The Xplane website has been revamped! Looks excellent.

[Geofa 108]

The only good X-Plane models are doctored too. :( I think you give X-Plane too much credibility; as though it's a super computer piece of software. What comes out of X-Plane's "plane maker" can be somewhere in the ballpark, entirely wrong.....................but seldom perfection. At that point, the model needs someone with expertise. Lot's of expertise!And it's the same way with MSFS. The better and best flight dynamic designers have been doing this for years. And they've found many work- arounds; as required. X-Plane needs work arounds too. That's why there are invisible flight surfaces, faked ground effect, and simulated percentages of air flowing over the tail. You can't take flight changing items such as vortex generaters and root cuffs; expect to place them on an X-Plane model; and have it act as intended. X-Plane just isn't that powerful. Does someone think that Cessna could have solved it's spin problems & two wasted planes, with it's new light weight high wing.............if they'd tried the vertical stab/rudder in X-Plane first? As to PMDG & LDS, these are both designed by commercial airline pilots with a lot of desktop sim experience. I don't really get into flying simulated commercial jets; so I wouldn't know what pitch angle is exact. But I have flown a lot of GA airplanes, ranging from the Pitt's & Marchetti SF260, to several Piper twins. High performance experimental/kitbuilts are what I really like. And that's the point! I've climbed aboard many X-Plane modes (so to speak), and haven't been all that impressed. I own versions 8 & 9, and have used the demos since the beginning. At the moment, I still prefer some MSFS models, in which the designer is highly experienced in re-creating flight dynamics. These have the "feel", and usually the right response.L.Adamson

Larry-I'd like to see some aircraft we have flown done in xplane in the same detail as the fsx aircraft you have mentioned.I have a feeling we might find the xplane one's better-but until present it is like a tree falling in a forest-do you really hear it?I was enamored with xplane for about two months this year as at that point there were not many good light twins for fsx and that is what I am interested in. Doing my own aircraft in xplane yielded a somewhat superior to fsx yet buggy fickle results-especially with each new beta which fixed some things and broke others. When the Real Air Duke, Carenda Seneca, and JF Duchess for fsx all came out recently-the battle was decisively over and won by fsx. These aircraft are so superior to anything I can get/make in xplane in all respects-instrumentation, visual models,3d cockpits, and flight dynamics, that I haven't fired up xplane since. If something similar came out for xplane-I'd be all over it.I do think the "flight model" of xplane could have the potential to be better than fs. There are certain aspects of flight xplane just gets that fs does not. But again-you have to experience it over the entire flight envelope and feel-and I haven't yet. For me in general fs feels still like it is on rails, but xplane feels like you are in a very unstable high performance experimental airfoil. One allows me to practice ifr procedures and the other does not.You and I have a long history of having no real loyalty other than to what is the best sim out there at the moment. I am sure you and I will be the first to convert-when we see the proof. I actually am rooting for xplane...but at present still remain unconvinced-or uncoverted :lol

[nudata 10]

Very interesting discussion. Since I am not a pilot so I rely on "you guys" to sort things out. However, even for me it is not logical that one payware X-Plane seller could accurately model flight dynamics/performance for several very different aircraft and claim that they are accurate (flight not eye candy). I simply do not trust almost all the aircraft in X-Plane. The MU-2 looks like an exception, Morten's Piper Archer seems very good, as does the RV-6 from the same person as the MU-2. You get to follow along during the development of all three and these dialogs further supports my belief that the majority of aircraft available for X-Plane can not be trusted to fly within the best capabilities of X-Plane. The "top shelf" commercial vendors that work with FSX have won the trust of customers supported by real pilots and engineers, over many years. I hope they can hang on until some new FLIGHT simulator can be born. Or, they move to X-plane and we find out if a proper variety of planes can be made.GA aircraft for me based upon what I could expect to really fly if the FAA was dumb enough to license me.

