I have been browsing the x-plane web site and it looks really good. I was wondering if anyone else has used it?

Anything you hear, will just be opinions. Download the demo, & maybe you'll like it.L.Adamson

I tried it a couple of months ago (I guess it was version 6.5).I was impressed by the modules where you can build your airfoils and aircrafts...I tried flying and one thing that amazed me was sim fluidity, especially on gauges.However, the aircrafts seemed way more sensitive to pitch changes than in MS default ac.I went back to FS2K2 because some freeware add-ons flew better than X-planes aircrafts, even though X-plane claims to use real physics simulation.

Someone needs to go get the padlock :-) .........

try the demo.. I like it alot.. its been getting alot better too.. version 7 is great. you will get way higher framerates in xplane then u do in fs2002. so the sim will feel more smoothits does lack some of the graphics msfs has.. but its very good

>try the demo.. I like it alot.. its been getting alot better>too.. version 7 is great. you will get way higher framerates>in xplane then u do in fs2002. so the sim will feel more>smooth>At the moment, my demo version 7 is definately "beta", as it's supposed to be. The planes, at least on my system are sensitive to pitch, roll, and yaw. But the effects are interesting. Version 6.70 is rather "normal".L.Adamson

I left Xplane a while back, version 6.6 something. I can tell you that from a realstic flight model standpoint it beats the heck out of FS2002- even the best planes available for Flight Simulator still feel like they're riding on rails rather than traveling through air.But, Xplane is always full of little and sometimes big bugs, that eventually got so annoying it totally detracted from the sim's realistic feel. Nothing like freezing up an hour into a flight plan and having to restart your computer.At the end of the day, if you can put up with some bugginess and much less eye candy, it's a fantastic sim. But compared to FS2002 it doesn't seem like a retail product- more like someone's incredible hobby/passion that turned into a business, which I guess in some ways it is.If you like stability, lots of add ons, great support from many other users and lots of eye candy, stick with Microsoft. If you want a much more realistic feel of what it's like to fly a plane, try out Xplane.Best,Joel

>I left Xplane a while back, version 6.6 something. I can tell>you that from a realstic flight model standpoint it beats the>heck out of FS2002- even the best planes available for Flight>Simulator still feel like they're riding on rails rather than>traveling through air.>I havn't had the "flying on rail" feeling from MSFS since FS98. I could tell an improved difference with CFS (#1) and a farther improvement with Microsoft's CFS2/Fs2K/FS2002. And when it comes to dampening, a feel of weight versus power, and mass of the aircraft, my preference is FS2002, especially with 3rd party additions. I fly planes, I own a plane, and this is my own opinion.L.Adamson

Do you not sense a "dead centered" feel in FS2002 with autopilot wing leveler or heading engaged? With GA aircraft in both Xplane and Fly2 there's a realistic rocking, modulation of pitch and deviation from straight and level in turbulence and wind when AP is engaged, but in MSFS you're locked on, with turbulence only a little up/down thing that's quite unrealistic (though Active Camera improves this significantly). And without AP engaged you can take you hands off the yoke, even with some wind, and just bounce around a bit with no need for correction in the roll axis (trimmed planes should stay fairly level in pitch, of course). When you watch a GA plane in spot view its similarly "fixed in space" with a bit of up/down motion, not impacted by the air in a realistic way. I think that MSFS may have got the feel of heavy metal OK, but to me the flight experience in light aircraft is sterile compared to the real thing. I'm not a licensed pilot but I do fly a good deal in Pipers and Cessnas, and that's my impression, which I have heard echoed by others in the forum. My planes of choice are the Dreamfleet Archer and RealAir Marchetti, the best flight models you can get in MSFS, so I don't think I'm getting the wrong impression based on flying poor freeware or the defaults.Please know that I'm not trying to be argumentative, but really would value hearing other views on these observations from people who do fly.Best,Joel

Also a good thing to remember is that x-plane was put together by a single man, and msfs2002 was put together by a team of some of the best programmers.He has done an outstanding job on x-plane. esp on his own

