Pretty good once we have a chance to get to it – we did left-side driving using the library in v9, and the mechanism is still there; we just haven’t had time to build a left-side road file.

OK this is better – and you are clear.

Don’t overuse the size difference between MSFT and Laminar though. MSFT handles a few hundreds of SKUs (be it software or in smaller degree hardware). Each project team doesn’t have infinite resources. Esp. FS team that was eventually killed. On the other hand Laminar makes X-Plane and its “byproducts”. That is all. Code is code (been there done that). Code you can do (or you can’t – obviously you people can). Resources for the code to use are out there.

Landmarks and major building libraries are out there. Both as free projects (or even open source) and commercial – eager to make deals with companies like Laminar. I am sure it would fit the price X-Plane costs (or even justify maybe a 10% price rise) to have those things IN stock.

Same for planes as I mentioned in my first port. You have a great community. Unfortunately (seems people that like to use flight simulators pay easily) most projects are payware (in a much larger ratio than FSX which remember ALREADY started with great stock resources). Make a deal with some of them. Include less planes but COMPLETE planes (full 3D inside and out, fully support XP10 features etc. – not just quick-n-dirty ports from 9).

I know if more people yelled like I do you WOULD do it. Am I right or am I right?

🙂

Anyway keep up the good work (I never denied the good work that is going on), but remember: Taking a feature from 91% to 96% doesn’t count as much as taking a feature from 46% to 50%. I am not trying to form your company policy 😀 (although I have done that too for companies that go fine), but really, you should prioritize your efforts to take the “lowest standard” stock features to an acceptable level and THEN perfect the already “more than ok” features.

Thank you for your time once more (actually my posts might justify a separate blog entry eh?).

Back with the roads – what’s the chance of having the Sim know whether it’s generating road traffic in a non-conforming country like Britain with everyone on the other side? Pretty trivial compared to realistic cities and better fps I know, but does make a difference when I’m flying round the local area buzzing the roads trying to read the signs 🙂

Warren

Well NLS, I understand mostly your complaints, and for the main part you’re right. X-Plane lacks of some things many consider essential, and it’s not a perfect software at all (which is, really ?).

Anyway, it seems to me you’re making a big mistake by comparing two companies that does’t have much in common. Laminar is not and never will be Microsoft ! You ask for more content (better planes, buildings, details), but it needs many people and a lot of money to acheive this.

So yes, X-Plane can be smarter on many levels, but in content creation there are no tricks permitted, you need means. Plain and simple.

Well it was actually wrong from my part to post this under THIS post. You are right. Add also the language barrier (which you will witness below too).

With my post I didn’t want to “strike” the original post per se, it was rather just an excuse. I am “striking” the whole X-Plane marketing strategy. Now without “that other one”, X-Plane marketing strategy sums up to something like that: “pay now and we’ll take our time to make it proper in some areas – if ever – because you don’t have a real generic alternative”. I know I sound too harsh, I know I invite flames. I *DO* accept X-Plane’s near perfection in some (few though) parts that make up for a generic flight simulator. I have already mentioned the constant development throughout the years. The thing is that some other areas in the system (cities for example) seem like “hey I don’t know how to make this better or I don’t care or I bet third party will take over because it’s company policy”.

This is what bothers me. The other (dead) simulator, did “an ok job” for most things. Nothing too exceptional and indeed whoever wanted (or wants) “exceptional” 3rd party is there to help. You can live without it though. In contrast (was the case in all X-Plane 9 cycle too – this is what bothers me and makes me think it will NOT change), some parts of X-Plane 10 are indeed highly developed, while others are WAY underdeveloped …and I am not sure if it’s in the plans to actually develop them in “stock” version.

