Will ORBX FTX venture into X-Plane 10?

[twsimfan]

First off I am not trying to start any arguments with anybody. I have had FSX since it first became available and I have by last count 42 FTX products installed in it.

 

Secondly I assume this question has been asked before but I did do a search for such a thread and came up empty. I probably did the search incorrectly.

 

Background:

 

I had XP5 and hated it. I could go on at length as to why but why bother that was long ago. I had XP9 and it was a little better than 5. Not enough so that it has ever been installed on my current system but I did spend a few hours with it before moving on.

 

I had no intention of buying XP10 until I discovered that it is a 64 bit application. That got my curiosity up. So I did a search and bought the North America only edition for $30 from Amazon with free shipping even.

 

They say they include 30+ airplanes but that is bogus. Probably half of those are never completed styling exercises. Some nice exterior models on some without 3D cockpits. A shame. Still there are some good ones with 3D cockpits and decent exterior models and there are a few that are real gems. But only a few. There are also many thousands of freeware aircraft and maybe 1% of those are really good. One percent is a lot all considered.

 

There are also some very good payware aircraft for XP. A lot of XP only developers but now Carenado & Alabeo are developing their lines for XP10.

 

XP has a poor user interface and has as  long as I have known about it and from what I'm told always has. Some rumors say LR is aware and intends to improve it. But those rumors were around in XP5 days too.

 

But what really hurts in XP is the scenery. Yes I know there are literally thousands of freeware & payware scenery add-ons for it but out of the box it still is pretty bad. But the 64 bit architecture offers so much promise as to what could be done.

 

So my question is a simple one: Will ORBX FTX ever consider developing it's scenery for XP10 or even perhaps a future XP11?

 

If I were in charge of ORBX decision making I don't know how I would feel about that question. It would be cool to fly over the Northern Seattle area in PNW with all those airports in that area installed with triple digit frame rates. I know some of the payware scenery I've seen for XP10 is warmed over MSE 1.0 ported to XP. I own quite a lot of that stuff and it was never much good (IMO) in FSX.

 

I know it is possible and apparently profitable to port aircraft designed for FSX & P3D to XP or Carenado wouldn't be doing it. Could Australia SP4, PNW, & NCA be made to work in XP10 in a cost effective manner?

 

To be honest I am not even sure if I will continue to use XP10 in the future but if I could fly from Bonners Ferry to KSFF over NRM's beauty it would seem to be more likely.

 

And please do not be upset with me. I remain a devoted user of FSX & FTX.

 

Thank you,

 

Tom Wunder

[Mallard]

Hi Tom,

 

I guess you saw the World2XPlane-thread over at the Avsim Screenshot-Forum? My mind boggles if I begin to think about what FTX would look like in X-Plane.

 

Cheers

 

Mallard

 

(seriously considering taking a long, hard and good look at the newest X-plane 10 version. I have XP-9, but never could really do much with it...)

[twsimfan]

Hi Mallard,

 

I spent years as a moderator over at AVSIM but I rarely go near the place these days. I'll have to go see if I can find that thread. Thank you for the tip. XP10 looks really good up in the clouds but the airports are just big empty paved areas with few exceptions. But I already have spent more time with it than I did with 5 & 9 put together. There is definite potential there but not so much out of the box. Laying down a few FTX regions would make all the difference.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Tom Wunder

[Jack the Swede in Spain]

Seriously, Why would ORBX team up with a looser?   

[twsimfan]

JJ if you look at my opening post on this thread I have never been a X-Plane booster. I see some possible potential in the current version (10.25) and apparently Carenado & Alabeo do as well. It seems to me that if they can make a profit porting their wares to XP10 that ORBX might also be able to do so. But I have no idea in the world of what is involved in porting highly detailed scenery from FSX/P3D to XP10. Whether or not a profit can be had is the main issue but also I think that XP10 is the only home 64 bit simulator and that it remains under development may also be factors.

 

I grant you that on the surface XP looks pretty lame but if you add in a bunch of great aircraft flying over gorgeous FTX regions it becomes a lot more desirable.

 

So I only ask if it can be done and more importantly can it be done cost effectively?