[Guest AVN8tr]

Just remember though the one thing that the FAA requires right off the bat is Real Time operation and this is in the form of critical time stamping. ESP does not have an option and without a complete rewrite it wouldn't be possible. In other words.. the FSX physics engine depends on the GPU pipeline to finish it's work before the next physics/input frame is calculated. Sort of a "best service" with regards to the physics. Where as in x-plane it generally will deliver the minimum framerate of 19fps... regardless of what rate the graphics are working at. The graphics FPS in X-plane is with respect to the monitor and is the reason that it can offer flicker free performance where as FSX/ESP is constantly flickering and the constantly change in FPS makes the problem worse. Let me put it in perspective... forget the FAA if you aren't sure what exactly I'm talking about. If X-plane and ESP/FSX both applied to be on the Xbox360 platform, legally Microsoft would have to reject it's own application and approve X-plane. Generally you're expected to deliver 60FPS of graphics performance and although at time some games do drop down to 30FPS, it's usually only for a brief amount of time during a very complex scene or load. Now if you were the VP of Entertainment this would probably be a really hard pill to swallow.

[Geofa 108]

Just remember though the one thing that the FAA requires right off the bat is Real Time operation and this is in the form of critical time stamping. ESP does not have an option and without a complete rewrite it wouldn't be possible. In other words.. the FSX physics engine depends on the GPU pipeline to finish it's work before the next physics/input frame is calculated. Sort of a "best service" with regards to the physics. Where as in x-plane it generally will deliver the minimum framerate of 19fps... regardless of what rate the graphics are working at. The graphics FPS in X-plane is with respect to the monitor and is the reason that it can offer flicker free performance where as FSX/ESP is constantly flickering and the constantly change in FPS makes the problem worse. Let me put it in perspective... forget the FAA if you aren't sure what exactly I'm talking about. If X-plane and ESP/FSX both applied to be on the Xbox360 platform, legally Microsoft would have to reject it's own application and approve X-plane. Generally you're expected to deliver 60FPS of graphics performance and although at time some games do drop down to 30FPS, it's usually only for a brief amount of time during a very complex scene or load. Now if you were the VP of Entertainment this would probably be a really hard pill to swallow.

Where are you getting this information? Considering ESP is being used in flight approved simulators and is not being rewritten I find your statement strange. I'll be glad to email the developers once again but I hate to keep bothering them.As far as fps-if I limit fsx to the same parameters as xplane-limited visibility, limited ai traffic, limited airport scenery, limited autogen, I actually get much better fps on fsx. I get a regular 40-60 fps on my two year old computer on fsx with add in aircraft by simply setting my ai/autogen settings down. Similar settings on xplane I get the low vis warning on startup and get around 20-30.In any case-the Faa does not approve software-it certifies flight training devices and simulators which are a combination of software and hardware. If 60 fps were a requirement, simulators of the past decade which were approved by the faa would have never made it.

[Guest AVN8tr]

Fine could you provide a link to this so called FAA certified ESP sim... as far as I know the list is public, please point me to one sim that's approved to any type of training.And if FSX was scalable as you say it would appear on the XBOX but it doesn't.... yet X-plane is on the I-phone... go figure :)

[Geofa 108]

Fine could you provide a link to this so called FAA certified ESP sim... as far as I know the list is public, please point me to one sim that's approved to any type of training.And if FSX was scalable as you say it would appear on the XBOX but it doesn't.... yet X-plane is on the I-phone... go figure :)

I posted a video of it in this forum-it was on prominent display at Oshkosh as was another.<edit>Here is the link to the company:http://www.redbirdflightsimulations.com/index.aspSuggest you go to the faq page and read about certification.http://www.redbirdflightsimulations.com/rbfaq.aspThe fact that xplane is on the iphone says something completely else to me...

[Guest Setanta]

Larry-I'd like to see some aircraft we have flown done in xplane in the same detail as the fsx aircraft you have mentioned.

You have hit the proverbial nail directly on the head. I would love to see someone spend as many man-hours and as much money on an aircraft for X-Plane as it seems are spent on building MSFS aircraft. Sadly I can't see this happening for the forseeable future. X-Plane certainly has the capabilities to match up to and indeed exceed the capabilities of MSFS in many ways, but until this happens it's not likely to do so.

