I have used FSX for quite some time (w/Acceleration) and I have to say that the OP has a point. I feel even with FSX "dumbed" down that X-Plane still offers a more fluid flight experience all around. The default ground textures and water are better in X-Plane, IMO. When airport scenery is downloaded and used in X-Plane, there is no notable frame rate dip like there is in FSX. FSX definitely could use some tweaking to help in some areas. One thing that has always bothered me in FSX was the jerky instant replay camera in spot view. You have to choose locked spot to cure the problem. All this said, X-Plane is still a constant work in progress and it does fall short in complex add-ons. I am very much looking forward to Javier Rollon's CRJ and XP Jet's future offerings.

X-Plane may be a bit more fluid than FSX, but I generally just don't enjoy flying the aircraft that much. I tried again two nights ago, by running the same flight in FSX & X-Plane, which was to duplicate a real world flight from a few weeks ago. I can't exactly put my finger on the problem either. Fluidity has it's points, but for some reason X-Plane still fails to trick my pilot brain into filling in the gaps like FS9 & FSX can.So no, I'm still not having a better desktop flight experience with X-Plane. I usually quit in less than 10 minutes of hand flying, or let it move along on A/P untill I get to the destination. And I have a problem with the limited visibility too. I do a lot of real life mountain flight, and am use to seeing mountain ranges well over a hundred miles away. Because of this, It sometimes seems that I'm flying in some other world, since I can't totally relate to what I see out the virtual window. However, I still keep XP on the hard drive along with FS9/FSX.... as things can always change as more 3rd party vendors get involved.As to FSX being broken or dead, not hardly. There is just too much 3rd party support for the sim. It could still last for years, at this rate.L.Adamson

As to FSX being broken or dead, not hardly. There is just too much 3rd party support for the sim. It could still last for years, at this rate.L.Adamson

Problem is all that

As to FSX being broken or dead, not hardly. There is just too much 3rd party support for the sim. It could still last for years, at this rate.

With respect, I strongly disagree, and for one simple reason:FSX does, cannot and will never scale with newer hardcore. I now run an i7 920 and it made very little difference in FPS from my "old" dual core 6850. More 3d party add-ons just means even lower FPS.Conversely, and this is what SHOULD happen, DCS Black Shark leveraged the cores and FPS jumped quite nicely so that I can run it completely maxed with 35+ FPS.I am now looking to Aeorsoft's project for salvation.

With respect, I strongly disagree, and for one simple reason:FSX does, cannot and will never scale with newer hardcore. I now run an i7 920 and it made very little difference in FPS from my "old" dual core 6850. More 3d party add-ons just means even lower FPS.Conversely, and this is what SHOULD happen, DCS Black Shark leveraged the cores and FPS jumped quite nicely so that I can run it completely maxed with 35+ FPS.I am now looking to Aeorsoft's project for salvation.

Boy-the i7 920 sure made a huge difference from my dual core-one of the reasons I haven't yet revisited xplane in a while.

It must be the soup of payware add-ons I run, it's also rather unstable, prone to CTD. Was only reinstalled last month.

It must be the soup of payware add-ons I run, it's also rather unstable, prone to CTD. Was only reinstalled last month.

Yeah-I am getting the drop to the desktop occasionally-I have a feeling it is the 195.62 nvidia drivers. Hopefully driver will help this issue.

Yeah-I am getting the drop to the desktop occasionally-I have a feeling it is the 195.62 nvidia drivers. Hopefully driver will help this issue.

I installed the 195.62

With respect, I strongly disagree, and for one simple reason:FSX does, cannot and will never scale with newer hardcore. I now run an i7 920 and it made very little difference in FPS from my "old" dual core 6850. More 3d party add-ons just means even lower FPS.Conversely, and this is what SHOULD happen, DCS Black Shark leveraged the cores and FPS jumped quite nicely so that I can run it completely maxed with 35+ FPS.I am now looking to Aeorsoft's project for salvation.

No one can reasonably argue that FSX utilizes multi-core CPUs adequately. I don't know if this was just bad timing for their developers or just poor quality control before release. They even had to patch the sim to get it where it is now! I have a Q9550 and I am less than pleased at how FSX performs on my rig. I am a stickler for details, and I hate each random hiccup that I notice. X-Plane never hiccups. As for Larry's comment on X-Plane's limited visibility, I actually prefer X-Plane for my region. I have spent many logless hours with my dad in a Cessna and I've taken a couple intro flights recently and I never remember visibility being better than what X-Plane shows. I love the blend at the horizon that X-Plane generates. Perhaps that helps with frame rates? I appreciate it, nonetheless. It's always warm and humid here in Florida, and I get that feel when I fly in X-Plane. It may be clearer and dryer in mountanous areas, so I see his point.The bottom line is, FSX is what it is. It will never be anything more. It is NOT dead as long as 3rd party folks develop for it. I'm sure that will keep many happy and I'm sure the hardware is catching up to help the cause. That does not change the fact that X-Plane is slowly evolving into a wonderful simulator, with the help of the core devlopers and growing mass of supporters. I still prefer FS2004 to FSX as far as polish goes. For FSX - I think Microsoft broke some eggs to make the omelet and forgot to clean up the counter afterwards.Scott

No one can reasonably argue that FSX utilizes multi-core CPUs adequately....