 

(It also might be nice to know if ORBX would be interested or not even if it is possible & profitable. )

 

Thanks,

 

Tom Wunder

[Vora]

From a pure business perspective my biggest concern with XP would be that Laminar Research Inc. is more or less a one man show. What if something happens to Austin or he loses interest (AFAIK he has a patent troll on his heels) or finds a better income source or... or... you get my point.

One reason I jumped to LM P3D was a guaranteed future - MS FS is "legacy", i.e a dead end street, and LS XP depends more or less on a single person.

[twsimfan]

I dunno. I do remember asking a question regarding XP5 years ago and getting a reply from the man himself. You look in the manual and on sites where they are selling add-ons and they talk about "the development group" so hopefully there is more to Laminar Research than just Austin these days.

 

But please let me remind you that I am here asking if OBRX will consider porting to XP or not. I do not know if XP has a future. But I suspect the answer to that question could influence whether or not Laminar Research & Austin do have a future.

 

Just my thoughts on the subject Vora... thank you for yours.

 

Tom Wunder

[Brito]

Dear Tom,

 

I agree with almost everything you said. Details - XP is an excellent trainer / simulator: to keep piloting skills. In this sense, the other two do not get on their feet. 

 

But as you said, is poor its scenario: its looking is disheartening! 

 

I like to see a good and wonderful scenery: Orbx gives me. I, for the most part, flying for fun: Orbx, FSX and P3D provide me (it seems P3D is taking way.  ) So I get the three.

 

But, dear Tom, what prevents our friends there in advance to have a "good looking" is the the simulator owner: he doesn't open!

 

Cheers,

[twsimfan]

Sinesio,

 

I agree with what I understand. I suspect you and I also agree that XP needs a much better looking user interface... but I am not entirely sure I understand your comment.

 

Thanks for the input.

 

Tom Wunder

[Brito]

Sinesio,

 

I agree with what I understand. I suspect you and I also agree that XP needs a much better looking user interface... but I am not entirely sure I understand your comment.

 

Thanks for the input.

 

Tom Wunder

 

That is it!

Cheers,

[Perk]

I've been flying X-Plane 10 for the last couple of years.  I've switched back in the last month or so, mostly for the A2A C172 (I'm taking lessons in real life and it's an amazing trainer), and for the Orbx Airports.

 

Stock X-Plane 10 honestly has vastly better autogen, roads, and auto traffic than stock FSX or P3D.  The roads (3d signs, bridges, viaducts, etc) and auto traffic are better than even the best FSX mods.  I personally think the flight physics and wind / turbulence modeling are superior as well.  Some of the payware aircraft are absolutely fabulous - DA-42 comes to mind.  On top of that, X-Plane is 64 bit and built on OpenGL so it's not locked in to Microsoft's ever shrinking world (there are OS-X and Linux versions).

What it doesn't have is ten years worth of commercial modifications and the level of "hackability" that comes with that, nor the shear amount of art and environment assets that FSX/P3D have.  Coastlines are ugly and angular, and there's no wave motion.  The weather engine is basic at best (flat loads every fifteen minutes), and the clouds look good, but have no where near the variation you get with REX or Activesky.  Textures and autogen buildings (while excellent) are repetitive, and there aren't addons like REX or GEX to make things better.  The best payware airports look amazing, but don't come to life like the Orbx airports do (natureflow, peopleflow, etc).  AI traffic (even with Worldtraffic) is basic at best, and ATC is horrible (both of these are kind of moot if you fly Vatsim or Pilotedge).

 

Honestly when X-Plane 10 came out it was as good or better than fully modded FSX, but it's lagged behind again in the last couple of years due to lack of commercial mods.  It's still a much better place to start than FSX or even P3D, but for someone willing to put in the time and money required to get commercial mods working, FSX is still better looking, and the environment is much more "alive".  X-Plane airplanes still fly more like the real thing in my opinion though - when I'm training procedures I fly the A2A 172, when I'm practicing ground reference and slow flight, I fly X-Plane.

 

I'm hoping against hope that LM will eventually sacrifice some of the backwards compatibility and modernize the P3D engine for V3.  They SERIOUSLY need to move to 64 bit architecture, and if they could move away from DirectX they'd have a much easier time selling to the various European and Asian governments who don't do Microsoft.

[twsimfan]

Hi Perk,

 

I think I disagree with some of your points but your knowledge would appear to be far superior to my own so I am not going to disagree very loudly.

