Sign in to follow this  
Guest ScottPilot

X-Plane vs FS2002

Recommended Posts

Hi all I am intersted in the opinions of users of both X-plane and Fs2002. I read the review of X-plane and it does sound interesting especially the flight dynamics part which to me is the most important feature of a flight sim program but i just want to know what is it that makes the X-plane flight dynamics engine so realistic - what does it do/have that Fs2002 does not? I fly the PIC 767 and Dreamfleet 737 almost exclusively and while i have no real world flighttime on either aircraft the flight dynamics of both seem pretty good from my own experience and from what real world pilots have said about them so I am curious about the real merits of X-plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I dont really have much to say except that X-plane is sorely lacking in the panels area, but it is much much much more atmospheric and the flight modeling is loads better. FS2002 is much easier, simpler to use and its got better panels, planes, etc. But I fly x-plane when i wanna fly by hand, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The panels and instruments in Xplane just simply blow away anything FS2k2 has to offer. FS2k2 panels are awful when compared to those in Xplane. As far as flight models go, neither sim has an advantage. Some are better in Xplane and some are better in FS2k2. Just all depends on who configures them. Other than the above, FS2k2 blows Xplane away is all other areas. Expecially in the terrain graphics. Xplane is really, really, really bad in the terrain department. If you want an overall good flight simming experience and were looking on the store shelf at Xplane or FS2k2, you'd likely be much happier with FS2k2. If you want really good panels and instruments and don't really care about terrain graphics or airplane detail, get Xplane. If you want really good flight models, flip a coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The panels and instruments in Xplane just simply blow away >anything FS2k2 has to offer. I would really like to see some best panels X-plane has to offer. So far I haven't see anything that would impress me but maybe I am missing something ... Remember everyone - when we are comparing panels/flight models we don't compare what's in the box - rather the best what is available for this product including all the add-ons. Michael J.[link:jdtllc.com]http://jdtllc.com/images/RCsupporter.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but no way these panels are as good as what is available for FS2002.And I have X-Plane 6.4, these panels look a lot better than they actually function. And on looks alone they definitely do not beat FS2002's panels.FS2002 is better than X-Plane when it comes Panels, Plane exteriors, and scenery.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.But with this "blowing away" I have bit of a problem. Granted the instruments (glass cockpit) seems very good primary because of the anti-aliased stuff but the rest of the graphics is barely OK - I would say a step-down from the the just released DC9. And if you take something like Flight1's Meridian project (granted, it is not yet finished) then I am afraid the blowing away .. blows in the opposite direction. Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:-lol :-lol :-lolAhem, err, sorry. Well, I will fully concede that the panels in X-Plane blow the DOORS off of any panel from FS4 hands down! :-lol :-lolTake a look at the 737-NG panel that you linked to and then compare that to what is coming down the pike from PMDG and what already exists from PIC, PSS, Dreamfleet, et al. There is unequivocally absolutely no comparison at all. It is like comparing FS4 to FS2002. Even the "custom" X-Plane panels are only a little better than the default panels in FS2002. You will be hard pressed to find a high quality FS2002 panel with the throttles and radios imbedded in the face of the instrument panel any more. Sorry but this is FS5 vintage IMHO.FS2002 panels are now able to achive FLY! panel quality in terms of scale and beauty and has already surpassed the high-water-mark that FLY! set in accuracy of aircraft systems (read FMC, EFIS systems etc.)But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. :-)Regards,Mike T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not. Grabbing a copy of Fly! would be FAR, FAR, FAR more desirable that the panels in X-Plane if I needed a panel only sim. The panels in X-Plane are extremely inaccurate, development of custom gauges is next to nil, the EFIS instruments do NOT mimic their real world counterparts. Where are the overheads, flight engineer stations and consoles???IMHO the ONLY thing that X-Plane does well is mimic real world fluid dynamics and aeronautical object interaction with meterological phenomena. BUT...then again, the last time I downloaded a demo of X-Plane (about 6 months ago), I flew the 767 at 500kts at 10000 feet, deployed full flaps and spoilers and the aircraft simply pitched its nose nearly vertically and continued