If you notice the shots I presented-some were done with no autogen, some with a reasonable amount, with similar weather etc. In every scenerio not only did fsx outperform xplane performance wise (and visual wise imho)-but a lot more was going on in fsx (high res textures, ai traffic, atc, high res 3d cockpits to name a few) while at the same time giving better performance. So I think a compare is very valid.Now as to one's preference-that is another thing. There are many things xplane can do fsx can't, and many things fsx can do xplane can't-which is why I use them both.But the two mantras one often hears-the xplane flight models being better, and the xplane performance being better, are imho myths.The flight models are different-and there are some things the xplane fm does better than fsx and some things the fsx fm does better than xplane, and some things both neither do well (try a chandelle in each). The way one uses a sim will most likely determine which one is more appealing. Same goes for performance. Sure the sims do things differently, but the percieved superior performance in xplane is based mostly on it doing less. One can also tone down fsx to get similar performance, or tone up xplane to get similar performance as fsx.I am really rooting that the future will be great for xplane-and I hope the Crj is everything everyone hopes for. But in terms of catching up, not only the base product needs improvements to just get what we have now with fsx (detailed 3d cockpits and instruments, ai traffic, atc, worldwide airport buildings, approaches for every airport in the world to name just a few) but also needs a much greater add on base than 1 Crj. That is the difficulty for xplane-can you imagine the effort of just getting every approach for the world, or generic buildings which populate airports in realistic rw placings? ...and that is just to catch up to what we have had for some years now.

With no autogen and a frame rate that low, I assure you that you are encountering a big issue on your rig. That is in no way normal. You also mentioned that X-Plane crashes on you, so there is something up. I will be posting pics for tf51d later this week that you should also take a look at. I will not reinstall FSX for the simple purpose of comparison, but the shots should show a lot better performance on hardware that is older than what you have.Scott

Same goes for performance. Sure the sims do things differently, but the percieved superior performance in xplane is based mostly on it doing less. One can also tone down fsx to get similar performance, or tone up xplane to get similar performance as fsx.

Why do you think XPlane is doing less? XP dynamically models the airflow across the flight surfaces, including ground effect, prop wash, effect of wind, turbulance etc, FSX doesnt. XP has cloud shadows, FSX doesnt.XP has superior overcast and rain effects, unlike FSX.XP is not reducing LOD of mesh or textures, unlike FSX.XP has faster gauge refresh rates, unlike FSX.All things considered I would say XP and FSX are doing similar amounts of "work" and yet XP is more fluid!Come on, you guys sound like XP "bashers" who can't accept that Laminar Research are professionals who actually know what they are doing. You just have to accept that XP has come a long way since 2006 whilst FSX has not budged.

Why do you think XPlane is doing less? XP dynamically models the airflow across the flight surfaces, including ground effect, prop wash, effect of wind, turbulance etc, FSX doesnt. XP has cloud shadows, FSX doesnt.XP has superior overcast and rain effects, unlike FSX.XP is not reducing LOD of mesh or textures, unlike FSX.XP has faster gauge refresh rates, unlike FSX.All things consider I would say XP and FSX are doing similar amounts of "work" and yet XP is more fluid!Come on, you guys sound like XP "bashers" who can't accept that Laminar Research are professionals who actually know what they are doing. You just have to accept that XP has come a long way since 2006 whilst FSX has not budged.

Mathew-I am not a basher or a praiser. I have already praised the things you have on your list above about . It seems you want to turn this into a my sim is better than your sim argument-I am certainly not pursuing or stating that-they are different sims. However, I don't care for mantras that have no basis in truth either for fsx, xplane or any sim. I actually think holding on to them when in fact they are not true damages any sim and its growth. I showed my evidence above and I think people can make up their own minds. ..and I think it is good for developers to listen to their base. One of the reasons I pushed Tom to reopen an xplane forum here.After all, I own it as I have most versions-I have a stake in it too.

I showed my evidence above and I think people can make up their own minds.

However you claim that XP is doing less than FSX and that's why XP more fluid. Do you agree then that it's not the case and that XP might actually be doing as much (or more) "work" than FSX.It is likely that XP is more fluid because it's better optimised than FSX and is taking better advantage of modern hardware. FSX was last updated in 2006/2007 and XP 9.41 was updated a few weeks ago.Remember also that XP runs on Windows, Mac, Linux and iPhone (lite version). It's just possible that the XP code is much better designed than FSX which is based on an even older FS9 codebase.

You just have to accept that XP has come a long way since 2006 whilst FSX has not budged.