 

Have you looked at the "UrbanMAXX" and "MAXX FX" products? I haven't tried either of them but one is supposed to improve coastlines and roadways and the other is supposed to improve clouds and color rendering. Or so I'm told. I don't know if that addresses the lack of REX or not. I had intended to buy REX during PCA's recent Easter sale but spaced it out.

 

I think part of what you are saying here is that the future needs to be 64 bit what ever sim that means. I do wholeheartedly believe that to be true.

 

I also enjoyed your comments on the A2A 172. I have been meaning to buy that and their Cub for some time now and I need to get around to it one of these days.

 

I think I will read over your post several more times before this evening is over. Lots of information there.

 

Have a great day,

 

Tom Wunder

[jabloomf1230]

These threads show up and the originator always makes some assumption that it is a trivial exercise to support FSX, P3d and XP10. Bad news, it isn't. If P3d was still at version 1.4, I could see a developer spending scarce resources on XP10. But P3d 2 has moved well beyond being FSX with some minor updates. The only decision these days is whether to support both FSX and P3d or just one.

[windquest]

Well said. I still have FS9 and FSX only because of special vintage scenery, no longer developed.  Like like most others, I will drop p3dv1.4 when all my ORBX scenery is officially 2.2+.  We have all witnessed the grass roots movement right here on the ORBX forums, we bug John and we buy his products, we discuss p3d and we help each other.  LM responds, ORBX responds and no other platform has that going for them.  There is a huge amount of development still to come, the only question is who do you think has the most resources to get the job done?

[twsimfan]

OK so as the originator of this thread I am an evil supporter of FSX, P3D, & XP10... do I have that right?

 

You might as well throw in aeroflyFS & MS Flight while you are at it. And yes I guess I am guilty of those "crimes". ??

 

Although I'm not so sure if I am a supporter of XP10 yet. I am definitely not a supporter of XP5 or XP 9 but I'm still deciding on XP10.

 

I was a supporter or at least a user of FS9/FS04 for a lot of years but I gave up on it in favor of FSX a system or two ago.

 

My point in starting this thread was to try to determine if ORBX FTX was likely to port any of their scenery over to XP10. Why? Because at this point I have exactly $29.99 tied up in XP10. Because if ORBX were to decide to seek business expansion in the realm of XP it would in my opinion mean that XP10 might be a pastime worth pursuing. XP10 with it's 64 bit architecture could be a good thing with some FTX. And I am not so sure it is worth my time if ORBX isn't interested in going that route.

 

But if you object to a supporter of FSX, P3D, and XP10 just what is it you do not object to?

 

Most of all I am a supporter of FTX and my curiosity is because if ORBX takes XP10 seriously then maybe so do I. And so far they aren't talking.

 

I am sorry that I took on a bit of an argumentative tone...  

 

Thank you for your opinion,

 

Tom Wunder

 

(PS - In the interest of truth in advertising I do not own P3D at this time but I have no doubt that in time I will. I can't think of a GA sim yet that I haven't purchased and P3D definitely looks to have great possibilities.)

[John Venema]

Answer to the OP: no.

[twsimfan]

John,

 

I don't think I understand "OP" and perhaps I will be embarrassed when I do. But I do understand the "no" part. Thank you for the answer.

 

Best regards,

 

Tom Wunder

[Mallard]

Hi Tom,

 

OP roughly tranlsates to "original post", or thread-starter.

 

It's a shame that Orbx isn't looking into X-Plane. I know that I - as a potential customer - increasingly am... For the life of me I can't imagine why they want to stay on the 32-bit level. And if LM is going 64 bit anytime then almost everything will have to be completely redone anyway if I halfway understand what has been posted on various forums.

 

Ah, well...

 

Cheers

 

Mallard

[twsimfan]

Hi Mallard,

 

Thank you for filling me in on the definition of "OP". I'm glad that it didn't prove to be too much of a reprimand.

 

I agree with what you are saying about XP10... especially the 64 bit vs 32 bit part. I think I will continue to pursue XP for a while but I believe that for now I will stick with the free stuff in that realm. I don't want to get in too deep until I have a better understanding of how well I like it. If ORBX were interested in going that route I would have maybe had a bit more confidence to "invest" a bit more but that isn't the case.

 

It is not my place to lecture John Venema on what product lines ORBX should be developing. I hope he understands that was not my intent. I asked a question and I am grateful to have got an answer.

