Behind the Screen : August 2024

[Stephen]

 

Behind the Screen : August 2024

 

The arrival of HECA - Cairo International from TaiModels ended a wanting of a destination of over a decade, yes nearly eleven years in wanting a certain scenery to fly into. I actually think that is outrageous to have to wait for a large commercial scenery for so long, but also one so important to the Simulator. It is an area that shows that X-Plane will never be a class leader if it ignores such important classic sceneries. Even the gateway version was inept, not worth the flying time to go there.

 

Like I mentioned in the Cairo review. I had a list, a big list ten years ago, that has thankfully in many areas has been filled in, but it still causes me concern that there are quite a few still on that list and that is a cause to concern. 

 

Yes everyone wants their local airport to fly into in the Simulator, mine is YBCG - or Gold Coast International, there is a good scenery for it, but currently also outdated with the new development being done there over the last few years. And so even that is not perfect. So yes I understand you want your local airport, no matter how small or realistic. In that case I also understand totally that scenery developers can't cover everyone or every airport, but I would say MSFS is giving it a good go, as most of the scenery releases are so from the backwoods they are mostly non-existent, it is certainly not a business model to get rich from.

 

And money is usually the issue, or a return on the investment for the time and work required in the scenery. If an airport is not popular, then obviously it is going to be passed over for one that is. To a point I understand that business case. But oddly many developers will do their own version of the same airport over and over and expect to make a killing. One such mess is Dubai DXB. There has been four different versions released by developers of Dubai DXB, but not one, is really a definitive version of the area. Some are great here, others there, but not one of them is the best, outstanding or the perfect one. Well there is one, created by FlyTampa Dubai, a fabulous version in fact with the perfect Dubai skyline thrown in, but it is not for the X-Plane Simulator.

 

There is finally after many cheap incarnations a decent Singapore WSSS, via Orbx, but only a freeware VHHH Hong Kong, but both were even a long if eventual wait of years and years for those significant destinations to arrive, but if you want a next door WMKK - Kuala Lumpur International and you will still be left wanting. And this is the issue, for long haul fliers, there actually is not a lot of quality scenery to choose from.

 

Yes I tend to be worldly in my requirements, so it is annoying that mostly the scenery releases are usually in the European and American centric, and that is okay as I understand that reasoning, it is again where the money is, but it has created a sort of two worlds imbalance. Inside the Euro/US centric there is a huge amount of choice, outside of it there is very little. But still some being left out of the equation like Cairo still didn't make any sense, as it was a desired scenery for many, if you also a wanted scenery by so many, then that has to worth the developers investment.

 

Let us take Australia as an example...  even a few years ago there was only two decent airport sceneries you could use in X-Plane, and it is an extremely long way to fly for so little. But over the last few years that aspect has thankfully improved.

 

A decent YSSY Sydney International now has two options, one again from TaiModels, but a really brilliant 5 star version with Port Botany details from FlyTampa. Brisbane YBBN is well serviced by Orbx, with the new runway and even a cityscape to make it a great arrival and departure. Taimodels (bless them) did a great Cairns YBCN, and there are a Broome YBRM, Gold Coast YBCG and Perth YPPH from Axonos all from Orbx.

 

Which brings us to the biggest aperture in X-Plane...  YMML Melbourne. FSX has had a decent YMML since 2008, X-Plane did also have a freeware YMML Melbourne from ISDG, but have you looked at it lately? It is so bad I don't bother flying there anymore, ISDG did an Adelaide YPAD, same out of date result.

 

"The fiercely competitive – and highly lucrative – Melbourne to Sydney flight corridor has retained its status as the fifth-busiest route in the world, with more than 9.3 million travellers making the journey in 2023."

 

That is a quote, but you can't fly the 5th busiest flight corridor in the WORLD in the X-Plane Simulator...  so how bad is that aspect, not to mention Darwin YPDN, Hobart YMHB (state capital) and even the Australian National capital in Canberra YSCB which doesn't also have a decent airport scenery in X-Plane?

 

Yes they are all on THAT list, still there after years and years of expectation, a decade of waiting, and you may have your own list, your own wanted scenario, and I'll guess you are still waiting for them as well. We are only talking about Airports here, if you want Cityscapes, the churches and cathedrals that dot the world? well they are not in your vision either, then your flying in the wrong Simulator.

