if you're asking wether the stock aircraft cockpits are really that bad in FS(X). ;)

The only cockpits that come close to the real deal decently enough are the general aviation aircraft cockpits, but the airliners are rubbish.

[ZQuickSilverZ]

Well Yskonyn it is like this. I do indeed see them often but, you can see something a thousand times and never really pay attention to it. You know what I mean? Honestly, I have only been interested in aviation for a couple of years now. That may seem odd for someone that works for an airline and plays aviation sims. I did not target employment at AMR it just kind of fell in my lap. I actually started AMR doing revenue accounting through a temporary service, after that contract ended I got on actual payroll. DCS Black Shark is what pulled me into aviation. I had FSX, X-Plane 9, and IL2 before that but to tell the truth they just sit mostly unplayed for years. I am more active in those sims now though.

 

Right now I play these games the most in this order.

DCS Black Shark

IL2 Sturmovik

Team Fortress 2

Silent Hunter 3

World Of Tanks

Conan (just started this)

 

And I have had FSX on my mind lately.

Edited January 9, 2012 by ZQuickSilverZ

[Yskonyn]

Sure mate, I do understand, but you fired off this claim;

 

I will however say that for all the people that say the stock aircraft suck, they look really good to me, and I am in them 5 days a week (or more). Are the stock aircraft really THAT bad?

 

Which suggests that you claim to have proper knowledge about how a given cockpit should look and that you do not agree that stock cockpits in FS are that bad.

I respond to that by telling you I disagree, that's all.

 

I think when you take some time to actually look around properly, you will quickly see why I say this. And that's coming from a real life commercial pilot, mate. :D

[Inseckt]

Sucks!

 

The hole thing about something that sucks or doesn't suck, comes down to expectations me thinks. And it's all valid if you ask me. Only a blinded randomized test off several opinions can tell if something truly sucks...:D

[ZQuickSilverZ]

I still like the stock aircraft just fine. But, I am not THAT into FSX either (or commercial aviation really). I mean I am not hardcore into it or anything. I will take some screenshots and put them on my Nook Color (I WANT A NOOK TABLET) and see how they match up (were not supposed to have cameras at work even though every single cell phone seems to have one...). I have never flown an actual aircraft before. FSX behaves like I think one might handle. I get the feeling of flight and interacting with an aircraft and that is good enough for me. I guess my expectations are low.

 

The only payware I have used was the Alphasim KA-50 Black Shark. Comparing how it flies to DCS Black Shark.... well it is a lot different, I will just leave it at that. As for the cockpit, the UV-26 is on the wrong side, that is noticeable right off. The cockpits do not match up (in several ways). So you could say the Alphasim version is not very realistic. However if I had never played DCS Black Shark in my mind I would be flying a Black Shark, and that would be "good enough" for me.

 

To explain it better I made this easy to follow flow chart.

 

 

 

 

But only if you have not flown DCS: Black Shark. Otherwise you feel like your in a Ka-50.

 

How do you get the big pictures to show without posting thumbnails?

Edited January 9, 2012 by ZQuickSilverZ

[Yskonyn]

You're right. Expectations and experience make for a rather subjective assessment of wether something feels realistic. That goes for all of us, indeed. :)

If you've never been in a cockpit and you look at one of FS's stock ones, you could indeed accept that it would offer a realistic picture of how a cockpit might look like.

 

But the question was wether the cockpits of stock FS where that much off in relation to a real cockpit. There is no subjectiveness there. It either is or it isn't. ;)

 

Oh and I have no idea about your picture question. :)