flying along at 350 kts. Now, it does not take an Aeronautical Engineer to know that this scenario can in NO WAY be accurate. Even the much belittled flight dynamic capabilities of FS2002 would have done a better job of in that instance. :-)Mike T. :-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry; I disagree. And I'm not comparing payware with freeware. I'm not comparing stock panels with stock panels, but rather third party panels. I guess it's a matter of personal taste. I don't have the pic panel because I've seen numerous pictures of it and from what I've seen, I don't want it. It's not very impressive in the pictures. The payware Airbus panel looks excellent, but again; it's payware. Many Xplane third party panels simply blow away any freeware panels I've seen in FS2k2. And I checked out most of the FS2k2 freeware panels. It very hard to find an FS2k2 panel with a nice clean bmp and I much prefer the instruments in Xplane. They're top notch. Like I said, it's a matter of personal taste. I think I said above that FS2k2 wins hands down when it comes to aircraft detail and terrain and they're about equal in flight model on average. IMHO the biggest fault in FS2k2 is the loosy panels. Not to say, that there aren't some pretty good ones. Just not the same quality as the Xplane third party panels. Not even close.Which sim to I fly the most. FS2k2, of course!! Xplane comes in second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh, yes, I misunderstood. If you are comparing stock to stock then I would agree that X-Plane panels are prettier. They do not function any better or offer any more "realism" they are prettier. So I agree with you there.As far as your comments on the PIC panel... :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol :-lol, I'm not EVEN going to go there but I thank you for the chuckle, err, you WERE just kidding right? My question to you is, do you actually OWN a Dreamfleet or PSS 747 panel or are you flying freeware heavy panels still?Regards,Mike T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't Mike; so it's kinda hard to form an opinion on those payware panels. I'm comparing third party freeware with third party freeware. Not stock panels with stock panels. And I'm comparing them on average and not judging any particular panels. There's always exceptions. There are some outstanding freeware panels in FS2k2 too. But, overall; I much prefer the Xplane third party panels and some of the stock panels and the Xplane instruments over what FS2k2 has to offer for third party freeware. But again, it's a matter of taste.Let me clarify my stand on flight models. Overall, I see them as both good and equal. But, xplane wins in someways. It models mach+ speed well. Take the firefox and fly to mach 5.5 in xplane and it's a real hoot. Fly to the edge of the atmosphere in xplane and back again. Can't do either in FS2k2 accurately. You can in Xplane. There both well worth owning as I do. But, as I said; I fly FS2k2 most all of the time. When I wanta go mach 5.5, I fire up Xplane. When I want to be really impressed with a panel, I'll fire up Xplane. When I want a good VFR flight, I fire up FS2k2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what I had once considered buying X-Plane for was the ability to fly back from space in the Space Shuttle, if that's possible. Have you tried this? Is it possible? Can X-Plane simulate a shuttle launch and re-entry procedure? Mike T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>No, I don't Mike; so it's kinda hard to form an opinion on those >payware panels. I'm comparing third party freeware with third party >freewareCompare what the screenshots you linked to (which basically represent the best panel quality you will see in X-Plane) with the best freeware FS2002 panels.Its not even close FS2002 freeware 3rd party panels win easily.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Let me clarify my stand on flight models. Overall, I see >them as both good and equal. But, xplane wins in someways. >It models mach+ speed well. And FS2002 wins in some ways. Much better "left drift" during takeoff and climb. And when it comes to flight dynamics, I havn't run into any X-Plane aircraft that models rudder control as well as what Rob Young has achieved with the payware Marchetti SF260 for FS2002. This plane put's the fun back into slips, spins, and mild aerobatics. The control during simulated slips is sensational for a desktop sim.If any X-Plane aircraft is comparable in the particular dynamics I've stated above, then I'd like to know...........seriously!