These aircraft are so superior to anything I can get/make in xplane in all respects-instrumentation, visual models,3d cockpits, and flight dynamics, that I haven't fired up xplane since. If something similar came out for xplane-I'd be all over it.

Again, this comes down to the difference between 'capabilities' and 'implementation'. X-Plane is certainly capable of visual models every bit as good as MSFS these days. It's similar with 3-D cockpits, though some of the developments are only in the latest release so won't really start to appear for a while yet. As to instrumentation, the new(ish) generic instruments in X-Plane make it possible to mimic pretty much any 'steam gauge' pretty much perfectly if you're willing to work at it. When it comes to some of the modern digital stuff that's more a coding thing but again, if you're willing to work at it, pretty much anything is possible with the plug-in SDK.On a side note, when I first fired up FSX I was really looking forward to the great instrumentation and virtual cockpits I'd read so much about. In reality, I was pretty underwhelmed. While it's true that most models in X-Plane don't take full advantage of its capabilities, the better ones strike me as being just as good as those I've seen in FSX, with of course the major exception of the working GPS. And what is it with analogue gauges that seem to update at about 1fps? Anyhow...When it comes to flight modelling, here's a coder's viewpoint on the two approaches. I don't know exact details of either implementation but if I'm far wrong I'm sure someone will correct me :)With MSFS you're looking at a model which uses real world performance data as a starting point. You tell MSFS that under a certain set of conditions the aircraft will behave in this particular way. Under another set of conditions it will behave in another way. Anywhere in between these two data points we can interpolate and get something close enough to reality as to be almost indistinguishable. Ok so there are more than two data points and I'm sure that MSFS doesn't rely purely on this sort of modelling but you get the general gist of things.Now, if you're flying within the range covered by datapoints - assuming that the designers have done their job this should cover the vast majority of normal flight - you're going to have an aircraft that handles 'by the numbers'. (I'm not getting into 'feel' and the like here since these things are very much subjective) Now to me, this would pretty much automatically put MSFS way ahead when it comes to things like practicing approaches, where (you would certainly hope) the designers will have covered things pretty extensively.However, where it falls down is where things get outside of the envelope so to say. Situations where you can't get datapoints. Take a GA aircraft which is not certified for certain manoeuvres. Unless you have access to the figures from the test flights (which I'm guessing are going to be pretty hard to get) basically you're down to an educated guess. Everything depends on the data you have to plumb into the simulation in the first place. Because of this you're in a situation where if you, say, change the engine in an aircraft for one with significantly different performance, you're basically back to scratch as far as the flight model goes.Purely from the coder's standpoint, things are great - all they(we - I'm one) have to do is plumb the figures into the existing frameworks and by and large, the job is done.When it comes to X-Plane, you start off from physical rather than performance data. This has certain advantages, not the least of which is that the physical data is far more generally available compared to the sort of performance data required to make a good MSFS model, and a lot cheaper too I'd bet. You plumb in this data to PlaneMaker and there you are, a plane you can fly just like the real thing - I wish. If you do that, what you will get is something that is probably fine for someone who wants the idea of what it's like to fly aircraft X, but not if you want something accurate.What follows is a long time testing the aircraft, comparing its performance to the real world aircraft, tweaking the physical characteristics and retesting, over and over again until it's close enough to reality to meet your needs. It's never going to produce something which can be as accurate 'by the numbers' as an MSFS model, but it can get pretty damn close - certainly close enough for 99.9% of people's needs.So far it would seem that X-Plane is more of a game, where MSFS is more of a serious sim - the reverse of what people tend to claim funnily enough. However when it gets to things 'outside the envelope' X-Plane is in a much better position than MSFS. Because it depends on physical characteristics rather than performance data it can more accurately predict what will happen, and advances in the flight modelling algorithms will continue to improve this ability. Ok, neither X-Plane or MSFS deal well with really extreme situations but I still think X-Plane has the advantage here.And when it comes to changing certain aspects of a plane - say the engine or the prop - something which often happens in the real world - you're also on to a winner. Rather than being back to square one as far as the flight model goes, you're on square 99. Update the aircraft to reflect the new part and it should only need minimal tweaking if any to get the performance back to the accuracy previously obtained. Purely from the coder's standpoint, things are great - all they(we - I'm one) have to do is get someone else to do all that testing and by and large, the job is done. ;)Phew, this post has turned into 'Ben Hur' - I'll shut up soon.