 

If I can find enough freeware to spice up my copy of XP10 some I have to admit there is a certain B-25J that I could be very tempted to buy for it. I have and love the MAAM "Briefing Time" but this one... "Martha Jean" I think... looks to be as well detailed and I've flown the XP10 version of the 747-400 enough to know that XP10 deals well with very complex aircraft. Oh well that will have to wait a while...

 

Thanks again for the input Mallard,

 

Tom Wunder

[moonman]

An interesting thread here.

Thank You very much for asking Tom and thank You very much for Your honest reply JV.

I also fly around in X-Plane nowadays from time to time every now and then as there has been some nice stuff becoming available for it.

Sure all of it is by far not as great looking as some of the fantastic stuff available for FSX/P3D but when keeping in mind that most of it is either free- or donationware, the quality of these add-ons can certainly be considered to be very good!

 

And i just think it is very good to have various platforms available.

So:

As for now i mainly use FSX under DX10 and in between X-Plane 10.25.

Looking very much forward though to what the future will be holding for us flightsimmers - also in regards to P3D and various other (potetial) new flightsimming platforms!

Simply because although i like my FSX-sim as it is at the moment very much, due to its age and limitations it sure won't stay on my PC any day longer than necessary!

[twsimfan]

Thank you Moonman... I do appreciate your insight.

 

(I will respond to your PM separately once I get a little more awake... once I get a little more caffeine into my system.)

[moonman]

Thank you Moonman... I do appreciate your insight.

 

(I will respond to your PM separately once I get a little more awake... once I get a little more caffeine into my system.)

 

No worries no hurries Tom!

Write back whenever it suits You best and Your time allows it!

[superdelphinus]

I find x plane quite frustrating to be honest. The flight sim market is so bloody ripe for a new, modern sim (just look at the furore over p3d 2, and that is really 'new' in inverted commas) and there's already a very powerful, 64bit one here. To me it just seems that they aren't really that interesting in making it big time. Probably unfair of me, but...

However, I am beginning to wonder whether x plane is really on the verge of finally taking off a bit more with its introduction on to Steam and arguably FSX's pole bearer, PMDG, making something for it. I think those two things could be signs of something happening and it surprises me a bit that Orbx aren't biting, though I'm basically making assumptions with almost no actual information

To round off this essay, I love flying planes in x-plane's high fidelity engine and getting the performance my modern computer deserves, but I soon yearn back to ftx global, active sky next (I believe hi fi are also looking at x plane?) and some semblance of ATC.

Ps, the opening line of this thread makes me a bit sad. What does it say about the maturity of this 'community' (flight sim in general, not orbx) that you have to pre empt anger by talking about something other than fsx/ p3d!?

Pps - the x plane developers blog is an interesting thing to read every now and again (just google x plane blog). Looks like there's some good additions coming in 10.30

[Sub7th]

I think people are putting a little to much weight on the 64 bit thing. Modern graphics are moving towards a more gpu and vram intensive architecture. That seems to be where p3d is heading as well. With an updated physics engine I think Lockheed can go pretty far.

I guess if you wanted to use ram to store all the textures at once then 64 bit might have some advantage but that's kind of overkill.

I dunno, I'm no expert. Just seems unnecessary.

[shipdriver]

I think people are putting a little to much weight on the 64 bit thing. Modern graphics are moving towards a more gpu and vram intensive architecture. That seems to be where p3d is heading as well. With an updated physics engine I think Lockheed can go pretty far.

I guess if you wanted to use ram to store all the textures at once then 64 bit might have some advantage but that's kind of overkill.

I dunno, I'm no expert. Just seems unnecessary.

As long as people want to fly PMDG planes at complex airports in complex scenery areas with HD textures everywhere, the desire to not have OOMs will always add to the allure of 64-bit.

[Sub7th]

Are people still getting ooms in v2.2?

I haven't had any.

As the gpu tackles more of the fx processing and cards come equipped with more vram, I just don't see the benefit. I mean how many gigs of pre loaded textures are we talking?

[Mamue]

@Tom

X-Plane never use the whole ORBX-Stuff.

X-Plane now have that beautiful FREEWARE fotorealism Scenery.

And the Airports comes step-by-step.

