XPlane 11 unfinished business

[Kilstorm]

Please continue to roll out your existing product line into XPlane 11 with emphasis on PilotEdge controlled fields. ie BUR, SBA, RDD, PSP, SAN, MRY, SJC, EGE, BZN, JAC and SUN. MSFS is great and there is a market to tap there but for myself, I will get into MSFS in about a year or so once the full SDK is out and we have a better understanding of what that sim will be once more complete. As for now, XPlane 11 has all this beautiful True Earth space in great need for more highly detail airports to fill it all in.

Thanks for your time. 

[olderndirt]

A hearty 'second' on that request.  I've always felt that XP was the finest showcase for Orbx products especially the 'TE' line.  Granted the new sim is garnering attention and is probably a fine new revenue source but don't overlook the old 'diehards' who, for one reason or another, havent made the jump.

[Ams]

+1 to above. I agree with all the above. I too think the True earth for xp is the best. Not even MSFS can compete with that. The visuals truly are vastly superior. I remember reading even JV had stated that no other sim can handle the vast orthos as good as XP. And after Vulkan update XP 11 is the most smoothly running sim I have ever experienced. The more I use xp the more I like it. Also the new color technology used in TE products like Florida are truly something special. 

[wolfko]

In respect of rhe scenery itself you are probably right that TE is superior to default MSFS scenery. But as a sim MSFS is superior to XP and P3d/FSX.

Lighting, surfaces, weather, clouds, atmospheric modelling, trees, etc., etc. are all superior in MSFS so that in the end MSFS sceneries look better. A developer has much more opportunities in MSFS. And as I understand it, scenery modelling is also easier in MSFS. So no wonder that many scenery designers prefer MSFS, as this sim shows their products in all their glory.

One can really look forward to TE like sceneries in MSFS.

[craigeaglefire]

there are good reasons why i use all the sims now,

 

just 3 years into this pastime & lots to learn,

 

still purchasing for all current sim platforms.

[Badl4ndz]

Apart from a single product that completely came out of the blue in early August, There has been complete silence towards X-Plane since May if my memory serves me correctly. For anyone who runs both P3D & XP11, there can be no question of which one looks and performs better. The other granted most likely is a far bigger market with a huge plethora of aircraft and other add-ons.

 

What annoys me is that how teased products are dropped and nothing is said. That in an organisation where many from within have previously answered and informed on products is most likely not down to coincidence.

 

As I'm from the UK, I was expecting Newcastle Airport for XP11. I didn't just assume we would get it. We were informed it was been developed for both P3D v4+ & XP11.

TrueEarth really rocks in XP11 and I can say that with certainty as I do have both. Why can't they finish what was started?? What ever happened to the Channel Islands??

The UK was very close to been completed and once installed, there is no requirement for any internet connection.

 

TrueEarth California XP was released ages ago and It was mentioned that there would be an update to fix many bugs and allow helipads in Downtown LA and one would assume around Burbank as they are with the P3D KBUR product. I am still hopeful of this coming as I'm sure I have seen a mention of such an update from Tony, the lead dev on this product. But other than that, it would have been nice to see some of the other popular airports in California ported over including Half Moon Bay.

 

To the customer (outsider), It appears that what happened to AFS2 has happened to XP11. I would expect the market for XP11 however to be substantially larger than AFS2.

 

It would be pleasant to be proved incorrect in my assumptions. 

[W2DR]

5 hours ago, wolfko said:

But as a sim MSFS is superior to XP and P3d/FSX.

 Better as eye-candy? Yes. Better as a sim? No. Someday, maybe - but that's a long way off...if ever. 

[stehas78]

From reading the descriptions, all the MSFS has been in development for a while. 

The Aerosoft Newcastle has a flat runway, so the Orbx version would still be appreciated.

Looked nearly done from the last screenshots, so a bit odd to see it delayed for so long.

The Channel Islands were never planned for XP11, and there's a sloped Guernsey/Jersey from another developer.

Hopefully we'll get an update soon on the future plans/roadmap.

 

[wolfko]

2 hours ago, W2DR said:

 Better as eye-candy? Yes. Better as a sim? No. Someday, maybe - but that's a long way off...if ever. 

 

But here we are talking about scenery,  which is - in the end - nothing else but eye candy.

