Payware Quality

[boleyd]

Having just sent a message of complaint about a terrible interior to the vendor I feel compelled to comment on my view of these sub-standard  commercial products. There is no need to mention the specific vendor. My comments really applies to all.

The sale of commercial aircraft with extremely substandard cockpits only furthers the belief, a wrong belief, that X-Plane is not capable of high quality aircraft. In an effort to make money, vendors are selling many different aircraft under their names with not only terrible interiors but questionable flight dynamics as well. When I asked about a recently released product I was told that I could change the flight dynamics if I wished. The respondent had no references to any real pilot testing his/her release. It became obvious that the person felt that simply making a physical shape in Plane Maker was sufficient.

These products, be they free or commercial, are a detriment to X-Plane whose reputation still carries the stigma of poor quality aircraft in a high quality simulator. That will continue so long as it is justified by some of the things that are released for use in X-Plane.

[samen]

I have to agee with you on that. For example Peter Hager is selling his aircraft without a good 3d model. He says he has one in the works but who knows when he will put that for sale. Also he has the only A330's/A340's for x-plane which is really putting a bad name for X-Plane since many Airbus lovers who have come to X-Plane see this lack and resort to other simulators. His aircraft may have very nice panels and flight dynamics but most people tend to look more at the eye candy. Just my 2 cents.

[tkyler]

I couldn't agree more and this is one issue I feel very strongly about.  I have been speaking with many x-plane developers for many years and there is a dividing line between the "old guard" and the "new guard".  The old guard are those individuals who have been doing payware for a while...let's say "pre Version 8".  These developers did not need the 3D skills to develop high quality 3D content because x-plane did not support it.   x-plane developers were mostly technical individuals whereas the Microsoft products were mostly driven by artistic individuals.  The best products combine the two and that is why many MSFS developers are teams and x-plane developers are individuals.

So when x-plane version 8 came out, x-plane begin to introduce features that finally provided us developers with the features we needed to produce higher quality work.  The problem is that the "old guard" were too rooted in their old methods and did not trust Laminar due to their experiences in the past with the high rate of change of functionality.

So then, for x-plane to be considered high quality,  new level of detail / performance / functionality was required.  This was my one goal with the MU-2, to show what could be done..and there's still a lot it doesn't do and a whole lot more detail to be put in.   I am a single developer and the workload is enormous.  I would very much love to have a team but the x-plane community's mentality / dynamics has not allowed that to happen...and this example you speak of is typical of why.

I get defensive on this issue because you're right...these developers are keeping x-plane down.  If I were you I would call the product onto the floor for it's shortcomings.  You may do so without attacking the author, you can even be polite.  Be subjective and keep facts straight and label opinions as just that..opinion.  Don't refer to the author and you will be "fair and impartial" in your review.  Reviews are all people have to go on and we as the community have a responsibility to share information.

As I developer I wear one hat, but I am also an x-plane user and part of the community.  I welcome any critique and criticisms of any product I put out...this is free enterprise..this makes things better.  This may seems like I'm taking an opportunity to bash other developers (assuming you're not talking about my MU-2), but this is no where near the case...I would LOVE all developers to step it up for the sake of x-plane...there's thousands of products to be done.....no one is taking anybody elses market.

Ok..all that being said....here's the reason I see x-plane's development problem.  It's two-fold.  1.)  X-Plane has lots of features to cram into aircraft these days.  These tools we have to implement these features are limited at the moment...blender does not support manipulators yet and AC3Ds are cumbersome to use on a very large scale.  At best, you only see simpler aircraft done in full 3D.  The XB-70 by Alex Gifford is, by far, the most complex and impressive aircraft ever seen by x-plane, but has been more than 3 years in the works and thousands of hours...and the MU -2 is right behind it.  Nils BK-117 is an up and comer and should be very very impressive.  The problem is that it's complex work simulating complex aircraft and there's not enough developer talent in the x-plane world to address that.  2.)  The reason there's no talent for development is the x-plane market is still too small to attract talent....the money ain't here yet.

The complex aircraft is what the market wants...airliners, fighters, turboprops....these are the biggest sellers in the MSFS world and people are people where ever you go....meaning thats what they want for x-plane too.

So I don't really see a quick solution.  x-plane's growth and progression has been very predictable.  growth models for this kind of stuff is exponential, not linear.  We're still in the early phases, but when the right product or scenery comes out...a "corner" will be turned and momentum will build and we'll start to see more development.

In the meantime, I think it healthy you should give your opinion on any product you have..but state why if you do...I see lots of "opinion giving" with no support.  I really don't like that either.  You are reviewing digital content, not people.  Its not your problem if authors can't separate a critique of their work from a critique of themselves.....they need to step it up!  We all do!

[Kaphias]

I have to agee with you on that. For example Peter Hager is selling his aircraft without a good 3d model. He says he has one in the works but who knows when he will put that for sale. Also he has the only A330's/A340's for x-plane which is really putting a bad name for X-Plane since many Airbus lovers who have come to X-Plane see this lack and resort to other simulators. His aircraft may have very nice panels and flight dynamics but most people tend to look more at the eye candy. Just my 2 cents.