 

You can see why flying the X-Plane Simulator can get quite frustrating. I don't expect everything, but I do expect after a decade or so a better outcome in long haul flying if the X-Plane Simulator is to be competitive.

 

If we can't do routes we want to fly then you have a problem? One for me is Australia to the UK, via Bahrain, a trip I did in the 1980's. I flew a QF Qantas Boeing 747-200 from Brisbane to Singapore, then Bahrain, then onto London (after a major engine fix on the ramp at Bahrain surrounded by armed soldiers, but that is another exciting story). I actually have the aircraft to recreate the route, the excellent Felis B747-200, but a hole in the desert in a Middle-Eastern country means the B742 is sitting on the ground currently and indefinitely while the already well planned route and experience is also on hold, and it doesn't look I will be going anywhere soon with a non-viable Bahrain, so my memories will have to keep on waiting a lot longer.

 

Although everyone will note that X-Plane is basically focused on the aircraft, and again to a point I accept that aspect. But world building is exciting and you develop a closer relationship to the simulator while exploring the world on all the continents, it broadens the mind, from the views of the ice of Greenland, the mountains of Afghanistan, the sands of Oman, the forests of Africa and the Mountains of South America.

 

I have flown them all, looked down from the cockpit with awe...  In my mind yes we can add on still a lot great addons, aircraft, tools and clever plugins. But X-Plane needs to focus a bit more on the world stage it flies inside, if coming from Laminar Research or any 3rd party developers, X-Plane needs to get serious about scenery and in making it a far more credible world to travel in. If there is one lesson that Microsoft has shown us is that a credible world is one we want fly in and explore, it may cost you more in the hip pocket, but that is also part of the investment of world building, also we need to be more adventurous than sticking to samey same all the time...  Its a big world out there, it is time to explore it.

 

Stephen Dutton

3rd September 2024

Copyright©2024 X-Plane Reviews

 

[copacetic4]

Making airports, cities, landmarks “true to life” is the absolute LAST place Laminar should expend limited resources.  Aircraft modeling, systems depth and accuracy, flight model, environmental factors (lighting, weather effects, etc) and overall system performance are way more important and there is still much work to do.  
 

The tools are provided for third party developers (or even dissatisfied users) to create scenery to their liking, and learn a new skill in the process…

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, copacetic4 said:

Making airports, cities, landmarks “true to life” is the absolute LAST place Laminar should expend limited resources.  Aircraft modeling, systems depth and accuracy, flight model, environmental factors (lighting, weather effects, etc) and overall system performance are way more important and there is still much work to do.  
 

The tools are provided for third party developers (or even dissatisfied users) to create scenery to their liking, and learn a new skill in the process…

Yes I thought I would get a few of these....    obviously you miss the point. X-Plane is already a minnow against a whale, the feet leaving X-Plane is because of this very reason, if this attitude continues, then it will be "just close the door behind you" as it is all over. I think even Laminar have realised that aspect.

[copacetic4]

Didn’t miss the point, I disagree with it.  Laminar can’t outspend or “out Microsoft” Microsoft and they shouldn’t try.  They should continue to focus on and improve their strengths, which are the things that “matter” the most (IMO) in flight simulation.  True-to-life scenery is far down that list.  
 

In this iteration, Microsoft choose to go the opposite route, to make a nice looking semi-sim that is fun to fly around in, then build in more realism and depth as they can over time.  Basically start with the mostly gamer base and hope to be able to capture hard core simulation fans at a later date.  An acceptable approach and I am perfectly happy with having two different companies develop two different simulators to meet the needs of different customers.  It gives us a choice and I read plenty of posts where simmers “fly” MSFS for the visuals and sim in X-plane.
 

It seems you spend time writing and sharing your monthly recaps knowing that some readers won’t agree with your analysis.  Or, would you rather we all simply agree with you, or at least keep our opinions to ourselves?  If that’s the case why write anything at all.

[Stephen]

You can have your point of view and I will have mine, but a lot of walking footfall over the last year because of the simulator's weaknesses have to be addressed even if you agree with that or not, Laminar over the last year have "worked to their strengths" as you noted, but the numbers have still stagnated or are falling away...  it is time for a different approach or lose what you have. And yes you can have both in pure simulation and realism of the world around you, now currently we only have one, and it's not enough to bring that important money in.