[MM100]

Agree with the sentiment here and I would also like to see the TE series continue for XP.  I've played around with MSFS for a few weeks now and the novelty has worn off.  Some of the visuals in MSFS are amazing, but the whole experience feels a bit fake (reminds me of playing Forza).  Most importantly, the planes and avionics are garbage and sounds like it will take years before quality aircraft are available for the platform.  At the end of the day, the most important part of flight simming for me is the flying and this comes down to realistic planes.  This is where XP shines and there is long list of great third party aircraft to choose from and some really cool stuff in development.  Coupled with Orbx TE, I'm really starting to appreciate how good XP is once again.  I'm waiting for Orbx team to confirm if TE series will continue and provide some type of roadmap.

[jmsantafe]

+1 for KEGE. @Jarrad Marshall

[JoseCFII]

I have fully loaded versions of P3D v4.5 & XP11, and neither has been used in over a month because MSFS is the most beautiful lighting and atmosphere ever created.

 

It's for me as close to real flying as it gets. I can do day/night VFR & IFR flights in MSFS. I just don't ever see myself ever going back to the legacy sims and it's only going to get better and better.

 

Having said that, Orbx has always said that they will support all the sims. Good luck!

[wolfko]

On 10/14/2020 at 3:40 PM, MM100 said:

Agree with the sentiment here and I would also like to see the TE series continue for XP.  I've played around with MSFS for a few weeks now and the novelty has worn off.  Some of the visuals in MSFS are amazing, but the whole experience feels a bit fake (reminds me of playing Forza).  Most importantly, the planes and avionics are garbage and sounds like it will take years before quality aircraft are available for the platform.  At the end of the day, the most important part of flight simming for me is the flying and this comes down to realistic planes.  This is where XP shines and there is long list of great third party aircraft to choose from and some really cool stuff in development.  Coupled with Orbx TE, I'm really starting to appreciate how good XP is once again.  I'm waiting for Orbx team to confirm if TE series will continue and provide some type of roadmap.

 

Having done some hours in real world  C152s and C172s (although quite some years  ago) I must say their MSFS counterparts are not bad at all. Flying them in MSFS feels like what I remeber of the real thing.

Generally most of the GA aircraft seem to be modelled quite well.

I cannot judge the heavies though, because I have never flown one in real life (exept as passenger).

[wolfko]

4 minutes ago, JoseCFII said:

I have fully loaded versions of P3D v4.5 & XP11, and neither has been used in over a month because MSFS is the most beautiful lighting and atmosphere ever created.

 

It's for me as close to real flying as it gets. I can do day/night VFR & IFR flights in MSFS. I just don't ever see myself ever going back to the legacy sims and it's only going to get better and better.

 

Having said that, Orbx has always said that they will support all the sims. Good luck!

+ 1

[BradB]

1 hour ago, JoseCFII said:

I have fully loaded versions of P3D v4.5 & XP11, and neither has been used in over a month because MSFS is the most beautiful lighting and atmosphere ever created.

 

It's for me as close to real flying as it gets. I can do day/night VFR & IFR flights in MSFS. I just don't ever see myself ever going back to the legacy sims and it's only going to get better and better.

 

Having said that, Orbx has always said that they will support all the sims. Good luck!

Let me ask you a question Jose , which TE version do you prefer ; the one for XP11 or the one for P3D . Anybody else can chime in on this also .

 

Thanks

John

[JoseCFII]

30 minutes ago, BradB said:

Let me ask you a question Jose , which TE version do you prefer ; the one for XP11 or the one for P3D . Anybody else can chime in on this also .

 

Thanks

John

Hi John,

 

I'm going to use TE-FL as an example because I have a bunch of airports for both sims. The short answer is XPlane 11.

 

XP 11 has better night lighting and I love the way that the highways interact with the cars. With the right planes and nav equipment, it's fun! But, the ATC sucks, Global Traffic is nice and adds Airliners and GA but they do not interact with ATC, and the weather is abruptly injected into the sim. It's still a beautiful and smooth sim with Orbx TE.

 

P3D v4.5 is a more complete sim and loads faster. However the micro pauses and poor performance have finally made me stop using it.

 

Thankfully I have MSFS. As the SDK matures and the nav equipment, + more quality airplanes will eventually be released.

