I tried X Plane

[RatRace 4]

For instance, the included RV's with version 9 balloon up excessively, like a Cessna with flap extension. The real RV's all pitch down with flaps. This is a case for tweaking, and an example of where "blade element theory" isn't really doing it's thing............so to speak.L.Adamson

It is funny in a way. Usually, a poor craftsman blames his tools. In this instance, we have poor craftsmen who are convinced they can't go wrong because they're using a tool that supposedly is incapable of manufacturing bad products.

[Geofa 108]

"For instance, the included RV's with version 9 balloon up excessively, like a Cessna with flap extension. The real RV's all pitch down with flaps. This is a case for tweaking, and an example of where "blade element theory" isn't really doing it's thing............so to speak."L.AdamsonThe Baron does the ballooning flaps thing too. Also the over exaggerated reaction to control inputs with lack of any momentum and of course for ifr flying a lack of doing things by the numbers.It would be great if these things could be addressed,improved. Even though the look of the cockpits -especially 3d is behind fs at this point, I'd probably convert if the actual flying part could be more real. There are lots to like in the sim, and actually quite a lot that is superior to fs.A big one for me is with prop changes the sound changes! It added a lot to my reality or even flight model to hear the throbbing on the twin, and actually be able to sync the engines by sound! Chock one up here to xplane!

[Ted Striker 338]

"For instance, the included RV's with version 9 balloon up excessively, like a Cessna with flap extension. The real RV's all pitch down with flaps. This is a case for tweaking, and an example of where "blade element theory" isn't really doing it's thing............so to speak."L.AdamsonThe Baron does the ballooning flaps thing too. Also the over exaggerated reaction to control inputs with lack of any momentum and of course for ifr flying a lack of doing things by the numbers.It would be great if these things could be addressed,improved. Even though the look of the cockpits -especially 3d is behind fs at this point, I'd probably convert if the actual flying part could be more real. There are lots to like in the sim, and actually quite a lot that is superior to fs.A big one for me is with prop changes the sound changes! It added a lot to my reality or even flight model to hear the throbbing on the twin, and actually be able to sync the engines by sound! Chock one up here to xplane!

Geofa,I just wanted say that I have enjoyed reading your comparisons of X-Plane and FS on the posts here and the X-plane forum. Thank you for taking the time to put out these mini reviews. This type of factual and unbiased feedback is what I feel should be provided to encourage X-plane to improve. In a few years, x-plane may be our only option. If its not, the competition will be good for everyone.Ted

[mgh 89]

My feelings exactly. Also, at this moment in time, the best "tweakers" are in all probability in the MS FS camp. I can understand why some are irritated by the "X-plane has the most realistic flight model available for personal computers" marketing hype, but unequivocally rejecting a theory because of the failures of its practitioners doesn't seem entirely correct to me.

I'm not rejecting anything. I am merely pointing out that the X-Plane modelling of flight dynamics is not necessarily better than Flight Simulator's.

[RatRace 4]

I'm not rejecting anything. I am merely pointing out that the X-Plane modelling of flight dynamics is not necessarily better than Flight Simulator's.

Hi mgh, slight misunderstanding. :( I confess I had L. Adamson aka Larry in mind when I wrote that. :(

[Guest Frankie_B]

I've been looking at X-Plane myself for the last year or so. It's a possibility that it could evolve into a good sim, but for now, there are key issues:1. Scenery. Of course they have nice terrain, better than MS FS, but go figure, it's 60 GB and 5 DVDs worth! And all of this data still gives you airports with no buildings? Come on now! As much as I love the mountains, I also love landing at airports, not paved fields. 2. 2D panels...I think there's only one 2D panel available, and you can "Scroll" through it? I love the pop-up panels much more...3. Interface....Very unintuitive. I still can't get my HAT to work properly, and views system is way too confusing for me...I expect a function called "Look Left" (or similar) to rotate the camera when in external view, not transfer me back into the cockpit, looking out of the left window. Overall, the interface is something pro-oriented...not too cool for an average consumer. 4. There's nothing to do in X-Plane. You open it up, you're sitting on a runway and that's it. At least FS had some lessons, info, missions to get you started! Myself, I'm an IFR/Operations oriented guy, and there's absolutely nothing for me to do in X-Plane in this regard. Nowhere to fly, no adequae aircraft (Hey, at least I was able to learn the basics using FS defaul 737 back in the day - it was sufficient). The default jets are a joke in X-plane. Overall, I think X-Plane is more of a "Fly Around" kind of a sim, targeted to give a good "feel of flight". But as far as anything serious goes....I don't think I could even tune-and-identify an ADF...That being said, all of the above can be fixed. The question is whether or not X-Plane developers will go down that route, and if they will, it will still take them well...at least two years to pull it off. Until then, FS9!