For me in general fs feels still like it is on rails, but xplane feels like you are in a very unstable high performance experimental airfoil.

Once again nail, head, proverb. A notable exception is Morten's Piper Archer over at XPlaneFreeware.net. It's still in Beta but for me the 'feel' of that particular aircraft in flight finds the sweet spot between the two extremes.Phew - It's Over - Go Home!Setanta

[Geofa 108]

You have hit the proverbial nail directly on the head. I would love to see someone spend as many man-hours and as much money on an aircraft for X-Plane as it seems are spent on building MSFS aircraft. Sadly I can't see this happening for the forseeable future. X-Plane certainly has the capabilities to match up to and indeed exceed the capabilities of MSFS in many ways, but until this happens it's not likely to do so.Again, this comes down to the difference between 'capabilities' and 'implementation'. X-Plane is certainly capable of visual models every bit as good as MSFS these days. It's similar with 3-D cockpits, though some of the developments are only in the latest release so won't really start to appear for a while yet. As to instrumentation, the new(ish) generic instruments in X-Plane make it possible to mimic pretty much any 'steam gauge' pretty much perfectly if you're willing to work at it. When it comes to some of the modern digital stuff that's more a coding thing but again, if you're willing to work at it, pretty much anything is possible with the plug-in SDK.On a side note, when I first fired up FSX I was really looking forward to the great instrumentation and virtual cockpits I'd read so much about. In reality, I was pretty underwhelmed. While it's true that most models in X-Plane don't take full advantage of its capabilities, the better ones strike me as being just as good as those I've seen in FSX, with of course the major exception of the working GPS. And what is it with analogue gauges that seem to update at about 1fps? Anyhow...When it comes to flight modelling, here's a coder's viewpoint on the two approaches. I don't know exact details of either implementation but if I'm far wrong I'm sure someone will correct me :)With MSFS you're looking at a model which uses real world performance data as a starting point. You tell MSFS that under a certain set of conditions the aircraft will behave in this particular way. Under another set of conditions it will behave in another way. Anywhere in between these two data points we can interpolate and get something close enough to reality as to be almost indistinguishable. Ok so there are more than two data points and I'm sure that MSFS doesn't rely purely on this sort of modelling but you get the general gist of things.Now, if you're flying within the range covered by datapoints - assuming that the designers have done their job this should cover the vast majority of normal flight - you're going to have an aircraft that handles 'by the numbers'. (I'm not getting into 'feel' and the like here since these things are very much subjective) Now to me, this would pretty much automatically put MSFS way ahead when it comes to things like practicing approaches, where (you would certainly hope) the designers will have covered things pretty extensively.However, where it falls down is where things get outside of the envelope so to say. Situations where you can't get datapoints. Take a GA aircraft which is not certified for certain manoeuvres. Unless you have access to the figures from the test flights (which I'm guessing are going to be pretty hard to get) basically you're down to an educated guess. Everything depends on the data you have to plumb into the simulation in the first place. Because of this you're in a situation where if you, say, change the engine in an aircraft for one with significantly different performance, you're basically back to scratch as far as the flight model goes.Purely from the coder's standpoint, things are great - all they(we - I'm one) have to do is plumb the figures into the existing frameworks and by and large, the job is done.When it comes to X-Plane, you start off from physical rather than performance data. This has certain advantages, not the least of which is that the physical data is far more generally available compared to the sort of performance data required to make a good MSFS model, and a lot cheaper too I'd bet. You plumb in this data to PlaneMaker and there you are, a plane you can fly just like the real thing - I wish. If you do that, what you will get is something that is probably fine for someone who wants the idea of what it's like to fly aircraft X, but not if you want something accurate.What follows is a long time testing the aircraft, comparing its performance to the real world aircraft, tweaking the physical characteristics and retesting, over and over again until it's close enough to reality to meet your needs. It's never going to produce something which can be as accurate 'by the numbers' as an MSFS model, but it can get pretty damn close - certainly close enough for 99.9% of people's needs.So far it would seem that X-Plane is more of a game, where MSFS is more of a serious sim - the reverse of what people tend to claim funnily enough. However when it gets to things 'outside the envelope' X-Plane is in a much better position than MSFS. Because it depends on physical characteristics rather than performance data it can more accurately predict what will happen, and advances in the flight modelling algorithms will continue to improve this ability. Ok, neither X-Plane or MSFS deal well with really extreme situations but I still think X-Plane has the advantage here.And when it comes to changing certain aspects of a plane - say the engine or the prop - something which often happens in the real world - you're also on to a winner. Rather than being back to square one as far as the flight model goes, you're on square 99. Update the aircraft to reflect the new part and it should only need minimal tweaking if any to get the performance back to the accuracy previously obtained. Purely from the coder's standpoint, things are great - all they(we - I'm one) have to do is get someone else to do all that testing and by and large, the job is done. ;)Phew, this post has turned into 'Ben Hur' - I'll shut up soon.Once again nail, head, proverb. A notable exception is Morten's Piper Archer over at XPlaneFreeware.net. It's still in Beta but for me the 'feel' of that particular aircraft in flight finds the sweet spot between the two extremes.Phew - It's Over - Go Home!Setanta