[Ken Hall]

Speaking as a developer, and these are just my thoughts.

MSFS looks better, the lighting is superb.

even though the SDK is far from complete it makes many tasks far less time consuming and have features such as wet runways dynamic lighting so much easier to implement, dynamic lighting does not destroy frame rates.

There satellite imagery in most cases is more than satisfactory especially considering how it generates varying detail ground textures and grasses everywhere. Their autogen is vastly superior, no more hand placement of those cross plane trees that from above were lacking.

As far as aircraft go, I have the mooney and the 182 from carenado and they look and feel very lifelike, I’m not into jets and recognise they have a lot of work to do, in the meantime I am enjoying some of the best VFR flying ever. And ATC and flight planning low level airways with ILS approaches is easy, still not perfect but they are getting there.

As far as sales go, P3D has dropped of the planet, why would I spend a year on something that would not sell when I can make the same airport for MSFS in less time with less hassle and get people buying it.

P3D served as a great sim, as did FSX and FS9. Technology marches on and our flight sim world is finally keeping up with it.

I am more inspired than ever to try to create As best I can to add to this experience.

cheers

Ken

 

 

[JoseCFII]

17 minutes ago, Ken Hall said:

As far as sales go, P3D has dropped of the planet, why would I spend a year on something that would not sell when I can make the same airport for MSFS in less time with less hassle and get people buying it.

P3D served as a great sim, as did FSX and FS9. Technology marches on and our flight sim world is finally keeping up with it.

I am more inspired than ever to try to create As best I can to add to this experience.

cheers

Ken

 

 

I agree that the Money is pretty special. If you add the GNS 530 mod you have an even better GA.

 

I'm surprised that P3D add-on sales dropped so dramatically considering that many simmers consider it the perfect sim for study level airliners. I think that in about a year things will be very different.

 

Looking forward to Catalina.

 

BTW, there's a G36 Turbo Mod by Robert Young & the Working Title G1000 mod that makes the Bonanza a payware quality GA.

 

[BradB]

Thanks Ken and Jose for the reply's , I love MS2020 but I can't post shots from everywhere . So that leaves either XP or P3D , and I only like to fly in TE . Decision made , bye bye P3D for now .

 

[craigeaglefire]

i agree with so many of your comments,

 

call me crazy - but i just today added P3Dv5 MK Studios EIDW (Dublin) via Orbx Central to my collection,

 

great fun with the RAAF BlackHawk heli, Traffic Global & Super Traffic Board - & listening to ATC,

 

still waiting, waiting, waiting for MFS helis.

[Badl4ndz]

9 hours ago, Ken Hall said:

Speaking as a developer, and these are just my thoughts.

MSFS looks better, the lighting is superb.

even though the SDK is far from complete it makes many tasks far less time consuming and have features such as wet runways dynamic lighting so much easier to implement, dynamic lighting does not destroy frame rates.

There satellite imagery in most cases is more than satisfactory especially considering how it generates varying detail ground textures and grasses everywhere. Their autogen is vastly superior, no more hand placement of those cross plane trees that from above were lacking.

As far as aircraft go, I have the mooney and the 182 from carenado and they look and feel very lifelike, I’m not into jets and recognise they have a lot of work to do, in the meantime I am enjoying some of the best VFR flying ever. And ATC and flight planning low level airways with ILS approaches is easy, still not perfect but they are getting there.

As far as sales go, P3D has dropped of the planet, why would I spend a year on something that would not sell when I can make the same airport for MSFS in less time with less hassle and get people buying it.

P3D served as a great sim, as did FSX and FS9. Technology marches on and our flight sim world is finally keeping up with it.

I am more inspired than ever to try to create As best I can to add to this experience.

cheers

Ken

 

 

 

Your reply Ken is much appreciated. Thank you very much for taking the time and being the one to respond. I take your point about the development time etc making developing for MSFS an easier proposition. We have all seen how MSFS has experienced a popular launch and thus a much larger potential market.

 

However, I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are many gamers that have been attracted by the eye candy, which granted is far superior to anything else out of the box, will get bored and return to play whatever they played before or the next big thing. Leaving us faithful flight sim users (I go back to FS1 on TRS-80 Model 1 before adolescence and FS5 as a young father on DOS 6) that have invested more money than we would wish our other halves to know to be the still the main market in the long term. Some of the new comers and returning simmers will no doubt add to that but I don't think the market will remain as big in the long term. It's just like sim racing. It is niche.