[Guest JeanLuc_]

However, I have to admit Larry Xplane is growing on me.What I find interesting is that I find the scenery, water, and autogen (when set at a reasonable level) much better than fsx.It is the much touted flight dynamics I have a problem with! :( Here is a shot I just took of my state of Michigan. I have to say-it does not look this well in fs. The trees blend in better, and the lakes with their reflections are great! Like real water they change color depending on the sky, time of day.I'm still working on getting a Baron-if I ever get one that is realistic I may ultimately become a convert-and if I don't that will be a big limiting factor.

Geoff,you might want to look at this as well: http://www.fsimp.com/I've been trying it with FlightScenery

[Murmur 3,944]

1. Scenery. Of course they have nice terrain, better than MS FS, but go figure, it's 60 GB and 5 DVDs worth!

I don't think 60GB are a problem with today HD storage size.

And all of this data still gives you airports with no buildings? Come on now! As much as I love the mountains, I also love landing at airports, not paved fields.

True, a long time complaint by X-Plane users. Fortunately, seems like this issue is finally gonna be tackled: developers are thinking of creating a common database for airport scenery, so that every user can add buildings and share it with everyone (the database would be redistributed with X-Plane). Read this: http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2009/02/...looking-at.html

2. 2D panels...I think there's only one 2D panel available, and you can "Scroll" through it? I love the pop-up panels much more...

Pop-up panels can be implemented via plugins. At the moment the only aircraft that uses them (I think) is this: http://www.eadt.eu/

3. I still can't get my HAT to work properly, and views system is way too confusing for me...I expect a function called "Look Left" (or similar) to rotate the camera when in external view, not transfer me back into the cockpit, looking out of the left window.

X-Plane calls the HAT functions you're looking for: "Pan Left", "Pan Right", "Pan Up", "Pan Down".

4. There's nothing to do in X-Plane. You open it up, you're sitting on a runway and that's it. At least FS had some lessons, info, missions to get you started! Myself, I'm an IFR/Operations oriented guy, and there's absolutely nothing for me to do in X-Plane in this regard. Nowhere to fly, no adequae aircraft (Hey, at least I was able to learn the basics using FS defaul 737 back in the day - it was sufficient). The default jets are a joke in X-plane.

Well, there are no missions in FS9 as well!I agree on the fact that X-Plane is missing complex aircrafts. I hope some 3rd party MSFS developers will try their hands on X-Plane.

That being said, all of the above can be fixed. The question is whether or not X-Plane developers will go down that route, and if they will, it will still take them well...at least two years to pull it off. Until then, FS9!

Agree, maybe even 3 or more years. Also, Austin will need to change the update strategy, concentrating all the modifications that break compatibility (e.g. changes to the flight model) to major versions, and leaving only minor improvements (eye candy, scenery, etc.) to the frequent intra-version updates.Marco

[Geofa 108]

Geoff,you might want to look at this as well: http://www.fsimp.com/I've been trying it with FlightScenery’s FlightZone 02 KPDX and it was quite working right! I'm wondering with other popular "detailed" FS9 airports!!

Thanks Jean Luc-Already checked it out with some mixed results.By the way-one of my complaints about non resized panels for higher resolutions and fuzzy instruments in higher resolutions has already been addressed in the new beta-so it seems there is some good listening going on.Waiting impatiently for a certain add in..... :(Ted-Thanks for the nice comments. When I get my panel done I will post some compares on the screenshot forum-the results may be surprising.

[Jimmy Angel 19]

Out of curiosity, I've been putzing around a bit with X-Plane v9 demo. Compared to my last experience with X-Plane (a few years ago), I am actually pretty impressed.Althougth it doesn't quite match FSX in the looks department, there's quite a bit in terms of environment depiction which exceeds FSX. The water colors and reflections look very good, although I understand you won't get regional water color variations. Cloud shadows are great. Little things like sun glare look good. The terrain looks pretty good. The forest autogen is comparable to FSX, though the city autogen is not up to par. Runway lighting looks very good. The runways hug the terrain which looks great (and is reflected in the ground manuevering of the aircraft). The aircraft landing lights actually illuminate the runway!The sim has an overall dark color palette which feels a bit muddy at first glance. I often find FSX too bright and colorful, though maybe something in between would be best.Of course, the problem with the demo is in the air. The default C172 is jittery. Any joystick movement sends it careening around without any apparent allowances for the resistance of air or intertia. It's impossible to evaluate the sim without a stable, realistic aircraft, which (to my understanding) is not available in the demo.I like the complex menus and all of the configuration and view options. For some, it might feel cumbersome and overwhelming.There's some potential that in a few years X-Plane will be the only game in town. I am certainly not going to dismiss it out-of-hand. It shows a lot of promise. I think that they absolutely need a demo which has a quality, stable aircraft from a third party--something which is representative of what you can get via downloads. As it is, I'm not quite willing to plunk down my money based on the demo experience.The success of X-Plane (for me) will also be dependent upon the availabity of terrain add-ons which are at the level of FTX or similiar. It's hard to go back to cookie-cutter terrain after using FTX (in Australia) and TileProxy (in the US). But, it seems like there is a solid foundation here. Flight modeling is key, and hopefully a future demo will do a better job of reinforcing that aspect.