Great post and very informative. I look forward to seeing when Xplane's potential is finally released-though it sounds like it may be a while.Re: slow moving instruments in fsx-I agree totally. That all goes back to fs2000 which had very smooth instruments-but the out the window view stuttered. People complained so much that they set the instruments on a lower update rate to help with the out the window view.However, and that is the power of fs at least now-you can get 3rd party replacement instruments from Reality Xp which bring the same amount as smoothness as xplane, and 3rd party developers like Real Air also include their own custom instruments that work in a much smoother fashion. The power of fs is it can be made pretty much into exactly what kind of sim you desire-presently..

[LAdamson 240]

So far it would seem that X-Plane is more of a game, where MSFS is more of a serious sim - the reverse of what people tend to claim funnily enough.

So well said................... even if you didn't thoroughly mean it! :( As to X-Plane being more of a game, I really can't say. Yet I feel that MSFS can easily be a serious sim, and much more than a "scenery viewer" as some uninformed X-Plane affectionados will often claim. I hear claims that MSFS will only lead to bad habits when faced with real world aviation; or that MSFS just isn't capable of flight regimes such as cross wind landings. Of course, this is all bogus. I've used MSFS since the beginning, fly real planes, and know better!If MSFS is not capable, then I'd wonder why Cessna would team up with Flight 1 and MSFS software to produce a learning tool simulation for it's new Cessna Mustang biz jet. And a very realistic one at that!On the other hand, I've seen designs that come out of X-Planes Plane maker, that I do consider as "gamey". They may fly in X-Plane, but never hold together structurally in real life. You're right!............ based on these two examples (and a bit of lawyer double speak), X-Plane is a game & MSFS is more serious! :( The real point here, is that X-Plane has to stand on it's own. Trying to convince the public that X-Plane is more of a true aviation sim (over MSFS) by using slogans such as FAA approved............................. means only marketing hype to me. In reality, it's not more realistic at all. If it was, I'd be jumping all over it with glee. But try as I might; I haven't succumbed. And I'll keep an open mind.........really! As Geoff said............we've both jumped sim to sim, with no loyalty. I wasn't impressed with FS98 at all; and much preferred Pro-Pilot & Microsoft's Combat 1 & 2. At least I could incorporate some aircraft and good 3rd party scenery into the combat sim. Hmmm, come to think of it, MS's Combat 1 & 2 was pretty good. Much better simulation of air over the tail surfaces than the present default MSFS. And rudder required for the takeoff roll was great! And now I'm getting off track. Goodby..L.Adamson

[Guest Setanta]

Re: slow moving instruments in fsx-I agree totally. That all goes back to fs2000 which had very smooth instruments-but the out the window view stuttered. People complained so much that they set the instruments on a lower update rate to help with the out the window view.