 

It just feels like for us who have helped Orbx become the success they currently are, by investing in lots of their hard work to make our own experiences much better, my original point below is justified, especially because there is no communication regarding what was trailed as being developed for XP11 for instance and indeed what the future is. 

 

"What annoys me is that how teased products are dropped and nothing is said. That in an organisation where many from within have previously answered and informed on products is most likely not down to coincidence.

 

As I'm from the UK, I was expecting Newcastle Airport for XP11. I didn't just assume we would get it. We were informed it was been developed for both P3D v4+ & XP11."

 

One could wonder if one might feel slightly taken for granted without any explanation of what happened to products in development etc or indeed the future of product development for the platforms of XP11 & P3D.  

  

[craigeaglefire]

5 minutes ago, Badl4ndz said:

One could wonder if one might feel slightly taken for granted without any explanation of what happened to products in development etc or indeed the future of product development for the platforms of XP11 & P3D.

 

+1,

 

we all know MFS is the new game in town - but - some clear Orbx developer communication about P3D & XP plans would be greatly appreciated now.

[Ken Hall]

1 hour ago, craigeaglefire said:

 

+1,

 

we all know MFS is the new game in town - but - some clear Orbx developer communication about P3D & XP plans would be greatly appreciated now.

I can't speak for Orbx, how they approach this is not for me to explain. for me I see MSFS as the future, it's as simple as that. For Xplane to compete they might just do a deal with Google, now that this technology is out there you can bet the other sims will be looking at it. the aircraft and all aspects of MSFS will get much better may even surpass the other sims, even before it was released sales for the other sims dropped off, developers got little warning that it was even in developement, I know some developers who were mid project and then out of nowhere we get the news of it's release, so I guess some developers are being cautious and adopting a wait and see, If what you suggest happens then develoment will continue. Are any of the other companies still developing for P3D and XPlane, I havn't seen anything, plenty of discounts on old stuff but nothing new. personally I spent 2 years developing Boulder and got to sell it for about 4 months, then just like that nothing. I appreciate all the support from customers over the years and I believe the best way to reward that support is to give you better quality at a lower price in the new sim, Porting whats portable and making the new version shine.

cheers

Ken

[JoseCFII]

As a customer I noticed that the price for airports for P3D v4 were getting out of hand. I saw this for XP11 too, but not as much. I just paid $7 for CYVR for MSFS update.

 

At those prices it's going to be hard for customers to stick with a legacy sim.

[Kilstorm]

I suppose there isnt much that can be said if P3D sales drop like a rock and sky rocket on MSFS from a developers point of view. It would be interesting to hear about how XP11 products have weathered post MSFS release. I still believe XP11 has way more life before MSFS catches it from a real pilots needs to where the tradeoffs are minimal.

[Dusterman]

Ken's comments on why developers are migrating to MSFS are very enlightening. It stands to reason that modern, efficient tools to develop airports will give better return on the investment in developing sceneries and lowering the cost of addon scenery. It will also stimulate the freeware developers to create content for MSFS. As a scenery developer for X-Plane freeware scenery, I have been frustrated by the difficulty of creating high quality scenery with a reasonable time investment. If MSFS development tools make high quality scenery creation cost effective, the freeware folks may migrate to MSFS.  The MSFS SDK is still in early development and has some deficiencies, but the ability to relatively easily create sloped runways is a major attraction for me. X-Plane needs to up its game for scenery development tools if they want to keep developers creating for X-Plane.

[olderndirt]

Best lighting, wonderful world wide scenery and great looking planes.  But do they fly? - not that great.  To me that's what FLIGHT sim is about.  I can get all the eye candy on 'Youtube' but a Flightsim is where you simulate flight.  So far XP is closest though, until they can simulate air flow and pressure, they're all a WIP. 

[wolfko]

9 hours ago, olderndirt said:

Best lighting, wonderful world wide scenery and great looking planes.  But do they fly? - not that great.  To me that's what FLIGHT sim is about.  I can get all the eye candy on 'Youtube' but a Flightsim is where you simulate flight.  So far XP is closest though, until they can simulate air flow and pressure, they're all a WIP. 