[Geofa 108]

Just as a side note-I think you need more time than the demo to see what this sim has to offer.Yesterday I went flying with a friend to Jackson, Mi. for lunch. On landing we saw 8 deer just to the side of the runway. We called the tower and reported them-the tower sounded bored. After lunch we tookoff-they were still there at the end of the runway looking at us-they probably live there. I took a shot with my iphone but unfortunately it didn't come out great.Anyway-tonight I was testing out xplane-put the sim in Jackson, Mi. Guess what happened at takeoff?-7 deer went running across the runway and off to the side....put a big smile on my face. I knew about the birds in xplane...

[Jimmy Angel 19]

Anyway-tonight I was testing out xplane-put the sim in Jackson, Mi. Guess what happened at takeoff?-7 deer went running across the runway and off to the side....put a big smile on my face. I knew about the birds in xplane...

Yeah, there is lots of interesting bits like this in X-Plane.I may be willing to give the current version a shot, but I'll have to spend some time sorting through planes that are available and see if there is anything in the light categories that is comparable to what I can get in FSX (at least in terms of the perceived fidelity of flight). I am interested to hear about your further experiences.Do you know if it's possible to expand your FOV in X-Plane? It supports Track IR (which is great), but I can't seem to expand my FOV or zoom out to pull back further from the instruments using the virtual cockpit (unless I am missing something). In FSX I zoom out to expand my peripheral vision and try to make up for the fact that I'm staring at the world through a monitor.The main potential advantage for me is the fact that it seems to perform pretty well out-of-the-box, and perhaps there's less of a need to tweak constantly on moderate systems.

[Geofa 108]

Yeah, there is lots of interesting bits like this in X-Plane.I may be willing to give the current version a shot, but I'll have to spend some time sorting through planes that are available and see if there is anything in the light categories that is comparable to what I can get in FSX (at least in terms of the perceived fidelity of flight). I am interested to hear about your further experiences.Do you know if it's possible to expand your FOV in X-Plane? It supports Track IR (which is great), but I can't seem to expand my FOV or zoom out to pull back further from the instruments using the virtual cockpit (unless I am missing something). In FSX I zoom out to expand my peripheral vision and try to make up for the fact that I'm staring at the world through a monitor.The main potential advantage for me is the fact that it seems to perform pretty well out-of-the-box, and perhaps there's less of a need to tweak constantly on moderate systems.

The airplane selection is thinner than fsx and the quality quite varied.I haven't even gotten around to trying tracker ir-(I've been too busy trying to make my panel). The 3d cockpits seem fairly new and are way behind fsx for sure.I think the demo should run unlimited time for a small area as it currently does-that would give more time to really check out all that it does well. I have to say though-when I started flying to areas I have flown I really got amazed-for me a much more realistic look-especially the water, lakes, and rivers. I have been a photoscenery fan but have to say this is almost like a cross between the two-and the autogen doesn't look cartoony except as you may have pointed out in some city situations.

[Murmur 3,944]

Do you know if it's possible to expand your FOV in X-Plane? It supports Track IR (which is great), but I can't seem to expand my FOV or zoom out to pull back further from the instruments using the virtual cockpit (unless I am missing something). In FSX I zoom out to expand my peripheral vision and try to make up for the fact that I'm staring at the world through a monitor.

Go to the Rendering Settings and increase the value for the "lateral field of view" (default is 45 degrees).Oh, and a side note regarding clouds: in the Rendering Settings there are 2 values called "number cloud of cloud puffs" and "size cloud of cloud puffs".Decreasing the first value and increasing the second one gives better performance and, for me, better looking clouds in cloudy conditions.Marco

[yankeegolf3 51]

hi,I tried the Xplane demo a few years ago and I would like to share that experience with you:By the time the demo expired I had not been able to make my yoke work. So I did not find any difference between Xplane flight models and fS's on ground.I am convinced that you will find this review valuable :(