64 Bit Revisited.. new topic.. old subject..

[CessnaSkypilotN7365W]

... and I continue flying my 182 on FSX.

[bladerunner900]

If, and it's a big if. IF A2A ever made the 182 or any of the other aircraft for X-Plane, you would still have to buy it again. I only had the 172 for FSX when I switched to P3D and all the warplanes, so when they eventually come out again for P3D I will have to buy them all again. It won't be too bad though. I'm a long term customer on the A2A site, so I will be getting some relief with the cost, from all the points I've accrued over the years and I won't be getting them all at once.

Steve.

[Buffy Foster]

My input on the P3D license - the contract is only between LM and YOU! Not me or anyone else on this or any other forum.

Hopefully, the "arm chair lawyers" will leave this discussion alone and not drag it into either a legal or moral debate.

^This x100

[MarcE]

on a user base, the professional and the academic license work just the same. I got the prof as I'm save with it. but I actually didin't care about that 140$ more or less as I will probably stick with v4 until the release of v6. don't know yet.

The thing about this P3D/FSX vs XP11 battel is that you basically have to leave FSX out of the equation. It is buggy, it is old, it was a good start but never has been finished. And then you simply have to compare what is more important for you. XP11 out of the box looks better than P3D which still uses FSX textures. The default airplanes are awful at least but that's the same with both sims. Using P3D is more expensive, no doubt, but given the locked base engine there are more possibilities for developers using P3D. The details have been described above. I don't want to go too deep into the discussion of the "more realistic flight dynamics in XP", but this also just depends on the developers. XP is okay, but realism is something else. It feels better, yes. By default! As soon as the developers make an effort and dig into the deep core of P3D or simply work around it (like A2A, FSL, PMDG to a certain degree, Majestics as a great example) you have great flight dynamics too. there's few that wouldn't be possible with P3D as long as devs just do it. It takes time, it costs more money and probably knowledge than "playing around" with the options given by XP, but in the end my personal conclusion is that for serious simmers P3D would be the way to go. Though I'm convinced if XP had opened its doors it would be the other way round.

[bladerunner900]

... Though I'm convinced if XP had opened its doors it would be the other way round.

You may be right, but it's all academic now. Wherever the Accu-sim Spitfire goes, I will follow.

Yes, I am that passionate about it.

[MarcE]

... Though I'm convinced if XP had opened its doors it would be the other way round.

You may be right, but it's all academic now. Wherever the Accu-sim Spitfire goes, I will follow.

Yes, I am that passionate about it.

Haha, I see you...
I'm eagerly waiting for the Mustang

[Dogsbody55]

on a user base, the professional and the academic license work just the same. I got the prof as I'm save with it. but I actually didin't care about that 140$ more or less as I will probably stick with v4 until the release of v6. don't know yet.

The thing about this P3D/FSX vs XP11 battel is that you basically have to leave FSX out of the equation. It is buggy, it is old, it was a good start but never has been finished. And then you simply have to compare what is more important for you. XP11 out of the box looks better than P3D which still uses FSX textures. The default airplanes are awful at least but that's the same with both sims. Using P3D is more expensive, no doubt, but given the locked base engine there are more possibilities for developers using P3D. The details have been described above. I don't want to go too deep into the discussion of the "more realistic flight dynamics in XP", but this also just depends on the developers. XP is okay, but realism is something else. It feels better, yes. By default! As soon as the developers make an effort and dig into the deep core of P3D or simply work around it (like A2A, FSL, PMDG to a certain degree, Majestics as a great example) you have great flight dynamics too. there's few that wouldn't be possible with P3D as long as devs just do it. It takes time, it costs more money and probably knowledge than "playing around" with the options given by XP, but in the end my personal conclusion is that for serious simmers P3D would be the way to go. Though I'm convinced if XP had opened its doors it would be the other way round.

You've just explained why I had such hopes for Flight Sim World, Marc. If XP11 had a more open base engine, then it could seriously become the next major flight sim, in the way that MSFS was. All sims come with poor default planes, but XPlane will remain more of a game than a proper sim until it fixes that issue such that developers like A2A and PMDG might want to develop their products for it.

I'm not trying to bag XP11 as it has many fine features. But I'm here for the study level addon planes by A2A.


Cheers,
Mike

[Paughco]

I am very happy flying my A2A aircraft (Comanche, T-6, and Connie) in P3Dv4. Way less problems than I had in FSX. Far as the P3D license thing goes: I don't get paid to fly my A2A aircraft, so I'm not a professional. I really do study this flying stuff, even though I'm not formally enrolled anywhere. I consider myself to be a student of aviation, so went the Academic route with Lockheed Martin. I cringe every time I hear a low flying helo at night, but so far nobody is zip lining onto my roof!