Not only does FSX not use multiple cores as efficiently as it might, but it can never take advantage of advances in GPU technology (eg compute shaders, hardware tessellation, hardware instancing etc). FSX is stuck in 2006 forever!

Not only does FSX not use multiple cores as efficiently as it might, but it can never take advantage of advances in GPU technology (eg compute shaders, hardware tessellation, hardware instancing etc). FSX is stuck in 2006 forever!

Interesting that so many major serious companies are choosing esp for their platform with it being so "stuck"...

Interesting that so many major serious companies are choosing esp for their platform with it being so "stuck"...

ESP is attractive because it is easier/cheaper to develop for than the mostly proprietary platforms that these

Interesting that so many major serious companies are choosing esp for their platform with it being so "stuck"...

Is ESP is for retail consumers/gamers? I don't think so! It's being used in conjunction with expensive hardware (cockpit/display systems) to develop training systems for flight schools, the government, defense forces etc.In the retail/gamer space FSX's hardware capabilities will quickly become old since it's based on 2006 tech. Just look at the videos about hardware tesselation on youtube, imagine how much better aricraft and scenery is going to look when hw tesselation is in use. Truly round wheels/fuselages/engines etc etc.Not to mention how hardware instancing would speed up ground clutter and "autogen", probably even clouds!FSX is 2006 tech and aging fast.

Is ESP is for retail consumers/gamers? I don't think so! It's being used in conjunction with expensive hardware (cockpit/display systems) to develop training systems for flight schools, the government, defense forces etc.In the retail/gamer space FSX's hardware capabilities will quickly become old since it's based on 2006 tech. Just look at the videos about hardware tesselation on youtube, imagine how much better aricraft and scenery is going to look when hw tesselation is in use. Truly round wheels/fuselages/engines etc etc.Not to mention how hardware instancing would speed up ground clutter and "autogen", probably even clouds!FSX is 2006 tech and aging fast.

That is exactly my point. Since esp is basically the fsx engine licensed differently such an aging and "broken" platform would seem to be an unusual choice for these companies to use-especially since xplane exists as another choice. If xplane is so much better-why did it not end up the choice?-Microsoft certainly made it difficult enough to be for those who chose esp.

That is exactly my point. Since esp is basically the fsx engine licensed differently such an aging and "broken" platform would seem to be an unusual choice for these companies to use-especially since xplane exists as another choice. If xplane is so much better-why did it not end up the choice?-Microsoft certainly made it difficult enough to be for those who chose esp.

Because Microsoft came up with such a licensing arrangement and Laminar Research did not. In effect there is only one choice for those companies and that's ESP, plus they probably liked the fact that it was a Microsoft product.It still does not change the fact that FSX is based on outdated 2006 tech and will never be updated to take advantage of 2010 hardware (especially proper multicore support and GPU advancements). FSX will continue to age and become the old maid of flight simulation. X-Plane (and Aerosoft's new sim) will be the young/sexy ladies of flight simulation using the latest tech.FSX will become less attractive to users and the 3rd party market will dry up, just like old maids do :(

Because Microsoft came up with such a licensing arrangement and Laminar Research did not. In effect there is only one choice for those companies and that's ESP, plus they probably liked the fact that it was a Microsoft product.It still does not change the fact that FSX is based on outdated 2006 tech and will never be updated to take advantage of 2010 hardware (especially proper multicore support and GPU advancements). FSX will continue to age and become the old maid of flight simulation. X-Plane (and Aerosoft's new sim) will be the young/sexy ladies of flight simulation using the latest tech.FSX will become less attractive to users and the 3rd party market will dry up, just like old maids do :(

Trust me-when something better than fsx comes out I will be the first to bail. Meantime, it still has lots of potential to grow, not age. I for one am waiting for 7cm textures for the world.I talked to the sim developers that were using esp this summer at Oshkosh, and the license waslooking rather shaky-yet they still went for it. I don't think it being a Microsoft product had anything to do with it, in fact this fact was probably more of a negative, at least with the posture Microsoft was taking at that point in time.