[Medellinexpat]

MSFS other than having Microsoft money has the advantage of Xbox access. Want to run Xplane properly and you’ll need a high end PC with a high end price. That’s $500 console a big differentiator in particular with young players.

 Having lots of aircraft has some value in terms of choice, but equally most of us end up reverting back to our favorites. The ones we fly well. I buy plenty of add on airports, but stock Xplane 12 generally can be quite good. I bought Cairo on the basis of reading your review. It’s a good location to add, but it’s hardly perfect. Some areas around the apron are pretty ‘sticky’, but you are right that geographically it makes sense.

In the past MS have had the simulator to beat out there and they’ve without notice walked away from it. Some of us remember that. Developers for XP12 may be having a hard time with sales, and that is regrettable. But equally on MSFS developers are faced with enormous competition and also suffer from MS blowing their product up. How thrilled must Fenix have been when MS added a free competing A320 from IniBuilds to the platform?

Do I worry about the future for Xplane? Somewhat, but over the past year XP12 has improved dramatically, something that often seems to go unmentioned. How does Laminar stop people moving to MSFS? It’s difficult to see a solution there. Why don’t I move to MSFS? I prefer my software on my PC and not hostage to streaming and one day some bean counter deciding that I’ll need a subscription for that. The more game like path that MSFS seems to go down with every release. The fact that most of the time I fly at altitudes that I can’t see Laminar’s new ships let alone my house. The one thing that would make me move is Xplane going the way of the dodo. But until that happens I’ll be positive about a product that’s come a very long way in the past year.

 

[copacetic4]

Stephen said:

“ …but the numbers have still stagnated or are falling away.”

 

I do not argue against or agree with the belief that XPlane has/is losing user base and third party developers; that may very well be but I have not seen any hard data on Xplane sales/user base over time to back that statement up.  The only real measure IMO is how XPlane has added (or lost) users over time, not comparisons to the MSFS user base.

I do know some third party developers have left the platform but some of them weren’t that invested anyway so not necessarily a big loss there.

[Dominic Smith]

Hi copacetic4, 

 

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that X-Plane has excelled in areas like aircraft modelling, system depth, and flight dynamics. These are certainly core strengths that attract dedicated simmers. However, as Stephen mentioned, there’s evidence of stagnation or even a decline in the user base and third-party support, which raises concerns about the platform's future growth. While I can’t point to hard data either, anecdotal evidence from the departure of third-party developers and dwindling activity in the community suggests that these issues are indeed very real.

You mentioned that some developers leaving the platform weren’t that invested, and while that may be true in some cases, I can tell you firsthand that fewer developers mean fewer add-ons, which weakens X-Plane's overall appeal, especially when MSFS is attracting so much attention with both high-quality aircraft and visuals (although the former is debatable). Whether or not these developers were key players is beside the point, the loss of third-party investment in any form is a signal that X-Plane needs to adapt to maintain competitiveness.

Regarding the importance of true-to-life scenery, I understand it may not be at the top of your priority list, but I would argue that visuals are not just about aesthetics; they’re essential for attracting a wider audience and keeping the simulator competitive. As Stephen pointed out, X-Plane is currently a “minnow against a whale” when compared to MSFS, which has drawn in a massive user base thanks to its eye candy. 

Sites like the Org, as you know, rely on viewing numbers and traffic to stay afloat, which is a crucial point. If X-Plane remains a niche product, there’s a very real risk that communities like the Org might struggle to survive, simply because there won’t be enough interest to cover costs. Maintaining a “niche” might appeal to some, but the reality is that X-Plane needs to attract a broader audience to stay relevant in the long term, and true-to-life scenery plays a significant role in that.

Laminar doesn’t need to outspend Microsoft MSFS, but it does need to stay competitive. Like it or not, eye-catching visuals attract people, and without that, X-Plane risks being left behind.

 

As a slight side note, before jumping in and criticising Stephen's article with comments like, "It seems you spend time writing and sharing your monthly recaps knowing that some readers won’t agree with your analysis," it would be more respectful to first acknowledge and thank him for the time and effort he has put into the article. A bit of appreciation goes a long way! 

