I tried X Plane

[Guest islandjet]

Been an MSFS fan for a long time. I flew the first one (Cessna on a map) and owned the FS2 (with the Piper Archer) back when the FS was owed b a company called

[LAdamson 240]

1. the CORRECT operation of the constant speed prop. The engine noise/tone depends on the PROP lever position NOT THE THROTTLE! (arrhh)

I don't believe I've seen the correct operation of a constant speed prop..............anywhere. I certainly haven't found the "braking effects" yet.In the meantime, my simming CPU still isn't fixed, so I can't test anything if I wanted to.And one note: I'm not sure at the moment how it's done in the sims; but if I use the throttle from say, 600 to 1800 rpms, then the sound is from the throttle, as the constant speed doesn't kick in yet. An example would be the mag check, while still on the ground. And the same would apply to pulling back power with the prop lever full forward (fine pitch) in the landing sequence. L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

I don't believe I've seen the correct operation of a constant speed prop..............anywhere. I certainly haven't found the "braking effects" yet.In the meantime, my simming CPU still isn't fixed, so I can't test anything if I wanted to.And one note: I'm not sure at the moment how it's done in the sims; but if I use the throttle from say, 600 to 1800 rpms, then the sound is from the throttle, as the constant speed doesn't kick in yet. An example would be the mag check, while still on the ground. And the same would apply to pulling back power with the prop lever full forward (fine pitch) in the landing sequence. L.Adamson

The constant speed prop depiction in xplane is leagues above fsx. I can actually sync the engines on a multi by sound in xplane-not in fs. Indicators respond properly except...(Density altitude not sure about yet-I still get full manifold at any altitude).The ultimate test though came for me a couple days ago. I have had an arm injury that kept me from rw flying the last 5 months. Got the all clear from the Dr., took the bird up, and after using xplane the last three weeks found the rw skills to be 100%. When my dual alternators failed shortly after takeoff (isn't that murphy's law?) dropped the gear, called the tower, and returned with no fuss. Of course the increased systems failure modes of xplane had kept me on my toes here.My flight model on xplane keeps getting tweaked more and more-and gets closer and closer. Cranked up fsx after not using it a few weeks and frankly felt let down-my xplane model is already hugely closer-period.Main thing for me is keeping my flying proficiency up with a desktop when I can't fly rw-xplane has passed with flying colors. Fsx is useful-but already was impressed with an increased lack of rust after flying xplane vs. fsx.Still lots of things lacking in xplane from fsx-and lots of things xplane has that fsx doesn't have-but for me the proof is how the sim time translates to real -and it seems to be passing with flying colors...I like that-anything that saves me $$$ in the rw and increases safety at the same time is a bargain-especially for the cost of a meal for two at a restaurant.

[Guest pwheeler]

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.

Geoff,Just wanted to chime in with a product plug! :( Our new FREE update to FSWC+ adds a new 'dynamic response' control so you can enhance how the water shading responds to time of day, weather conditions, etc. It can look really good! With FSWC+ you can easily make FSX's water the equal of X Plane's. Personally I haven't given up hope on Microsoft quite yet...Paul

[LAdamson 240]

The constant speed prop depiction in xplane is leagues above fsx. I can actually sync the engines on a multi by sound in xplane-not in fs. Indicators respond properly except...(Density altitude not sure about yet-I still get full manifold at any altitude).

When I can shove that blue knob forward, and my office chair slams into the desk.................then I'll know the sim has finally got the constant speed prop mimicked! :( But seriously, has the sim (FS9/FSX, or X-Plane) got the braking effects in fine pitch.......yet? I use it for just about every real landing.L.Adamson

[Guest islandjet]

But seriously, has the sim (FS9/FSX, or X-Plane) got the braking effects in fine pitch.......yet? I use it for just about every real landing.L.Adamson

I don

[Geofa 108]

"Yes it it full of surprises. XP9 is really growing on me (and I am a real word pilot)."Me too. There is lots I miss from fsx but I have to admit I am only flying xplane right now. It certainly is filling a lot of the gaps fsx has-and some of them more important for me (I still wish for the perfect sim that has everything).Here are a series of shots of just a few of the unique things xplane has that I have found so far..http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=244953

[Guest Cameron]

"Yes it it full of surprises. XP9 is really growing on me (and I am a real word pilot)."Me too. There is lots I miss from fsx but I have to admit I am only flying xplane right now. It certainly is filling a lot of the gaps fsx has-and some of them more important for me (I still wish for the perfect sim that has everything).Here are a series of shots of just a few of the unique things xplane has that I have found so far..http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=244953