 

Have you tried the GA planes in MSFS or just the heavies?

For me the default C172 in MSFS is par to the default C172 in XP11, the default 152 is even superior. Just my 2 cents.

And in which other sim do you get thermals modeled when flxing over a hill, or up and downdrafts whter you are flying over land or water bodies? This is realism for me.

 

And if you do not need eye candy, than you also do not need any add on scnerey of Orbx quality.

For VFR navigation a green surface with some basic mesh, different colour patches for towns, forests and lakes etc., just lines in different colours for roads and waterways and simple POIs will do. For IFR flying you just need nav aids added. Actually not much different from what we had in FS2. Everything beyond this would just be eye candy. 

 

And honestly, eye candy is what for most real world pilots is one of the most fscinating aspects of flying. Stunning landscapes, fascinating cloud formations, that is what most pilots love about flying. I am sure only a few became pilots because they are fascinated by starting a plane from cold and dark. Most real world pilots actually are hating this.

 

[wolfko]

On 10/16/2020 at 1:22 AM, JoseCFII said:

I agree that the Money is pretty special. If you add the GNS 530 mod you have an even better GA.

 

I'm surprised that P3D add-on sales dropped so dramatically considering that many simmers consider it the perfect sim for study level airliners. I think that in about a year things will be very different.

 

Looking forward to Catalina.

 

BTW, there's a G36 Turbo Mod by Robert Young & the Working Title G1000 mod that makes the Bonanza a payware quality GA.

 

 

Thank you very much Jose! After your tip for Bendigo another very useful heads up. 

 

 

[olderndirt]

6 hours ago, wolfko said:

 

Have you tried the GA planes in MSFS or just the heavies?

For me the default C172 in MSFS is par to the default C172 in XP11, the default 152 is even superior. Just my 2 cents.

And in which other sim do you get thermals modeled when flxing over a hill, or up and downdrafts whter you are flying over land or water bodies? This is realism for me.

 

And if you do not need eye candy, than you also do not need any add on scnerey of Orbx quality.

For VFR navigation a green surface with some basic mesh, different colour patches for towns, forests and lakes etc., just lines in different colours for roads and waterways and simple POIs will do. For IFR flying you just need nav aids added. Actually not much different from what we had in FS2. Everything beyond this would just be eye candy. 

 

And honestly, eye candy is what for most real world pilots is one of the most fscinating aspects of flying. Stunning landscapes, fascinating cloud formations, that is what most pilots love about flying. I am sure only a few became pilots because they are fascinated by starting a plane from cold and dark. Most real world pilots actually are hating this.

 

After six thousand plus hours over forty years my main flying concerns were not so much the beauty of clouds but were they going to be a problem and landscapes depended on the flight's purpose - were those legal horns, could I land on that bar or is there overflow on that lake?.  Different strokes for different folks.  

[craigeaglefire]

14 hours ago, olderndirt said:

depended on the flight's purpose - were those legal horns, could I land on that bar or is there overflow on that lake?. 

what?

[Orbx Flyer]

23 hours ago, wolfko said:

 

Have you tried the GA planes in MSFS or just the heavies?

For me the default C172 in MSFS is par to the default C172 in XP11, the default 152 is even superior. Just my 2 cents.

And in which other sim do you get thermals modeled when flxing over a hill, or up and downdrafts whter you are flying over land or water bodies? This is realism for me.

 

And if you do not need eye candy, than you also do not need any add on scnerey of Orbx quality.

For VFR navigation a green surface with some basic mesh, different colour patches for towns, forests and lakes etc., just lines in different colours for roads and waterways and simple POIs will do. For IFR flying you just need nav aids added. Actually not much different from what we had in FS2. Everything beyond this would just be eye candy. 

 

And honestly, eye candy is what for most real world pilots is one of the most fscinating aspects of flying. Stunning landscapes, fascinating cloud formations, that is what most pilots love about flying. I am sure only a few became pilots because they are fascinated by starting a plane from cold and dark. Most real world pilots actually are hating this.

 

Well stated!  Touché!

[olderndirt]

On 10/18/2020 at 1:06 AM, craigeaglefire said:

what?