I figured it might be a frame rate issue, nice to know where it originated from.

However, and that is the power of fs at least now-you can get 3rd party replacement instruments from Reality Xp which bring the same amount as smoothness as xplane, and 3rd party developers like Real Air also include their own custom instruments that work in a much smoother fashion. The power of fs is it can be made pretty much into exactly what kind of sim you desire-presently..

I just discovered that RealityXP are working on a Macintosh compatible version of their GPS software which has made my day :) It's always been one of the weakest aspects in X-Plane. Hopefully they'll also find a way to run on Linux so the whole community will be covered.And as to the power of MSFS - I'd say the same thing with a slightly different slant - The power of MSFS is in its ubiquity, which means that there are lots of third party developers working for it. It's the third parties who give it the capabilities to emulate pretty much whatever you want. I'm hoping that the RealityXP software becomes a roaring success and tempts some of these third parties over to 'The Dark Side' *laugh*Setanta

[Guest Setanta]

So well said................... even if you didn't thoroughly mean it! :(

*chuckle* No, I didn't ;)

As to X-Plane being more of a game, I really can't say. Yet I feel that MSFS can easily be a serious sim, and much more than a "scenery viewer" as some uninformed X-Plane affectionados will often claim. I hear claims that MSFS will only lead to bad habits when faced with real world aviation; or that MSFS just isn't capable of flight regimes such as cross wind landings. Of course, this is all bogus. I've used MSFS since the beginning, fly real planes, and know better!

Well, I'm not a pilot - and probably never will be due to health issues. It's one of those things I never got around to but always wanted to try. However even I can see that all simulators will tend to give you bad habits - like watching the instruments far too much - for real flight. I've also heard real world pilots who swear by one or the other for practice flying, both with logical arguments and reasons why. My feeling from what I've read is that which sim is best really depends on what it is exactly that you want to practice. I'd guess that for your basic normal flight situations (approaches and the like) then you want MSFS, but if you want to simulate the sort of thing you really don't want to happen (failures spring to mind) then X-Plane would be better. I would think that both situations are things you would want to practice, though for different reasons.

If MSFS is not capable, then I'd wonder why Cessna would team up with Flight 1 and MSFS software to produce a learning tool simulation for it's new Cessna Mustang biz jet. And a very realistic one at that!

Unfortunately when it comes to this sort of thing it generally doesn't mean much. X-Plane also has a list of people (including Cessna IIRC) who use their software. Often it has little or nothing to with how good the simulation of flight goes, but more to do with how the instruments work or the sim possessing certain features that the company want.

On the other hand, I've seen designs that come out of X-Planes Plane maker, that I do consider as "gamey". They may fly in X-Plane, but never hold together structurally in real life. You're right!............ based on these two examples (and a bit of lawyer double speak), X-Plane is a game & MSFS is more serious! :(

Oh yeah *laugh* I've 'flown' many aircraft in X-Plane that look great, but as soon as you compare the performance to the POH they're a mile out, both payware and freeware. Many of these make no claims about being particularly accurate, which is fair enough, but sadly some do claim accuracy, which is quite simply dishonest. And there are plenty of 'Experimental' ones that are purely designed for fun - often the fun of the designer rather than the 'pilot' - Again, fair enough.This is pretty much the point I was trying to make that you quoted at the top of your post :) Many of the aircraft available for X-Plane bear little or no resemblance as far as the flight characteristics go to the real world - and if these were all that were available then you would have to classify X-Plane as purely a game. However, it's not an X-Plane limitation, it's the people who make the planes. It's the reverse situation from that of MSFS. With MSFS the third parties have to overcome the limitations of the simulator, with X-Plane the capability for accuracy is there but it's down to the third parties to use it correctly. (OK, there are areas where X-Plane does limit people and areas where MSFS is more than capable but you get my drift).