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does the reentry and very well, but not the launch sequence. It's a real "B" to land the shuttle from orbit. I almost made it once. Actually, it starts just after leaving orbit. There's a short training flight where you land starting from something like 20K feet and I've mastered that; but coming in from way up is extremely difficult. Great fun though. If you can stand the terrain. There are some very impressive terrain addons for specific areas modelled. But they're getting into payware too for the really good stuff. Over all it's a good sim. But it probably wouldn't appeal very much to the casual simmer. The latest version is 6.40 last I read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"BUT...then again, the last time I downloaded a demo of X-Plane (about 6 months ago), I flew the 767 at 500kts at 10000 feet, deployed full flaps and spoilers and the aircraft simply pitched its nose nearly vertically and continued flying along at 350 kts. Now, it does not take an Aeronautical Engineer to know that this scenario can in NO WAY be accurate. Even the much belittled flight dynamic capabilities of FS2002 would have done a better job of in that instance"-----------Now thats really a scientific test :DX-Plane is not a DAMAGE simulator! If you did that for real, that is if you would ever get to that speed without your plane falling apart, your flap would blow, your spoilers would blow and the rest you probably can figure out.My point is, how can you judge a plane/sim when not even the real thing can do it?Now, if you are talking about the freeware project 767, its within 1% of book values. Our REAL 767/757 test pilot fly's it right out if his real AOM.And yes, you can simulate blown flaps in XP - just look a little harder to find it.Us X-Planers dont PLAY around in 500kts deploying flaps with our 767, thats probably the main difference between the two sims. If the 767 PIC developer put in a lookup table for for 500kts, I wouldnt buy his planes anymore if I were you guy's ;)regards,Morten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> :-lol :-lol :-lol >>Ahem, err, sorry. Well, I will fully concede that the >panels in X-Plane blow the DOORS off of any panel from FS4 >hands down! :-lol :-lol >>Take a look at the 737-NG panel that you linked to and then >compare that to what is coming down the pike from PMDG and >what already exists from PIC, PSS, Dreamfleet, et al. There >is unequivocally absolutely no comparison at all. It is >like comparing FS4 to FS2002. Even the "custom" X-Plane >panels are only a little better than the default panels in >FS2002. You will be hard pressed to find a high quality >FS2002 panel with the throttles and radios imbedded in the >face of the instrument panel any more. Sorry but this is >FS5 vintage IMHO. >>FS2002 panels are now able to achive FLY! panel quality in >terms of scale and beauty and has already surpassed the >high-water-mark that FLY! set in accuracy of aircraft >systems (read FMC, EFIS systems etc.) >>But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess. :-) >>Regards, >>Mike T. >>These pnnels remind me of FS2000 more than anything else. The only time I saw X-Plane in action was at RH Simulations stand at the PFA rally last year. They had a nice big projector screen, and CH pedals/yoke etc. They were demoing a glider and it looked absolutely fantastic. No doubt on my monitor at home it wouldn't look anywhere near as impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with X-plane is that it has no time acceleration feature like other sims. That is a big problem for those of us with limited free time. That 6 hour cross-country flight in x-plane will take 6 hours :-eek Also, x-plane just doesn't have the 3rd party support that Fs2002 does. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Dreamfleet or another big developer did a project for x-plane (i'm sure it won't happen). I owned x-plane 5.x but I haven't gotten 6.x and don't plan to unless he can add some sort of time acceleration to the program. If he did, I would probably use fs2002 for flying heavies, and x-plane for flying smaller GA aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Hi all I am intersted in the opinions of users of both >X-plane and Fs2002. I read the review of X-plane and it >does sound interesting especially the flight dynamics part >which to me is the most important feature of a flight sim >program but i just want to know what is it that makes the >X-plane flight dynamics engine so realistic - what does it >do/have that Fs2002 does not? The AVSIM review on X-Plane contains many inaccuracies. The author quotes 'Laminar Research' rather than verifying much for himself. I know the X-Plane models are not that good. I'd guess if anyone else understood the flight data numbers you can put on the X-Plane screen they might understand this also. