X-Plane vs FS2002

[LAdamson 240]

>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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

"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

[Guest]

> :-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.

[kerosene31 349]

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.

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>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

[michal 44]

Ron,.. always good to hear from you.Best,Michael J.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

[Guest JonP01]

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.

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>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

[Guest JonP01]

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.

[Guest ScottPilot]

I like certain aspects of MS Flight Sim 2K2 Pro, X-Plane (5.99 & 6.44), and Fly! 2K & 2.None of these sims are perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, I like to lower the visibilities in X-Plane all the way down and practice IFR approaches with this sim because the frame rates are so high and the smoothness of the sim can't be beat.However, for VFR flying, MSFS is the only way to go due to the scenery graphics level that is attainable with this sim.If I want to be able to push every button in the aircraft and simulate the full "operational" experience of the aircraft systems, then I like to use Fly!Anyways, my point is, that I like all these sims for different reasons and there is yet no "perfect" sim available, so why complain about it. Compared to a few years back, PC flight simming has come along way.Happy Simming!Scott :-)Here is a screen shot from a custom panel that I made for X-Plane 6.4. Nice looking and functional panels are possible in X-Plane as well!

[Guest KenG]

I have complained to Austin countless times about the turbulence and windshear effect on small aircraft. I did extensive testing while using METAR weather data and with user-defined weather and emailed it to Austin. I conferred with him at an IRC chat at x-plane.org about this. All it seems to have done is go in one ear and out the other, despite him telling me he acknowledged there was a problem and he would "look into it." There are problems but I don't think Austin wants to find a solution for it because the effect is not noticeable on the larger jets, which he prefers to fly.As far as flight models, there are good ones and bad ones in both x-plane and MSFS. The physics utilized by X-plane cannot model everything. There are holes and problems that leave a lot to be desired. Skilled designers (like Way-2-Slow) have found ways of compensating for many of the problems, but in the end there are forces affecting flight that cannot be accounted for by using the algorithms created by Austin.I use x-plane for further training on my instrument rating. The fluid movement of the gauges is far superior to anything in MSFS.X-plane has a lot of problems but most are fairly minor (as do all flight sims). I just wish Austin would fix the current bugs before releasing another version or going off on a tangent and creating X-Auto, X-Combat, or Space Combat. Version 6.5 should be a pure bug fix without adding new components.

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>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 - I tried the Piper Warrior and Malibu's I DL'ed from the Piper site last night. They were smooth. So where the instruments. The prop efficiency seemed closer to what it should be in these AC, not far from what I see in my Archer II (same PA-18 airframe as the Warrior). They were done by an Phd. However, the AC seemed to bounce around too much, I'm not sure I got the wind turned off, even though I went to the 'weather' window to set it to zero. At maximum visiblity there was a lot of haze. That always helps frame rates. :) X-Plane doesn't use DirectX. Rather Open GL, as many professional graphics programs use. That makes jerkiness, etc. more tractable. With MS one is stuck with their current set of closed source and sometimes buggy DX code. The X-Plane PA-28 would hold a bank better than my SEL's. I always need some rudder to keep the ball centered and the AC banked. I don't remember just how the Cherokee I flew over 30 years ago held turns. >And yes, the x-plane scenery is not the best. Unending cris-cross streets around Chicago. Meigs is especially unrealistic. Though, Chicago does have some buildings modeled after the real ones. >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. I see a nice panel in one of these messages. >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. Which I noted above. I flew 200 hrs in the SF Bay area where the air is usually smooth. One can trim an AC and it will be nice and steady. I learned to fly in Wisconsin, where the summer air was always bumpy. >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". I set dampings to realistic values. Often lower than MS does. Far lower than the X8 values MS uses for jets. I've flow the X-Plane Mars vehicles quite a bit. It takes 400 kts to TO, even though IAS is only 25 or so. It takes several minutes to turn 180 degrees back to the base. One has to plan well ahead. I've never landed on a runway but have managed to come to a stop near it. >scenerio whether x-plane is "better" or MSFS is "better". >AND who is "used" to flight simming in general, I think it >is pretty hard to make a definitive conclusion. .. I'm hoping to make plots of FS AC dynamics when Herve' Sors adds data logging to 'AFSD Pro'. Ideally, one could compare roll, pitch, and yaw with similar data taken from a real AC. And, from other simulators. Further, if the FS turbulence model is 'scientific' one could also analyse the flight data statistically and get useful information. In any case, such analysis has to be consistent with the pilot's feelings. Incidently, FS appears to have a good icing model. I have investigated it some. I think X-Plane probably simulates ice but one never knows how realistic the effects are without a lot of analysis. Ron

[Guest]

"PLAY"? I wan't playing, I was testing. I assume Chuck Yeager was PLAYING when he broke the sound barrier just to test the flight dynamics and feasibility of the event?Don't try to make X-Plane out to be this "serious" sim which I read you trying to perpetuate between the lines. FLY!, FS2002, XPlane, FUIII can be as serious or as gamish as one makes it.Anyway, damage simulator or not, the mathematical behaviour of the airfoil model broke down in that scenario and therefore it crossed the line from "serious" sim into game at that point. The claim to fame for X-Plane is its aerodynamic accuracy and I wanted to see where the accuracy turned to mush. I found it.X-Plane makes a wonderful (if limited) aerodynamic simulator / tester, but I'm still not seeing the value of it in terms of modeling cockpits, scenery, or suspension of disbelief for that matter.Mike T.