The real point here, is that X-Plane has to stand on it's own. Trying to convince the public that X-Plane is more of a true aviation sim (over MSFS) by using slogans such as FAA approved............................. means only marketing hype to me.

I totally agree - though with a slight twist on your emphasis as usual. *lchuckle* The whole FAA Approved thing is - for those of us who are not connected with the FAA at least - total hype - for the reasons I mentioned above about the Cessna/Flight 1/MSFS thing. But as to X-Plane having to stand on its own, imagine if MSFS had to do the same thing. Take away all the third party development for MSFS and compare the two and suddenly X-Plane looks a lot better. It's my feeling that it's the third party developers who make MSFS what it is and given the current situation, it's they who will carry it on. While I agree I could do without the hype and marketing speak - though Microsoft as a company aren't exactly exempt from it ;) - X-Plane does stand on its own - What it lacks are those third parties who can make such a huge difference. Hopefully that will change at least to some extent and we'll all benefit from it, whatever sim we prefer.Setanta

[LAdamson 240]

But as to X-Plane having to stand on its own, imagine if MSFS had to do the same thing. Take away all the third party development for MSFS and compare the two and suddenly X-Plane looks a lot better. It's my feeling that it's the third party developers who make MSFS what it is and given the current situation, it's they who will carry it on.

That's an "if" I don't have to imagine. For years, Microsoft invited 3rd party developers into the beta testing. I know, because I was part of it too; as well as beta testing for the addons. MS developed and improved the base sim, while knowing that 3rd party development would keep raising the bar with their own specific interests. This includes highly detailed aircraft, scenery, avionics, land mass, topography data-bases, etc. Many of these developers will spend months or years on just one aircraft , section of scenery, or instrument. This is why I feel that X-Plane is still a few years behind. X-Plane just doesn't have much of what I'm talking about. It's also the reason that I'm mystified when I see some X-Plane "nubie" testimonials acting as though MSFS was just some kind of entertainment.....................and suddenly they've just seen the light. The reality is that MSFS can be highly realistic, and it looks like 3rd parties will carry this on for quite a while.L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

That's an "if" I don't have to imagine. For years, Microsoft invited 3rd party developers into the beta testing. I know, because I was part of it too; as well as beta testing for the addons. MS developed and improved the base sim, while knowing that 3rd party development would keep raising the bar with their own specific interests. This includes highly detailed aircraft, scenery, avionics, land mass, topography data-bases, etc. Many of these developers will spend months or years on just one aircraft , section of scenery, or instrument. This is why I feel that X-Plane is still a few years behind. X-Plane just doesn't have much of what I'm talking about. It's also the reason that I'm mystified when I see some X-Plane "nubie" testimonials acting as though MSFS was just some kind of entertainment.....................and suddenly they've just seen the light. The reality is that MSFS can be highly realistic, and it looks like 3rd parties will carry this on for quite a while.L.Adamson

Well I hope xplane does get a multitude of third party developers and takes off since it may be the only game in town now.

[Guest Setanta]

That's an "if" I don't have to imagine. For years, Microsoft invited 3rd party developers into the beta testing. I know, because I was part of it too; as well as beta testing for the addons. MS developed and improved the base sim, while knowing that 3rd party development would keep raising the bar with their own specific interests. This includes highly detailed aircraft, scenery, avionics, land mass, topography data-bases, etc. Many of these developers will spend months or years on just one aircraft , section of scenery, or instrument. This is why I feel that X-Plane is still a few years behind. X-Plane just doesn't have much of what I'm talking about. It's also the reason that I'm mystified when I see some X-Plane "nubie" testimonials acting as though MSFS was just some kind of entertainment.....................and suddenly they've just seen the light. The reality is that MSFS can be highly realistic, and it looks like 3rd parties will carry this on for quite a while.L.Adamson