"....there's a realistic rocking, modulation of pitch and deviation from straight and level in turbulence and wind when AP is engaged...."I had this issue with several flight models, and I've learned how to tweak it to get exactly the feel you describe, even with the A/P on..... Much of the "rails" effect comes from MOI's being set too low in the FDE, especially the yaw MOI... If you want to simulate the "rocking" effect, simply pick an aircraft, back up the aircraft.cfg, and start adjusting the MOI's upwards (I suggest in 20 pct increments, starting with the yaw MOI). You'll be surprised how much this changes the feel of the aircraft in rough air, even with the A/P on... On one 737 I had to almost double the yaw MOI to clean up handling in rough air.... You can also have the same effect in the pitch axis. Just bear in mind, too much in the way of an MOI change, and you may need to increase the elevator, rudder, or aileron effectiveness to compensate for the increased stick "effort" to get the aircraft moving on an axis.I know some may support or refute this method of tweaking the FDE with a more scientific discussion, and that is fine--I'm not interested in arguing the points. I've simply found it a process that works for me, and I've been able to duplicate the feel of most aircraft based on the "sixth sense" you get if you log many miles in the air, even as a passenger as you and I both have.

x-plane also does a better job on helicopters then fs2002, they fly more real, also you can see the rotors pitching and suck when you make control inputs

>I think that MSFS may have got the feel of heavy metal OK, but>to me the flight experience in light aircraft is sterile>compared to the real thing. I'm not a licensed pilot but I do>fly a good deal in Pipers and Cessnas, and that's my>impression, which I have heard echoed by others in the forum.>My planes of choice are the Dreamfleet Archer and RealAir>Marchetti, the best flight models you can get in MSFS, so I>don't think I'm getting the wrong impression based on flying>poor freeware or the defaults.>Trying to pick up on some of your points, I've just returned from an X-Plane (6.70) & FS2002 session in "spot view" ------- with GA aircraft which are my preference. As I said in my beginning reply, it's still a matter of opinions..... which is fine! I havn't wavored, as I still prefer the FS2002 spot view using "gradual transitions"; and feel that the MSFS light aircraft "feel" is anything but sterile. But much of that has to do with my personal "pilot feel" transferring to the sim. I believe that designers such as Rob Young, Steve Small, and Ron Freimuth have done excellent work with getting the "feel" correct. The ArcherII is an excellent example of what I mean. And the slip effect of the SF260 is very life like! .... I cheated on developing the mental "feel" by having flown both of these real aircraft. :)As to simulated turbulence, that's fine if it's your preference. I know that many like it, yet I find it annoying. I do use active camera but keep "head latency" settings very low.I'm not being argumentive either, as there are many items I actually do like about X-Plane. In fact, the Beta 7.00 startup sequence is quite interesting....... L.Adamson

I am with Larry on this one-I find msfs superior.Both model certain aspects of fm's well and there are certain things xplane does well that ms doesn't-but on the whole I find ms better.As for rails-consider it stability-which by the way ms models and at least the 6.0 version of xplane I used did not. (e.g. put the plane in a shallow bank-does it return to neutral on its own?). How about accurate power settings and predictable airspeeds-needed for ifr flying?The smoothness of xplane is nice-especially for reading gauges-but I have always felt many equated smoothness with flight model-not the same. All a matter of opinion-I just downloaded the new demo version of xplane and it has improved a lot-but then it looks like so has fs2004!For the price of a nice meal at a restaurant-why not support them both anyway! :-)Geof -comm,instrument,single engine-(since credentials were asked)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/Geofdog2.jpg

I dont like, and will not buy another version of X-plane for a few reasons.1. Austins comments about MS that were up on his website for a while...havent been back to check on that.2. The panels are even less functional than MSFS3. The program is designed on and for Apple computersIt is a great idea, and I think between Fly panels, X-planes flight engine and MSFS's scenery that would be a dream sim, but it obviously isnt going to happen and what I saw to be Austin's unprofessional conduct will steer me clear of a product he wants way too much money for.Craig