Geofa and others,I highly recommend you download the following app: http://marginal.org.uk/x-planescenery/tools.htmlIt's called FS2XPlane, and converts FS9 and FSX scenery to XP. It does so with fantastic results (usually...including AFCAD files). It's much more reliable than FSIMP, and creates a custom scenery package for you. It's funny, because for most, X-Plane runs smoother than MSFS, and scenery can be a real down pour on video cards. However, in X-Plane, a lot of the time (even with the scenery), it still runs very smooth. Please note that because FS does not render/utilize runways and taxiways that follow elevation data, you will need to disable the "runways follow contour" option in your rendering settings. So many people complain that the scenery in XP is crap, and here is your solution....for the most part. :) Sometimes (rare ocassion), you'll get a package that converts weird, but mostly not. To show an example, here some screenies of some FSDT ORD scenery:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3516/327726...a0630575e_o.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3302/327644...0f515fec7_o.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3390/327726...c18699c97_o.jpgThe last thing to mention on the FS2Xplane program is that if you choose to convert photoscenery (Megascenery, etc), it must be FS9. FSX is still in development for photoscenery conversion.I also suggest checking out the MU-2. It is an EXTREMELY realistic add-on for X-Plane, almost literally being a simulation in and of itself. Don't expect to be able to fly it without reading the manual, as it's heavily plug-in driven to be as realistic as possible! The 3D cockpit and model included is very top knotch. You can purchase the aircraft from X-Aviation at: http://www.x-aviation.com. There is a nice display of screenshots at the actual product page shown here: http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_...;products_id=29 . This aircraft is definitely the start of a re-defined X-Plane experience and sets a high bar in quality (both in simulation and modeling).I hope this post has provided some helpful insight for people. Anyone can feel free to PM me should they like to know more info or get pointed into the right direction. :)While I have both FS and X-Plane, I find myself as almost a sole X-Plane user.Best Regards,C

[Geofa 108]

Thanks for the links...I've tried both fsimp and FS2XPlane but for some reason haven't had much luck-maybe due to heavy reliance on fsx scenery?Doesn't really matter for me though cause all I am really interested in is duplicating my rw experience-and xplane is doing a better job of it..I do look forward to a day though that we can get much of what fsx has into xplane...

[Guest Cameron]

Geof,Yes, I bet the FSX part of it was the issue. FS9 packages tend to work very well. :)

[Peter Clemenko 0]

I'm just glad you guys aren't just trying it for 5 minutes and saying screw this... All in all, I gotta say I'm really enjoying screwing with PM. I recently made a 100 hp electric motor aircraft that when you throttle it up even a little, the prop goes FLYING OFF! I still have a lot to learn about not making props go flying away.... I'm pretty sure maintenance of that 757 the prop went into is just thrilled with me :( Also I managed to make an aircraft that has so much thrust that it tips over just like that... That's what I get for trying to make a trans-atmospheric space fighter (dangit, why can't I ever take that thing off without going into a nosedive, maybe I shouldn't have added 9 million pounds of forward thrust :( ) I love throwing my aircraft into the pavement because I added what I like to think would simulate a hyperdrive. I can probably set it to work too if I mess with some of the FADEC settings in 9.30 beta 3 (or maybe a python script) as all I would have to really do is keep it at 50,000 pounds of thrust max until I reach 150,000 feet (sub orbital) and then hit the hyper drive. On the bright side, I KNOW i set some climb records the one time I got airborne.

[Guest Chriger]

I'm just glad you guys aren't just trying it for 5 minutes and saying screw this... All in all, I gotta say I'm really enjoying screwing with PM. I recently made a 100 hp electric motor aircraft that when you throttle it up even a little, the prop goes FLYING OFF! I still have a lot to learn about not making props go flying away.... I'm pretty sure maintenance of that 757 the prop went into is just thrilled with me :( Also I managed to make an aircraft that has so much thrust that it tips over just like that... That's what I get for trying to make a trans-atmospheric space fighter (dangit, why can't I ever take that thing off without going into a nosedive, maybe I shouldn't have added 9 million pounds of forward thrust :( ) I love throwing my aircraft into the pavement because I added what I like to think would simulate a hyperdrive. I can probably set it to work too if I mess with some of the FADEC settings in 9.30 beta 3 (or maybe a python script) as all I would have to really do is keep it at 50,000 pounds of thrust max until I reach 150,000 feet (sub orbital) and then hit the hyper drive. On the bright side, I KNOW i set some climb records the one time I got airborne.

Very good points, Peter has a really good point, X-Plane takes more then 5 mins to get used to, after you change most of the settings to your likings, it becomes more easy to fly, more realistic, and easier to enjoy. When a person loads it up, flys for 2 min and then says this is crap, he hasn't touched about maybe 1/1000000 of the things in x-plane....I like it, i fly with it on vatsim all the time now because i cant stand using fsx which lags my computer even though it has a high rig...Chriger

[tkyler 88]