I don't know where you got the idea that his A330's and A340's are the only ones for X-Plane.

[samen]

I was actually referring to his aircraft for V9. Also he only has the A345, A342 ,A332 with RR and GE engines and an A333 that is of the correct length.

[boleyd]

Just a small update - the author of the product I criticized has sent me a msg acknowledging the "spartan" interior citing past comments received about highly detailed interiors killing frame rates. A true dilemma but take this as an opportunity to release a version at a few dollars more with a first class cockpit.

[LA]

There is a good thread regarding this at the org. in the general forum.  Actually one of the better & more open minded threads I've followed lately. The general consensus from newer users, is that X-Plane as a whole, isn't yet ready for prime time, when it comes to an influx of prior MSFS users, as Austin Meyer is calling for. It boils down to 3rd party development, and the lack of.

While MSFS has had a large base of addon development to satisfy most wants, X-Plane is severely limited at this time, which

puts it a few years behind. MSFS users will be surprised, at what they can't get, and may leave the sime before they really get started.  Old timers might state, that if you're more interested in "flight" than scenery, then X-Plane is where it's at..............as it's always concentrated on the flight model. However, much of the reward of real flight in my opinion is to look at the scenery. And that's exactly what I'm going to do tomorrow, as I fly from Salt Lake City (in the real RV6A), over the mountains to Jackson Hole & the YellowStone area. Scenery is very important when it comes to creating a virtual reality & enjoyment!

And quite frankly, as Mr. Boley has stated...............what comes out of plane maker might just be downright lousy, when it comes to flight models. Since I use both sims, in addition to real world flight; I see both the good and bad regarding flight modeling. I personally do not give X-Plane an edge, and still call it hype; that's been around 15 years or more.

What's obviously needed, is a whole lot of 3rd party interaction NOW. As to being possible, that's a tough one....

L.Adamson

[Daveduck]

Having just sent a message of complaint about a terrible interior to the vendor I feel compelled to comment on my view of these sub-standard  commercial products. There is no need to mention the specific vendor. My comments really applies to all.

I'm sure I'm not alone in being curious about which a/c is at issue here.  You've

gone halfway toward the public-service goal of a review.

Your writing it up as a full article, with illustrations to make your case, would be

most welcome. 

[OlaHaldor]

I find this topic very interesting, as a regular user and virtual wannabe pilot and from a potential scenery developers perspective.

I've purchased the MU-2, I've tried a few other payware aircraft given specifically by their developers in order to create promo videos (and I'm sorry to say I haven't had time to do anything about that yet !) - and I've bought some packs that were cheap but made me curious enough to pick up my VISA and do a fancy ninja move on Paypal.

I must say - MU-2 and the others I've tried that are more or less expensive, if I can use that term, are well worth every single cent. The cheaper one however.. The exterior models look ok, interior is less than ok, but the textures are the worst ever. Flat. Dull. Simply just color. No rivets, panels, dirt, oil, smudges etc. VERY disappointing. I asked the developer about it, if there was a paint kit available so I could make my own texture and add panels etc. so I coul make a better quality video using his products - but he didn't seem to like the idea of me creating my own textures at all - they wouldn't reflect something he would stand for, he said. Worst case scenario: I make a texture that simply sucks and others seeing the video or images would think the plane itself sucks, which in turn would result in less sales.

I'd say that statement from the developer is very unlucky for his case, and I will certainly not create a MU2-like video for his products - new textures or not, it's not gonna happen.

Long story short: textures are very important if you wanna aim for MSFS quality products, whether it's aircraft or scenery.

[rick_studder]

I like to think of the sims (MSFS and X-Plane) as wind tunnels, into which you drop the airplanes. As a wind tunnel I think X-Plane has some advantages, namely better modeling of the atmosphere, weather effects, the feel of speed, the smoothness.

Getting the flight model right really resides with the aircraft developers. It's the lack of really good aircrafts I think that disappoints many new users. I have the impression that many aircrafts are designed from an engineering perspective; they might be correct, but they just don't feel right. Almost every GA plane feels too twitchy and the turbulence always feels exaggerated (Morten, a developer at the X-Plane freeware group wrote someplace that this might have to do with flexing and dampening of the wings not being modeled).

Many like me I think like to use X-Plane for training purposes (as well as fun), and for that to happen the aircrafts need to 1) feel like the real thing, 2) fly relatively close to the numbers of the real thing. It is actually very hard to find even simple GA trainers that do this in X-Plane today. For instance, no good C172 exists for X-Plane today.

I like so much about X-Plane that I really hope we will see more good third party aircrafts. The MU2 has set a standard I think, and I'm exited to see what aircrafts will be developed next.

An obvious reason for these states of affairs are the relatively small user base of X-Plane -- but I also think Laminar Research should consider what they can do to attract third party developers. The releases between versions of X-Plane are relatively frequent, in many ways a good thing, but it also complicates things for developers, who need to update their aircrafts. Maybe the betas should still be public, while the releases are more spread out.

In any case I think X-Plane is in a state of transition, and I'm exited to see what happens next.