Even that wouldn’t bother me, if it was not used in company’s marketing (this is the main “flame” of my original post). You cannot claim all this “plausible” world (again some things you have done are INDEED original – I accept that), when it actually is NOT plausible. What is plausible? An NYC without the skyscrapers? Yeah, maybe after nuclear war. Paris without Eiffel tower? Yeah, if extra terrestrials lift it with a beam. This should be STOCK features. It’s not nuclear science to include in your hyper-fantastic autogen environment (with the huge list of bugs at this time), a basic collection of world landmarks AND a procedural description of what autogen should make SPECIFICALLY to the area. (again Athens comes to mind with its US suburbs houses – when it is actually a cement town with a mix of ugly 70ies apartment buildings, some neo-classic buildings and a large ancient building canvas right between all these)

Anyway, I don’t expect to “affect” anything. I don’t even expect to be taken seriously (although my topic I’ve seen hundreds of times opened by other people in various fora). I understand that someone that spends large of his day on a monitor debugging etc. doesn’t welcome harsh criticism. It is understandable and I’ve seen it happen the other way round too. Still, I am trying to ring a bell. If you wanna hear it. Don’t loose the forest trying to see the tree.

Thank you for posting my original post.

I am definitely not going to tell you what you should think, what you should say, or whether you should like X-Plane. Your opinion is in your mind alone, and if you open X-Plane and go “I do not like this”, I will not (and should not) try to convince you otherwise – your taste is up to you.

But I fear you missed the point of this post almost entirely. The point of the post was _not_ to claim “these cities are really good now.” Most of the post discusses the existing _problems_ with the city, and the post describes what we are trying to do to _improve_ this, what our long term plan is, and what the thinking behind the decisions is.

This really wasn’t a marketing post. If it was, I would not have drawn attention to every single major problem with the cities on a public blog.

Mac and Win performance are _not_ related. We have a range of cards – my Mac has a 4870 in it. Austin has a 5870 I think, and a bunch of people in the company have a range of iMacs.

You declare though that X-Plane 10 has lifted realism level up a notch (at least) from the competition and the previous version.

Well with flat major cities (NYC FOR G*D’S SHAKE!) you shouldn’t make that claim. Until you fix this.

I don’t want to create a new “vs.” but the fact remains that competition has realistic major (and even not so major) cities, to the level the technology permited back when they were created.

For example, New York (since I mentioned it) “looks quite a bit like it” for at least the last two versions of the major competitive (and discontinued) software. Remember the previous from the last major version was produced 9 (READ NINE) years ago – and actually NYC I am sure was there for even older versions as in fact even “little” Athens capital of Greece (well 4mil. people is not exactly a minor city), has it’s famous Parthenon etc. for at least the two major versions too. Nine years ago. Talking about STOCK scenery always.

X-Plane 10 with all details close to full, a 2012 product and NYC is unrecognisable, Athens is like an American little town (as I said in previous post even the scenery objects are completely unrelated not only to Greece, but actually to… the continent).

If you ask me, this is completely unacceptable. In X-Plane 9 it was never fixed.

I know X-Plane always relied on 3rd party add-ons, but WAY TOO MUCH if you ask me. You shouldn’t need an add-on to see at least a rough version of major capitals’ landmarks (Parthenon, some NYC buildings, some DC landmarks, Eifel tower in Paris and so on).

My point is: Do not make all those claims about scenery realism, because they are VERY “one sided” (add to that the major errors auto-gen still makes). Marketing is good, but… if you don’t live up to your claims, well it is a boomerang.

In that sense, I am very sad you don’t have any real competition right now. Will not help X-Plane get really better.

Your claims about X-Plane 10’s “closer to perfection” make, are actually things mostly “internal” right now. Nothing the user will immediately see.

Going a bit further it actually sucks that even some of the stock planes included are like “thrown in so that we say we have them in”. I would expect real 3D cockpits for what is in stock. BTW, I am not even sure why you allow a user to select 3D cockpit for a plane where there ISN’T a 3D cockpit. Can’t you just disable it?

Sorry, for what I meantioned I am not even sure it will pass moderation, but read the first lines of my post. My objection is mostly to your claims. Do not make claims for something that is not actually there yet. Do not make claims for things that people need 100-200-300 more $ (read: 3rd party add-ons) to actually experience.

Wrong wrong wrong.

With that said, 10.04 r1 seems to Give me about 2 – 5 fps improvement over some earlier builds.

Just wondering, What cards are you guys using for your tests?

Tom

+1 !