Seeya
ATB

[AKar]

However all the things may shuffle out in the long run, I find it inevitable that the real-world, professional flight sim and the consumer hobby will converge. It won't perhaps take even a decade when pure real-life pilots and pure flight simmers are non-existent, with almost every serious pilot having a connection to flight simming, and almost every serious flight simmer having a connection to what we now call "real aviation".

Simple flying games may spin off, or die out entirely, I don't know. I am thinking, and seeing, that a paradigm shift is already occurring.

-Esa

[CessnaSkypilotN7365W]

.... I cringe every time I hear a low flying helo at night, but so far nobody is zip lining onto my roof!

Seeya
ATB

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are!

You've just explained why I had such hopes for Flight Sim World, Marc. If XP11 had a more open base engine, then it could seriously become the next major flight sim, in the way that MSFS was. All sims come with poor default planes, but XPlane will remain more of a game than a proper sim until it fixes that issue such that developers like A2A and PMDG might want to develop their products for it.

I'm not trying to bag XP11 as it has many fine features. But I'm here for the study level addon planes by A2A.


Cheers,
Mike

So what do you mean by 'open base'?

[bullfox]

I might eventually go to P4D if the desire to upgrade becomes overpowering because I have years of experience with FSX on which P4D is based. But, for now I have a system based on a 10 year old mother board which allows me to fly the Comanche with sliders full right and frame rates in the high 20's with the type of flying I want to do. I get really beautiful fluid graphics which might be slightly better in P4D, but the graphics are occasional breath takingly beautiful as it is.

I like to set up the weather the way I want it so don't need a weather engine. I usually don't fly more than an hour at a time so don't have OOM problems. However, a good part of the reason it all works for me is that I don't fly tube liners into big cities. For now, I am more than happy with what I have. Will be even happier when the A2A Bonanza come out. XP11 is definitely not in my future.

[ClipperLuna]

64 bit's good, but I'd be really happy if the folks at LM could get the processing load better spread out amongst the cores of a multi-core processor. I gather doing so would be a substantial undertaking, but it is kind of frustrating to see one core going full tilt with the rest loafing.

[Leadcatcher]

I have flown extensively in FSX, FSX-SE, P3DV4 and X-plane 9, 10 and 11. A2A are my go to aircraft in P3D and FSX-SE as they are, in my opinion, the closest thing to the real thing you can get. I fly mostly GA and my all time favorite if the A2A J3 Cub, followed closely by the 172 and Comanche. I am waiting for the J3 to make it to P3D which all ready has my 172, (Saving my pennies for the P3D Comanche ).

I understand why A2A isn’t in X-Plane and fully support that decision. But still miss the Accusim style aircraft, as an alternative, I purchased the ADSG Super Cub with the built-in Reality Expansion Pack (REP) and also have added the REP to the default 172 in X-Plane. While shy of the bar set by A2A, the REP does add to the flight model and immersion of default 172 and the Super Cub is a fun flight. Of course REP doesn’t over come the atrocious ground handling of X-Plane or the ATC inadequacies. If you are deciding to go with X-Plane REP is the only viable alternative for that flight sim.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dogsbody55]

You've just explained why I had such hopes for Flight Sim World, Marc. If XP11 had a more open base engine, then it could seriously become the next major flight sim, in the way that MSFS was. All sims come with poor default planes, but XPlane will remain more of a game than a proper sim until it fixes that issue such that developers like A2A and PMDG might want to develop their products for it.

I'm not trying to bag XP11 as it has many fine features. But I'm here for the study level addon planes by A2A.


Cheers,
Mike

So what do you mean by 'open base'?[/quote]

It's about the ability of third party developers to manipulate the sim for their addons at the sim's core. XP is not written to allow such manipulation of the sim at that deep a level.


Cheers,
Mike

[CessnaSkypilotN7365W]

It's about the ability of third party developers to manipulate the sim for their addons at the sim's core. XP is not written to allow such manipulation of the sim at that deep a level.

Cheers,
Mike

So it was a conscious decision made by LM, allowing only certain developers to the 'inner circle' ? Or are there no developers allowed at that level? That's pretty sad considering there is nothing better out there than A2A!!

Yes I have found one C-182 I would purchase for XP but it's G1000 based. YUCK! I'm sorry. Even in the real world, and I can say this because I worked at Rockwell-Collins (RC) for 20 yrs, it looks cheap. Too much like an Atari game! (I'm showing my age now, right?)
In fact, true story , when RC first developed an Electronic Flight Display they had to revise it to incorporate 'jitter' in the movement of the needles and gyros to mimic real instruments. The pilots complained about their 'too perfect' movement and considered them, and I quote, "too much like a video game."

I'm old school. Give me all those gauges all over the dash!

Roger