 

Cheers

 

Dominic

[copacetic4]

Thanks Dominic, useful insight for sure.

 

re Thanking Stephen, I’ve done so in the past on other reviews and monthly reports.  My initial response to this month drew this from Stephen “Yes I thought I would get a few of these....    obviously you miss the point.”  I didn’t miss the point, I made a reasonable, non-accusatory or critical comment on his post.  I thought that WAS the point: open, respectful discussion and expression of opinion.  
 

But yes, I appreciate Stephen and his team’s work over the years, they are my go-to source for add-on reviews and I enjoy his monthly updates, even if I don’t always fully agree with his analysis. 

[Medellinexpat]

28 minutes ago, Dominic Smith said:

fewer developers mean fewer add-ons, which weakens X-Plane's overall appeal

 

To a degree true but

 

- plenty of people get involved with a game like Xplane and never buy an add on. There is a group that spends lots on the game, the type of people who follow this site. Lots of people, perhaps more people, like the fact that there’s lots of free content and make use of that

- the market adjusts. Noticeably there’s a lot less new content being released but equally there’s always been a huge amount of low quality, extremely niche stuff out there. I buy anything that looks as if it is worthwhile or comes from a fairly small set of developers who do a good job (Toliss, Thranda, FlightFactor, Mister X, Aerobask etc.) but there is a lot of $15 barely if better than the stock on the Org Store. That’s why I buy more of items reviewed on here. You get a better view of whether they are worth your money.

 

Losing the good developers would be a problem. But who are we shedding tears over? Carenado? 
 

To some extent X-Plane has been left behind and will stay behind because of Microsoft’s heft. But it depends what you want. In terms of a simulator where else can MSFS go and where Simmers (not game players) want to go? Now if you want to rescue the neighbors digital  cat from next door’s  digital tree with your Mil Mi-26 while your digital flight attendant serves you digital sandwiches as you hover then yes, X-Plane is going to be left behind.

[copacetic4]

I will add, I know you guys spend way more time and energy on XPlane than I do (I am a committed casual user) and you likely have much deeper insight into the flight sim “industry” than most of your readers  - I respect that and accept that you know more in this area than I.  My comments are based on my own priorities and use of the sim and that’s about it, for whatever little that is worth.

[R22]

Interesting comment(s) discussion

One thing that was not brought up is,... a sim w/ highly detailed "eye candy" is going to come at a co$t (of a loss FPS)

LR does not have the budget of Micro$oft, so IMHO they should keep on focusing on their core strengths focusing on building a stand alone professional sim that does not need a web connection for graphics

Mention this specifically because (in my own use case of XP) I first purchased XP11 in the spring of 2020 AND since that time I have spent over 3k at the ORG store AND at Orbx buying add-on aircraft/scenery (AND this does include $$$ upgrading from a MacMini to a MacStudio to take advantage of XP12)

Point being over time I've learned that "eye candy" is going to come at a co$t (of a loss FPS) and I'll give an example,... 

Basically I live in CA so the marketplace has offered lots of third party scenery AND FYI I've purchased them all,... BUT (for example) in the Los Angeles geographic basin two scenic add-in (have IMHO declined in quality going from the XP11 to XP12 version,... so these are not worth it in terms of a very high FPS loss rate)

http://store.x-plane.org/KSNA--John-Wayne-International-XP12_p_1799.html

http://store.x-plane.org/KLGB--Long-Beach-Airport-XP12_p_1759.html

Also worth mentioning is LAX itself,...

https://store.x-plane.org/KLAX--Los-Angeles-International-HD_p_836.html

Basically this add-on has an old XP11 mesh that does look very natural in XP12, so I've opted to not use this one in day-to-day XP sim use

Since "Behind the Screen" specifically wrote about... "if you want Cityscapes, the churches and cathedrals that dot the world? well they are not in your vision either, then your flying in the wrong Simulator."