We all know that X-Plane's future life as a main stream flight sim, with a large following...... depends on 3rd party software. It won't make the "big time" without. So what's FSX been doing for the last three years? You guessed it...............just a whole lot of third party intervention building on a sim platform; and exactly what X-Plane sorely needs. So, who's moved steadily along, and who wishes they could do more? I don't see FSX as being stagnant at all. In fact, the core X-Plane program will need to be somewhat more stabilized before major 3rd party programmers will be willing to hop aboard. It just can't change every few months, as it's done in the past, which makes a lot of programming obsolete. Just look at 9.3 to 9.4 for instance.L.Adamson --- FS9/FSX, X-Plane 8 & 9

It just can't change every few months, as it's done in the past, which makes a lot of programming obsolete. Just look at 9.3 to 9.4 for instance.

You continue to bring up erroneous arguments about new XP versions breaking things. It's probably the reason you're banned from posting over at "the Org".Just read what XP developers have said on this topic, its a non issue.

You continue to bring up erroneous arguments about new XP versions breaking things. It's probably the reason you're banned from posting over at "the Org".

Oh no............... it's much better than that! It all started when I made some comments about the virtues of the Real Air Spitfire (MSFS) in regards to rudder, on the "other flight sim forum" .... of the org. The owner of the org. replied that the X-Plane P-51 was far superior, the Spit basically stunk, & closed the thread.I shot back by sayng that the org. was somewhat like the movie "The Village". You know, that's the movie where the residents still believe they are living in the "pilgram" era of the 1600's, while airplanes don't fly overhead because it's supposeably a wildlife sancturary. In reality, it's modern days on the other side of the fence; but what people don't know, won't hurt them as they say.Then I get a private e-mail from the owner of the org. that claims I agree with someone who'd support ######'s and death threats. It apparently came from the Avsim forums in which I agreed with someone in regards to "over moderating/ deleting threads" or something. Actually, I havn't the faintest clue of the thread or person involved, and I certainly don't support ######'s. Just the opposite! Well, at the point, all the "real pilot" suggestions I make to the org. threads to counteract a lot of incorrect information just no longer make it through. The thread simply continues with the wrong information supplied by someone who only sim flies. Too bad......... I guess.L.Adamson

However you claim that XP is doing less than FSX and that's why XP more fluid. Do you agree then that it's not the case and that XP might actually be doing as much (or more) "work" than FSX.It is likely that XP is more fluid because it's better optimised than FSX and is taking better advantage of modern hardware. FSX was last updated in 2006/2007 and XP 9.41 was updated a few weeks ago.Remember also that XP runs on Windows, Mac, Linux and iPhone (lite version). It's just possible that the XP code is much better designed than FSX which is based on an even older FS9 codebase.

No-I don't agree. I posted shots that show my point-without the pause button on with each sim set up similarly . I'll let them speak for themselves...As for the iphone-if anything that proves my point.

Hi Geofa,

Xplane is with a custom Baron based on my aircraft with the add in of Reality xp gps. There is only a 2d cockpit-no 3d.Notice no airport buildings-just a runway. I am geting 24.74 fps. (By the way, my Baron takes a 12 fps hit over the defaults that only have a few instruments displayed).

12 fps is a surprisingly big hit for a custom airplane, particularly if your fps are already low. (12 fps is a large time difference at 20-30 fps, but a small time difference at 100 + fps...for this reason fps is a weird way to measure performance, but..it's what we have.)If you email me the plane off list (the entire plane, art assets included - you may have to use a file sharing tool) I can performance profile it for you - there might be something simple you can do to get speed back.cheersben

You continue to bring up erroneous arguments about new XP versions breaking things. It's probably the reason you're banned from posting over at "the Org".Just read what XP developers have said on this topic, its a non issue.

Then where are PMDG, LDS, Aerosoft, Wilco, RealAir, A2A, Feelthere, Carenado...I can go on. So much for it being a non issue! The only decent aircraft I've seen in X-Plane is the MU-2. (The new CRJ looks nice, but time will tell if it's fm will match it's looks) Other than that there are 777's that climb to 35000 ft at cruise speed at 5000fpm, and finally stalls at ceiling at 4000fpm. Or a RJ100 that climbs to 42000ft at MTOW, (It's ceiling is 31000ft). I just don't see this fantastic flight model everybody raves about. I see the opposite, in FM, Performance, and scenery quality, add the limited visibility, limited AI, and lack of ATC and I don't see anything that would draw me to it, other than occasional use, in which I use it now for.

I have bought several areas of photo scenery for xplane

RealScenery, I guess? They have about 5 m resolution, though the exact specs are nowhere to be found - go figure. But you can create much higher resolution photo sceneries, for example with g2xpl, using images from some well-known mapping services, without dragging performance down. I'm not sure what the limit is, or if there is any at all, beside the amount of video RAM you have. On the other hand, I don't dare to even think about what FSX would do with large-scale 7 cm scenery.

Look out the left window of your first shot-the ground looks like someone spilled paint accidentally.

I think these texture artifacts are actually a bug Ben wanted to fix some versions ago. Ben?

Active[21 fps]Paused[85 fps]

What the heck? How many AI planes do you have active? That difference should be way lower. Geofa, by how much does your frame rate rise when X-Plane is paused?

