PilotEdge Forums

Hi Keith,

I'd like to ask a favor. I have read numerous threads where you have been very persuasive about adopting XP10. I have read numerous threads elsewhere about this subject, but your way of writing is always very easy for me to read and understand which is a pleasure. Given your years of experience with 9.70 and seeing your enthusiasm for XP10 is most provocative! I know you are very busy, but if you find some free minutes, I would very much like to hear your review of a comparison of XP9.70 and the latest XP10 iteration. It would be most illuminating, especially as it relates to how XP10 could better serve me.

If you have already posted such a review, please point me to it with a link. Thanks.


@Everyone - While this post is primarily directed to Keith Smith, I would welcome any and all of your personal reviews for or against. I think everything that is shared can be of benefit to others than just myself and family. Thank you in advance for your comments.

XP10's weather engine affords VFR and IFR flight training experiences and decision making opportunities that aren't available in 9.70. This is because the modelling of clouds is greatly improved, coupled with the fact that XP10 allows multiple weather systems to be loaded simultaneously (ie, clear over here, but not so good over in the distance).

Keith Smith wrote:XP10's weather engine affords VFR and IFR flight training experiences and decision making opportunities that aren't available in 9.70. This is because the modelling of clouds is greatly improved, coupled with the fact that XP10 allows multiple weather systems to be loaded simultaneously (ie, clear over here, but not so good over in the distance).

So the primary benefit is the weather. This is huge, given aircraft operate in "weather."

Are there any improvements in the "feel" of flying in XP10 over XP9? I realize a good model in XP9 will best a bad model in XP10. My question is if there is a difference of the sensation of flight comparing the "same" model in XP9 and XP10. I hope this makes sense.

No significant difference in aircraft feel that I can tell. The eye candy is also significantly better, but that's a fun item and doesn't have a ton of training value, so I left that out, too.

One thing I should add, some of the higher end payware aircraft that are currently in development will be XP10 only.

Thanks for the reply. There are some compelling reasons why I will always keep a copy of XP9 on my PC, but the training advantages of XP10 you reference are provocative.

Keith Smith wrote:No significant difference in aircraft feel that I can tell. The eye candy is also significantly better, but that's a fun item and doesn't have a ton of training value, so I left that out, too.

Actually, "eye candy" can have some real value for VFR learning, if it is done well and replicates the outside world with accuracy (at least for me). The recent Tuesday live training have provoked me to fly a lot more VFR than I used to do, so a "VFR" sim is really gaining rank in my world.

One thing I should add, some of the higher end payware aircraft that are currently in development will be XP10 only.

Alas, methinks the world doth conspire against my resolve to ignore XP10.

I flew coast to coast in X-Plane 8, VFR, with 10+ other people using pilotage and a tiny bit of ded reckoning for a 60nm leg. We didn't tune any VORs, there was no GPS, and there was no swapping to the local map view.

XP10's VFR rendition is lovely, to be sure, I'm a huge fan, but what's there in xp9 achieves the same thing from a training perspective (in my opinion). Put another way, there isn't anything that XP10 does from a navigation/training perspective that isn't done in XP9, it just happens to look better.

I thought I'd back it up with some evidence
http://picasaweb.google.com/11539147013 ... stSaratoga (leg 7 of the group flight)

http://picasaweb.google.com/11539147013 ... TheWarrior (2007)
http://picasaweb.google.com/11539147013 ... astToCoast (2006) (XP8)

One reason I'm in the process of moving to XP10 (and I would've done it sooner if I had more time for simming) is that I want to be using supported, actively developed software. This is why I switched away from FSX when MS chose to abandon it, after 15+ years of being very happy with it (I'd tried XP several times previously but never spent enough time with it to be impressed).

Unless something crazy happens, there will be no further development for XP9 by Laminar, and new 3rd-party addons for XP may or may not work with XP9 but will almost certainly work with XP10. Plus, as the owner of a 64bit-ready system (64bit OS installed and 16GB of RAM) I'm all for flightsims finally (about 5 years overdue, in my opinion) making the jump to 64bit.

Lastly, I believe strongly in what Austin & Laminar are doing, and buying their software is an excellent way to support them!

@Keith - Thse screenies were pretty impressive. I apparently need to get out of my airspace "box" and do a world tour or something. I never realized how XP simulates the physical world from 4,000 feet elsewhere. I had several instances of "I didn't know X-Plane looked like that!" Thanks for sharing.

Tim Krajcar wrote:One reason I'm in the process of moving to XP10 (and I would've done it sooner if I had more time for simming) is that I want to be using supported, actively developed software. This is why I switched away from FSX when MS chose to abandon it, after 15+ years of being very happy with it (I'd tried XP several times previously but never spent enough time with it to be impressed).

Unless something crazy happens, there will be no further development for XP9 by Laminar, and new 3rd-party addons for XP may or may not work with XP9 but will almost certainly work with XP10. Plus, as the owner of a 64bit-ready system (64bit OS installed and 16GB of RAM) I'm all for flightsims finally (about 5 years overdue, in my opinion) making the jump to 64bit.

Lastly, I believe strongly in what Austin & Laminar are doing, and buying their software is an excellent way to support them!

Hi Tim,
Those are some interesting arguments. After reading many posts of the "this versus that" filghtsim, I've come to the conclusion there is no easy, pat answer to the question. One thing I am stuck on is I really don't understand what the 64-bit "thing" is all about. I've read the blog entries by Ben S. and what I recall is it doesn't make X-Plane FPS any faster. It doesn't make X-Plane able to use more scenery detail. The only thing I have heard is it keeps X-Plane from crashing because of "out of memory" errors. I never get any errors about memory, so I don't see any benefit for me. FYI - I have Win 7-64-bit, 8GB RAM (6 cores), Nvidia 660ti w/ 2GB VRAM. My FPS in XP9.70 is only ~20. Am I missing something?

Calvin Waterbury wrote:One thing I am stuck on is I really don't understand what the 64-bit "thing" is all about. I've read the blog entries by Ben S. and what I recall is it doesn't make X-Plane FPS any faster. It doesn't make X-Plane able to use more scenery detail. The only thing I have heard is it keeps X-Plane from crashing because of "out of memory" errors. I never get any errors about memory, so I don't see any benefit for me. FYI - I have Win 7-64-bit, 8GB RAM (6 cores), Nvidia 660ti w/ 2GB VRAM. My FPS in XP9.70 is only ~20. Am I missing something?

A 64-bit program can use a lot more RAM than a 32-bit program. 32-bit programs are limited to just a few GB RAM. That's pretty much all you need to know.

XPlane will be produced in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Just choose the one that better suits you. You would *need* to run the 32-bit version if you have a 32-bit operating system. Since you have a 64-bit operating system, you could run either one. If you're running out of memory running XPlane in 32-bit, you should run the 64-bit version.