[superdelphinus]

I think people are putting a little to much weight on the 64 bit thing. Modern graphics are moving towards a more gpu and vram intensive architecture. That seems to be where p3d is heading as well. With an updated physics engine I think Lockheed can go pretty far.I guess if you wanted to use ram to store all the textures at once then 64 bit might have some advantage but that's kind of overkill.I dunno, I'm no expert. Just seems unnecessary.

Developers can always use more memory and performance I guess. 32bits might be ok with most things now, but x plane being able to address all available resources on a computer is surely a big advantage.

I keep on dipping into xp10 over the last year or so and I'm not sure many people realise just what you can do to that sim, and what is in development. Couple of things I've been reading about today are world2xplane (a sort of scenery generator which looks fantastic), some clever fiddling with Raleigh scattering which makes in-engine graphics looks completely realistic from an advanced lighting point of view and a bit more about skymaxx which I think most people know about already (I didn't know about the god rays bit though). Couple some of that sort of stuff with a pmdg heavy and a 32bit application would crash in about 10 seconds!

[jpreou]

This thread caused me to look at the XP10 website. The intro video is certainly impressive. However, I have too much time and money invested in FSX/P3D so until 'everyone' says XP10 is the way to go and until it is clearly head and shoulders above my P3Dv2 and ORBX combo then I simply cannot justify additional time and money into a new platform.

Plus I'm basically lazy ... what I have works and looks ok... that is good enough for me. A few less CTD would be nice.. but the frustration level is not yet where I feel compelled to look elsewhere.

[cabnz]

I also have FSX, P3Dv2.2 and X-Plane 10.

 

At this time I seem to spread my time using all three for different reasons.

 

FSX - for 3D Vision and beautiful with ORBX but overall, lots of micro stutters (P3D is not setup for 3D Vision at this stage but LM are working on it and X-Plane 10 is OpenGL which can not do it)

 

P3Dv2.2 - no more OOM's at this stage and runs very well especially with some big addons but overall, still has some micro stutters.

 

X-Plane 10 - very very smooth, no micro stutters (I have a Titan (well two Titans actually but only using one at the moment).

 

I've also brought up / asked about ORBX and X-Plane some time ago with the same answer but glad to hear I'm not the only one interested in an ORBX X-Plane world - it would be fantastic.

 

I have bought a lot of addons for X-Plane 10 and it's looking pretty good now but as some one else mentioned, I too also like to return to the ORBX world of FSX/P3D. I agree that the flight model of X-Plane is much better especially with it's smoothness. I've occasionally mentioned on the odd X-Plane forums that things need to speed up on the development side of things with X-Plane 10 but I always get shot down saying things take time. I guess they do and when the X-Plane community is a lot smaller I have to except that. It's a real shame though because X-Plane does have a lot going for it - It can actually do what ORBX can do ie peopleflow, natureflow etc as some X-Plane 10 addons already do have.

 

I'm happy that we have choices but unfortunately the hoppy is expensive and most people have to make a choice.

 

64 bit is important as I simple don't get oom's in X-Plane 10 - it is very stable.

 

Could go on and on but would like to say that we are all very lucky to have the choice and very thankful for all developers whether that's for FSX, P3d or X-Plane for what they have and are doing with our flight simming.

 

Take care,

 

Craig 

[twsimfan]

jpreou - Jeff,

 

I am still learning how to make XP10 work & look well on my system. From what some of these follks say it must be possible to make it pretty good. But I do want to caution that I have yet to see anything inside of XP10 that looks as good as that intro video on LR's site shows it.

 

I am not saying the product is good or bad just that we should keep in mind that video is a commercial.

 

Regards,

 

Tom Wunder

[cabnz]

Overall, no X-Plane 10 doesn't look as good that's why ORBX scenery would be great but who knows what might happen in the future.

PS: Just re-read my last post and sorry about the spelling errors etc, I was in a hurry

[jpreou]

Yeah, I figured as much; rarely do products look as good as the promo videos suggest (though thankfully ORBX ones are very close, the issue being my meagre laptop I am sure!).

When the whole world is screaming about XP then I'll maybe take another look. Meanwhile, I wait the NZ regions and airports to become properly P3D'd [v2] and then I'll be a happy little camper again: especially since soon I'll need to fidelity in that I need to practice for some real-life microlight cross-country visual navigation stuff.

Cheers