What I'd like to see is LR specifically add-in is VFR landmarks (for example) as it has been done in the geographic region of France (which really adds to the realism of the sim,... but does not really case a noticeable FPS loss)

http://store.x-plane.org/Obstacles-et-Reperes-VFR-FRANCE_p_1010.html

This would especially be useful in the ZLA coverage area for the "pilotedge" service

http://www.pilotedge.net/pages/operating-hours-and-service-area

Since "cityscape" was mentioned in "Behind the Screen" should mention yet another example where "eye candy" results in a loss of FPS

https://inibuilds.com/products/inibuilds-hooper-heliport-58ca-xp

Basically enjoy flying the default XP12 R22 (using the PumpX which are full size helicopter controls) BUT with all the "eye candy" at this specific heliport the flight model in XP does not work very well < 35 FPS,... essentially I've learned there is a very real trade off in terms a FPS loss rate when the sim flight is in a dense urban area w/ an add-in scenery that has "eye candy"

[Medellinexpat]

2 hours ago, R22 said:

Los Angeles geographic basin two scenic add-in

One thing I use is XOrganizer that allow you to choose which sceneries and plugs ins get loaded or do not. Therefore in the New York are I will select the add on airport I am flying to/from and disable any other add on sceneries in the area. Available from the Org store and for me a critical part of my flight planning.

 

As for the rest of your comments I agree. Adding MSFS eye candy scenery would likely lead to more people leaving as you would need a heavy duty rig. That may change in time of course but reading the forums decent performance is an issue for many people as it is.

[R22]

On 9/6/2024 at 2:08 PM, Medellinexpat said:

One thing I use is XOrganizer that allow you to choose which sceneries and plugs ins get loaded or do not. Therefore in the New York are I will select the add on airport I am flying to/from and disable any other add on sceneries in the area. Available from the Org store and for me a critical part of my flight planning.

 

As for the rest of your comments I agree. Adding MSFS eye candy scenery would likely lead to more people leaving as you would need a heavy duty rig. That may change in time of course but reading the forums decent performance is an issue for many people as it is.

 

I'm using a MacStudio AND thanks to this site I learned that,...

 

Requirements
X-Plane 12 (not for XP11)
Windows only (Windows 10 and above)

 

Actually over time came up with my own organizational system to deal w/ lots of scenery

 

First off I use various descriptive "prefix" names that sorta help me keep a sense of loading/order (for example):

 

Airport $cenery - "airport name (e.g. KLAX by SFD)"
Airport Scenery - "airport name"

AirportHelicopter $cenery - 

VFR $cenery - 
VFR Scenery - 
 

Basically I do this so when using an "XPbeta version" I can quickly ID third party add-ins (if there is a XP graphics conflict),... this method also make it easily load (and group) the order of Custom Scenery>scenery_packs.ini 

 

FYI I use a  Mac "alias" (Aliases in OS X are analogous to the Windows shortcuts???)
 

https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/managing-finder-aliases-in-os-x/
 

Related to my post (about what I think about LR and their game plan vs the idea that XP should try and add "eye-candy"),... in my home town of San Diego, at the current time the two major airports right by one another KSAN (civilian) and KNZY (military), lack graphical "eye-candy" in the down town area and harbor

 

Mention this because first of all because even though there is a pay-ware add in (which I've purchased),...

 

https://store.x-plane.org/KSAN-International-Airport-KNZY-Naval-Air-Station-North-Island-and-Naval-Base-San-Diego-_p_1703.html

 

I've opted not to use the pay-ware in my sim configuration because,... the KSAN/KNZY "eye-candy" causes a dramatic decrease in FPS

 

As a "fixed-wing" pilot IRL I've flow into both airports, so kinda have a basic clue what one needs to be on the look out for, when acting as a pilot-in-command 

 

On a VFR chart there are VFR landmarks which pilots and ATC use and recognize,... point being practical "eye-candy" for XP should have FAA recognized VFR landmarks like,...

 

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/29078-coronado-bridge/

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/52840-hotel-del-coronado/

 

which FYI IRL have a golf course in-between them (unfortunately at the moment XP12.1.2b3 does not have the golf course or the FAA recognized VFR landmarks),... mention this real world example because adding these graphic elements would IMHO not cause much decrease in FPS

 

Bottom line,... like everyone else I'd really like to have "eye-candy" in my sim,... BUT thought I'd mention once again, it's important that the sim needs >35 FPS in order to keep the flight model realistic (which is especially true when flying the default R22 in XP)