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do feel many x-plane flight models are more "tactile" than FS2002 flight models (including the SF260 which I have). Hwoever, not being a real pilot this counts for little when deciding which sim is capable of being more accurate. Nevertheless, I find most x-plane aircraft more enjoyable to fly than FS2002 aircraft, due to this tactile feel. When I look at replays, the x-plane aircraft also seem to behave much more like the real thing during the landing phase than FS2002 aircraft. Again, though, all I have to rely upon here is my eye and frequent visits to my local GA aerodrome watching aircraft performing touch and goes.One thing I do feel is incorrect in x-plane is the wind, windshear and turbulence modelling. Either it is exaggerated, or my threshold for air sickness is extremely low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I do feel many x-plane flight models are more "tactile" than >FS2002 flight models (including the SF260 which I have). >Hwoever, not being a real pilot this counts for little when >deciding which sim is capable of being more accurate. FS uses Standard Stability Derivatives, as most professioinal simulators do. However, very few FS AC are set up appropriately. X-Plane tries to calculate the flight forces from the AC configuration. This works fairly well, but there is little one can do to model in corrections. Lower speed X-Plane AC generally come out better. Transonic Mach effects are not modeled Correctly in X-Plane. Drag does not vary appropriately over the cruise envelope of jets. One can display a prop parmeter on the X-Plane screen: "Performace". It appears to be prop efficiency and hangs around 0.65. Real prop Efficiency varies, and 65% is only appropriate for Climb. 84% is typical in cruise. One can display Vector Forces on the AC; however I have not seen any Side Forces. I have flown some X-Plane jets to get a general idea of pitch damping, etc. Mainly to verify what I see in my jets. However, the X-Plane Concorde is terrible. X-Plane is less resource intensive, so one generally gets better frame rates than from FS2K+; this enhances smoothness. But, Scenery is anemic. X-Plane models flight far from a planet, I've refueled the Mars Rocket AC multiple times and escaped from Mars. The force of Gravity deceases appropriately as one increases elevation. This is only important for modeling very high altitude flight.>Nevertheless, I find most x-plane aircraft more enjoyable to >fly than FS2002 aircraft, due to this tactile feel. When I >look at replays, the x-plane aircraft also seem to behave >much more like the real thing during the landing phase than >FS2002 aircraft. Again, though, all I have to rely upon here >is my eye and frequent visits to my local GA aerodrome >watching aircraft performing touch and goes. X-Plane is an interesting variation from MSFS, but most people prefer the MS simulator. I DL'ed the X-Plane Piper archive from the Piper site. But, haven't tried it yet. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,I certainly take your x-plane scenery and frame rate points. No matter how good a frame rate is in MSFS, the frames always seem to have an "on / off / on" type quality about them - like watching movie film shown using a projector at very high fps. I've noticed this ever since MSFS became hardware accelerated. X-plane on the other hand really is exceptionally smooth - at high frame rates and refresh rates it really does seem like real life - at least in terms of my brain interpreting the on-screen animation. There is no question whatsoever that x-plane is more smoothly animated. I think this difference does go some way to explaining why x-plane may have subjectively a more fluid feel about it at times. Even many MSFS users tend to state that an MSFS flight model feels more realistic the better the performance of the sim.And yes, the x-plane scenery is not the best. The stock aircraft panels, aircraft themselves and the terrain look like some hybrid between FS95 / 98 and current graphics technology. It does require a lot more imagination to suspend disbelief flying over x-plane terrain than it does MSFS terrain. There have been a few excellent freeware panels, however, perhaps the best being by an x-plane.org member known as "way-2-slow". His Piper Warrior, C172 and Cirrus panels are probably about as good as it is possible to get using the current x-plane technology.Back to the flight modelling, I think if the x-plane weather was the same as real life, then pilots of small GA aircraft would be crashing all over the place or at least damaging their aircraft on a regular basis. The small x-plane GA aircraft are quite difficult to fly in even light winds and turbulence and I just don't think the effect is quite this exaggerated in real life.If I compare this scenario to say, your flight models, or Bill Lyon's or RealAir, I find these latter models to be more "relaxing". It's so hard to gauge for any given scenerio whether x-plane is "better" or MSFS is "better". The problem is, unless you have the same flight model designer who is equally expert in both sims, and develops the same aircraft for both sims - and that aircraft is then test flown by a real pilot who currently flies the aircraft AND who is "used" to flight simming in general, I think it is pretty hard to make a definitive conclusion. And as you point out, x-plane does not really have the flight model tweakability (for better or worse) that MSFS has. So any designer could well be more frustrated trying to ship a realistic x-plane model out the door than the equivalent MSFS model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this