When you live and fly in the Alaska bush ( McGrath PAMC - 6 years among others) a lot of your flying time is spent observing moose and/or caribou and, back in the days when you could land and shoot, the length of a gravel bar was important.  Could you get off with the weight of whatever you shot?  Winter time brings the problem of overflow on rivers and lakes - secretly hiding under an innocent layer of pristine snow.  You have to make a pass, hit it fairly hard with your ski's then come back around and look at your tracks.  If they're getting dark, that's water under the snow so go elsewhere. 

[craigeaglefire]

2 hours ago, olderndirt said:

When you live and fly in the Alaska bush

 

that is some serious flying experience, OND

 

as i am learning flight sim, some of the most amazing YouTube clips are of the skills of the Alaskan bush pilots.

[David85]

I own both sims.. Real life PPL here, like other friend, and with a home cockpit. 

Fs2020 is very beautiful but.. until it wont be possible to fully use all the hardwares of a simulator (radios,  gps, proper calibration of the axis...), I will stay with xplane. 

And other pilots in the same situation are.

If it is impossible to train on procedures or cross country flights, I prefer to spend in xplane to improve it..

 

A pity that Orbx didn't release a Terra Flora V2 with real autumn and winter. 

Another year without beautiful seasons to fly in,  under xplane,  and it's a bit sad..

[Ken Hall]

On 10/22/2020 at 12:55 AM, David85 said:

I own both sims.. Real life PPL here, like other friend, and with a home cockpit. 

Fs2020 is very beautiful but.. until it wont be possible to fully use all the hardwares of a simulator (radios,  gps, proper calibration of the axis...), I will stay with xplane. 

And other pilots in the same situation are.

If it is impossible to train on procedures or cross country flights, I prefer to spend in xplane to improve it..

 

A pity that Orbx didn't release a Terra Flora V2 with real autumn and winter. 

Another year without beautiful seasons to fly in,  under xplane,  and it's a bit sad..

After the latest patch all radios are working AP works great you can even let the AP land the aircraft using the ILS. GPS also works fine, all my peripherals can be mapped, calibration requires using the windows calibration tool, and the sensitivity is adjustable in the sim, I remember earlier versions of Xplane the UI was not so user friendly. MFS is only a few months old and is constantly being updated. I firmly believe mfs will be the sim of choice for the majority of simmers.

cheers

Ken

 

[Seanmo]

I think we can all agree that those who are forced to use XP11 (Macintosh and Linux users) will continue to do so for many years to come, providing developers with a small amount of income for their efforts. Virtually everyone else is already using MSFS or will be within 12 months, providing devs with far more income now and in the future for their endeavors. There really isn't any need to argue about any of this. It is just the new normal.

[David85]

Not so sure.. 

Many home.cockpit users (like myself) still cannot map their hardwares..(leobodnar for gps,  arduino, etc..).

The sensitivity curve for the axis is not accurate enough.. still can use properly my reals cessna mixture and throttle verniers..

Cannot use my radios, trim wheel.. so, no for now fs2020 is unused..

 

XP allows at least this to work.. just a pity that Orbx release many airports now for fs2020 which have never been proposed for xplane. But before that, seasons on an already existing add-on 

[Badl4ndz]

On 10/14/2020 at 1:33 PM, stehas78 said:

From reading the descriptions, all the MSFS has been in development for a while. 

The Aerosoft Newcastle has a flat runway, so the Orbx version would still be appreciated.

Looked nearly done from the last screenshots, so a bit odd to see it delayed for so long.

The Channel Islands were never planned for XP11, and there's a sloped Guernsey/Jersey from another developer.

Hopefully we'll get an update soon on the future plans/roadmap.

 

 

"The Channel Islands were never planned for XP11"

 

https://orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/183842-announcing-egja-alderney-the-earthsimulations-classic-reborn-for-fsxp3d/?do=findComment&comment=1597301

[stehas78]

3 hours ago, Badl4ndz said:

 

"The Channel Islands were never planned for XP11"

 

https://orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/183842-announcing-egja-alderney-the-earthsimulations-classic-reborn-for-fsxp3d/?do=findComment&comment=1597301

 

Looks like XP11 was only discussed here in a theoretical sense, with the reason it wasn't happening. The original post referred to the Earth Simulations P3D products, which I believe were picked up by Orbx after ES folded a few years back.

 

They would make a good mini region though.