I can hardly believe I'm going to say this but... grits teeth...for once Microsoft got it right - or at least the MSFS team did. My own experience of Microsoft and beta testing is that they invite selected parties to take part, get all their input, then completely ignore it and publish what they have anyhow (DOS 6.0 anyone?) but that's another matter *chuckle*I have no close ties with any of the X-Plane developers or inside personal knowledge but the impression that I get is that in this case, Austin is part of the problem. His personality takes a bit of getting used to - even just in e-mail! - all those caps *laugh* - but there wouldn't have been an X-Plane without him and his personality. From reading posts on other boards (sometimes between the lines) I get the impression that while he's happy to add the odd feature for third parties there are certain areas that he's a little 'precious' about i.e. the flight model. There are limitations to his model where it's impossible with current technology to mathematically model certain effects (turbulence being a perfect example) but he seems to be unwilling to 'fudge' things like this and prefers just to leave them out of the equation. IIRC he's an engineer turned coder which explains this attitude to some extent but doesn't excuse it. A coders attitude would tend to be 'if we can't get it perfect let's get something as close as possible and fake it' - which I - of course - think is the right way of thinking ;) However a combination of his personality and attitudes I know for a fact put off a lot of third parties from getting involved.On the other hand, Ben Supnik who is primarily in charge of the rendering/scenery side of things comes across as a model professional, keeps people more than well informed of what is going on with his blog posts and seems very open to suggestions from third parties and/or users. As for Sandy Barbour who is in charge of the SDK as a 'hobby' - man he goes above and beyond the call of duty there! It's from guys like those, rather than from Austin himself that I feel hope that we'll see some of the same level of third party development for X-Plane.As to the whole 'MSFS is a game, X-Plane is a simulator' thing, yeah it does get very tiresome, from both sides. Both can be either, it very much depends on how you use them and what you use them for. If you simple spend an hour or two with either, yes MSFS does come across as a game with the missions and the unrealistic default flight model and yes X-Plane does come across as more 'serious' - left at an airport in an aircraft with minimal instructions on how to use the controls - but spend a little more time with either and you begin to see that they both have a lot more depth than is visible at first glance. I still prefer X-Plane (I currently have a fairly sophisticated set-up lent to me by a friend who uses MSFS though not for much longer, yet I still end up flying X-Plane 90% of the time I fly) despite a lot of little things that really annoy me about it. I can see plenty of areas where FSX (in my case) has stuff that X-Plane simply does not. However, I don't see anything in FSX that X-Plane isn't capable of through third party development (apart from the user interface perhaps - X-Plane really needs a facelift though this is partly due to its cross platform nature).Anyhow , I'm waffling...again ;)Setanta

[LAdamson 240]

If you simple spend an hour or two with either, yes MSFS does come across as a game with the missions and the unrealistic default flight model and yes X-Plane does come across as more 'serious' -

Not too bad a statement..........the complete post. :( However, I must always ask; what's so unrealistic about the default flight model? I don't want to argue about every little grip when it comes to ALL the default planes.... 'Cause if we do, we can technically tear both sims to pieces. But how about the default Cessna's, the Maule, and various others? On the X-Plane boards, I often see this "unrealistic default flight model " statement, and wonder the qualifications of the people who write it. I've personally flown a lot of real life Cessnas, and the Maule...............And I don't see what's so unrealistic. These models will get from point A to B with piloting inputs that are much like the real thing. Ailerons work like ailerons, and so do the elevator & rudder. A few years back, there were some complaints that the Cessna Caravan seemed too easy in roll. Some felt that it should feel heavier. Then it's turns out that the real Caravan uses spoilers, and that it manuvers more like a Cessna 182. At that point, several real life Caravan "drivers" vouched for it's realism.So getting to the point; the generalized statement of unrealistic default MSFS flight models is just that.......................an unrealistic statement!L.Adamson