Other than that there are 777's that climb to 35000 ft at cruise speed at 5000fpm, and finally stalls at ceiling at 4000fpm. Or a RJ100 that climbs to 42000ft at MTOW, (It's ceiling is 31000ft).

I'd say garbage in, garbage out mostly. There are indeed many really bad aircraft out there, but that's hardly the sim's fault. But then again, all of that can be said about FSX, too. Besides, the service ceiling doesn't necessarily have to do anything with performance (it usually does, though) - maybe the pressurization system is the limit in this case? And are you sure the real 777 wouldn't show similar performance if you'd abuse the engines? I have no idea, but I seem to remember that a 757 could do an aileron roll in about 4 seconds - which many would find completely unrealistic I guess.Judith

No-I don't agree.

So you don't concede that XP might actually be doing as much CPU/GPU work as FSX? You must know an awful lot about the internals of XP and FSX to be so stubborn.

I posted shots that show my point-without the pause button on with each sim set up similarly . I'll let them speak for themselves...

On my system pause button makes no difference to FPS. But Ill redo a similar shot tonight to prove it.

As for the iphone-if anything that proves my point.

What point is that? Seems to me that the ability for XP to run on Windows, Mac, Linux and iPhone (as a lite version) proves that the software has been well designed to cater for different OS/hardware platforms. I would expect that many thousands of iPhone users would become XP "desktop" users as well, thanks to their exposure to XP on the iPhone.

Then where are PMDG, LDS, Aerosoft, Wilco, RealAir, A2A, Feelthere, Carenado...I can go on. So much for it being a non issue!

FSX only died in Jan and these things take time to sink in. In any case there's a new gang of top class developers focusing on XP. They hang out at X-Pilot.

The only decent aircraft I've seen in X-Plane is the MU-2. (The new CRJ looks nice, but time will tell if it's fm will match it's looks)

Ah, so you agree that XP can have decent planes!

Other than that there are 777's that climb to 35000 ft at cruise speed at 5000fpm, and finally stalls at ceiling at 4000fpm. Or a RJ100 that climbs to 42000ft at MTOW, (It's ceiling is 31000ft). I just don't see this fantastic flight model everybody raves about. I see the opposite, in FM, Performance, and scenery quality, add the limited visibility, limited AI, and lack of ATC and I don't see anything that would draw me to it, other than occasional use, in which I use it now for.

As mentioned by Arista, simply a case of GIGO. FSX is in the same boat.

Arista-Intersting question! I just went and tried a varity of scenes with pause and not. I found I saw a difference of 1-2fps to about 12 depending on the scene-viewpoint, and location with the pause on and off. It seems looking towards buildings causes the biggest difference. Interestingly enough-over Innsbruck I also showed 50 fps when using a simple default plane. Going to typical US airports with little scenery I seem to show my norm of about 25-35. That is strange since Innsbruck is so highly detailed compared to the US airports.As far as photoscenery-Orbx ready has 7 cm. scenery for fsx. I have used 1 meter and I still am well into the 60's-100 for fps.Ben-thanks for your kind offer. Unfortunately-my panel is tied to a commercial Baron that was done for xplane 8-I used it to build my panel on so I would not have to start from scratch and do the outside 3d model. Therefore I cam not send it off due to obvious copyrights. I do appreciate the offer and eagerly await Tkyler's work for the next xplane. A good Baron is sorely needed on any sim out there right now.As far as this thread I don't really understand the upset at stating that when setting the two sims as closely as they can be matched feature for feature, I get better performance on fsx. Perhaps because that has been a rallying cry for supporters of Xplane along with the superior flight model claim for years it is hard to shake off. I don't really see it as a slight, or a competition, just a fact-and one I think fsx'ers who often don't look at the sliders need to take notice of. Already in this thread several did not know you can manually adjust the visibility in fsx.I'd rather discuss the good and bad for each sim and hope one day we can help the developers produce the perfect sim. I just took xplane for a spin and there is very much to like about it. I've never said otherwise. Why there is a need to proclaim fsx dead when it isn't and in fact is just getting going, and pronounce a sim a clear winner when none are always aludes me-but maybe I am not that bright! :( ..and I am glad I am not the only one who doesn't like the smeared textures-I hope that is fixed soon in xplane!

FSX only died in Jan and these things take time to sink in. In any case there's a new gang of top class developers focusing on XP. They hang out at X-Pilot.X-Plane has been in existence years, and there have never been any interest from the FS developers, and there are none now. Ah, so you agree that XP can have decent planes! I've always said X-Plane can produce decent planes, there just isn't enough of them. Also I don't believe you can just build a 3D model and out pops a a aircraft with an accurate flight model like Blade Element theory proports to. It still takes tweaking of the numbers to get it right. I believe that is why there are so few decent flying models in X-Plane because of this myth. I would bet if you asked Tim Kyler what he did, you'd find out he went the extra distance and tweaked the numbers to get his model correct.