Someone pointed me to this thread. My name is Tom Kyler, developer of the MU-2 mentioned above. I have been discussing "x-plane" vs. "MSFS" for so many years now, I can't tell you how much I've seen this never-ending discussion twist and turn. I do not say one is better than the other. They are different. Some prefer one and some prefer the other. I somewhat feel like an ambassador for x-plane...not to convince others that x-plane is superior or better than MSFS, but to inform people of how the sim works, why it works the way it works, what it can do, what it can't do, what it will probably do in the future. I do work very closely with the Laminar team and while I won't go so far as to say what they WILL do for sure...I do certainly hear more than the average person.Over the years of reading many "A vs. B" forum postings...here's some observations and conclusions I've come to for myself.1.) X-Plane is totally misunderstood by new users. Documentation has always stunk and folks just don't know what to think2.) X-Plane CAN do whatever MSFS(FSX) can do, the architecture is in place now, there's just no products that show it off. The MU-2 is currently the ONLY plane available for x-plane that uses "manipulators". (allow 3D interaction with cockpit). I don't mean that to brag because it's not hard to do, but nobody knows about it...and so it goes with many many x-plane features. The lead scenery programmer is tossing in features so fast, he barely has time to document them all and so they go unused. This will change with time.3.) X-Plane market share has grown every year and new high quality products are beginning to show with more regularity.4.) If you were to take a poll of the "feel" of x-plane vs. the "feel" of MSFS, statistically, x-plane would get the nod, no matter how much Larry may disagree. I certainly am not going to conduct a formal poll to prove this point, but after 8 years of reading all sorts of posts...my mind is fixed on this point. Now that doesn't mean it "feels" the most accurate for everybody. I am certainly not going to tell Larry x-plane feels better because for him it most certainly does not. This isn't even worth discussing in my opinion.5.) People routinely confuse one feature they really want in a sim as being the basis for judging the whole sim. If a person wants real traffic and launches x-plane and sees no real traffic, then the sim sucks for them; however, if a person wants a better "feel" or "fluidity of motion" and x-plane provides that for them...then the sim is exactly what they want. So for one to say the sim is trash is totally subjective and without basis.And now..the BIGGEST topic to which I defend as an engineer.X-Plane is "solver". Anybody familiar with finite element based simulation techniques will understand what I am saying. A "solver" is a program that takes some input and processes it. It does not check the "quality" of the input, it just runs the simulation. "Plane-Maker" is the pre-processor or input to the simulation. If you create crappy input, you'll get crappy output...garbage in, garbage out. It is imperative to have an understanding of some fundamental engineering concepts to create the best flight model. Dare I say most developers are "hobbyists" and "tech-heads" and not engineers. Does this mean they can't develop a good flight model? Of course not, but it does mean they may be missing that one critical understanding of physical phenomenon which is required to make the model accurate. The line between stability and unstability is very thin.The table-based flight model used by MSFS can allow one to create a very accurate flight model whereas x-plane is subject to Laminar's aerodynamic algorithms; however, if you have an understanding of those algorithms, you can work within their limits and get a very accurate simulation out of them...x-plane wouldn't be where it is today if that were not so. So if I had to summarize my ramblings here...it is to let folks know that x-plane DOES have the basic foundation and architecture to do anything that MSFS can do. If feature A is not seen in x-plane...it is not because it can't be done...it's because it has not been done by a developer yet. X-Plane's approach to aero modeling IS a superior method of simulation independent of the accuracy of the algorithms. So in the end, the properly worded question for people is...."has the simulation experience I'm seeking been developed in x-plane yet?" if the answer is no....I suspect you'll argue for MSFS...if your answer is yes...you'll argue for X-Plane.My final and totally subjective and biased opinion...is that all things being equal...scenery, traffic, 3D content, etc....people will choose x-plane; however...things are not equal.

[LAdamson 240]

4.) If you were to take a poll of the "feel" of x-plane vs. the "feel" of MSFS, statistically, x-plane would get the nod, no matter how much Larry may disagree. I certainly am not going to conduct a formal poll to prove this point, but after 8 years of reading all sorts of posts...my mind is fixed on this point. Now that doesn't mean it "feels" the most accurate for everybody. I am certainly not going to tell Larry x-plane feels better because for him it most certainly does not. This isn't even worth discussing in my opinion.

I've followed X-Plane discussions for years. In my opinion, the "feel" is just the fact that X-Plane is fluid. And it appears that many who "feel" that way, are not pilots. In other words, they don't know what the "feel" is supposed to "feel" like...Without doubt, I'd say that many armchair simming enthusiasts, will naturally just say that X-Plane seems more like flying, because of it's fluid like movement. I like getting sensations from a sim, where the mind can fill in the blanks. At the moment, X-Plane is doing it much less that FSX, to me. However, your MU2 does look quite interesting. And I'll probably end up with your model. As I refueled yesterday, a MU2 was sitting right next to the pumps. IMO, they are good looking, and your model is good looking. I'm the kind of person who thinks the exterior is as important as the internals and flight modeling. Afterall, we are trying to make virtual reality seem real...........aren't we? And who knows, perhaps I may someday change my mind in regards to "feel".L.Adamson

[tkyler 88]

Totally agree. One of the most memorable posts I ever saw on x-plane.org that perfectly illustrates your previous post Larry...was a guy who commented that the "evenblade" flew so realistically.For those who don't know, the "Evenblade" is a fictitious design. It is an "older" x-plane design, popular back in x-plane version 6 and 7 I believe. Indeed it was very fluid in it's handling, but was no more real than Luke Skywalker, but OH the people who swore it flew real.