Oh.........rubbish!

[LAdamson 240]

This is going to be my rubbish column. Quotes taken from another X-Plane forum where I cannot respond."I've even found FSX a usable tool - the planes are totally unrealistic (stock planes anyway) and the dynamics differs from reality but thats what I find callenging - I do not seek reality, but ability to handle a plane that flies whatever way it does."My response. ----- In what way are FSX "stock" planes totally un-realistic? I'm a pilot, and don't believe that. Even some flight instructors around these forums would agree with my point. Personally, I find the simple 172 & the high wing Maule as quite acceptable in recreating flights from point A to B. If these aircraft, as well as others such as the stock Cessna Caravan were un-relistic, I'd have dumped them in a heart beat. These airplanes use proper control techniques for power, pitch, & roll, as well as yaw, flaps, and general handling. Their airspeed numbers are very close too. As I've said before, X-Plane must stand on it's own. Let's don't spread misconceptions about MSFS to favor X-Plane. BTW--- I like numerous other stock planes too. Such as the Beaver on floats.L.Adamson

[alexcolka 183]

Good point there,Anyway these are only cheap computer software that give us unlimited hours of fun, what can we expect from that? real planes? get real, that will never happen in a PC or MAC and also I never undestood the comparison between FS and X-Plane, both are great sims. Anyone wants to fly realistic planes including me? Let's take real flying lessons :)Alex Colka

[LAdamson 240]

Good point there,Anyway these are only cheap computer software that give us unlimited hours of fun, what can we expect from that? real planes? get real, that will never happen in a PC or MAC and also I never undestood the comparison between FS and X-Plane, both are great sims. Anyone wants to fly realistic planes including me? Let's take real flying lessons :)

Desktop flight simulations can at least react to numerous control imputs in a realistic way. And they do! So much in fact, that our minds can fill in the gaps of what the sim can't do......................to a point. Note: It helps to know what the "gaps" are. Flying lessons would help.So see..................once you take those real flying lessons, you can always come back to the sim and say, WOW! that seemed quite realistic afterall ------ or not.. :( L.Adamson

[tf51d 284]

Desktop flight simulations can at least react to numerous control imputs in a realistic way. And they do! So much in fact, that our minds can fill in the gaps of what the sim can't do......................to a point. Note: It helps to know what the "gaps" are. Flying lessons would help.So see..................once you take those real flying lessons, you can always come back to the sim and say, WOW! that seemed quite realistic afterall ------ or not.. :( L.Adamson

After I have flown on the Mustang and AT-6, I can say flying the same aircraft in FSX, especially the A2A Mustang, except for the missing G-Forces and motion it feels pretty close. I don't get that feeling with the X-Plane models!

[Jacoba 55]

As LAdamson said, SIM, both FSX and X-Plane can simulate the visual aspect of the "act" of flying along with a very accurate degree of simulated parameters such as proper RPM response or manifold pressure for a certain engine/airframe combination corresponding to a specific throttle setting and instrument actions and functions. But it is impossible for a PC or Mac based SIM to emulate flying completely and accurately as there is no ability for the SIM to create the feel and I'm not talking about this elusive mythical being that you see all the payware gurus claim... their models feels just like the real thing... thats an almost impossible claim in a desktop based SIM. Speaking as a long time Commercially Rated Pilot, the "feel" of an aircraft is so many different values and inputs from the sensation of movement and motion, the way the aircraft responds to the airflow around it, speed changes, vibrations from various power settings, how it feels in a climb or a decent and so forth. There is just no way to achieve this level of "feel" in a SIM. Companies such as CAE, Boeing and FlightSafety International spend well into the many millions on SIMs which incorporate full working replicas of cockpits down to the last switch and button and then place that onto a massive computerized system of hydraulic actuators to simulate the movement and the feel part of flying. And even then its still very limited, having to resort visual and motion trickery to simulate such things as steep turns or high speed decents, which are well outside the movement range of the hydraulics themselves. Both SIMS FXS and X-Plane are great for what they are. Both have evolved from games into more or less basic learning tools where one can practice approaches down to minimums all day long or cross country IFR navigation without running up the hobbs meter and shelling out 70 to 100 buck an hour for a rental plane.

[MatthewS 761]

these are only cheap computer software

Well, maybe cheap (< $100) to purchase but many millions have been spent on their development over the years. I very much doubt the software platforms being used in full motion sims are as capable as FS9/FSX/XP.

[Jacoba 55]

Well, maybe cheap (< $100) to purchase but many millions have been spent on their development over the years. I very much doubt the software platforms being used in full motion sims are as capable as FS9/FSX/XP.

Well, that actually depends on what exactly you mean by capable. If you are referring to all the pretty graphics and whatnot then no, they are not. But if you are referring to the core engine that drives such things as the precision weather generator and its interface, the flight model which includes very precise individual airframe stress points created from piles and piles of data gathered during years of actual physical flight testing by the aircraft manufactures, most of which MS and Laminar Research could only dream of having access to. And the ability to completely customize the dynamics and flight characteristics of a specific serial number of a specific airframe of a specific model of specific plane, then yes the full motion SIMS are lightyears beyond the realm of anything you can buy at your local computer shop. At FSI in Wichita Kansas there are huge central rooms located just off the main sim bays that are packed with computer rigs some with frames the size of refrigerators stuffed with computer after computer, where the brains of the full motion sims are. Companies like FlightSafety International, CAE and Alteon build these monsters to replicate the full flying experience. There is a reason they cost millions of dollars to build, hundreds of dollars an hour to operate and an army of engineers and technicians to maintain them.

[Geofa 108]

Well, that actually depends on what exactly you mean by capable. If you are referring to all the pretty graphics and whatnot then no, they are not. But if you are referring to the core engine that drives such things as the precision weather generator and its interface, the flight model which includes very precise individual airframe stress points created from piles and piles of data gathered during years of actual physical flight testing by the aircraft manufactures, most of which MS and Laminar Research could only dream of having access to. And the ability to completely customize the dynamics and flight characteristics of a specific serial number of a specific airframe of a specific model of specific plane, then yes the full motion SIMS are lightyears beyond the realm of anything you can buy at your local computer shop. At FSI in Wichita Kansas there are huge central rooms located just off the main sim bays that are packed with computer rigs some with frames the size of refrigerators stuffed with computer after computer, where the brains of the full motion sims are. Companies like FlightSafety International, CAE and Alteon build these monsters to replicate the full flying experience. There is a reason they cost millions of dollars to build, hundreds of dollars an hour to operate and an army of engineers and technicians to maintain them.

Very true.Then there are those like me that have been flying for 20+ years that just want something that is useful to them to save rw expenses.I am hoping xplane can give me more usefulness for the future-so far I gave it a fair shot but it isn't saving me as much money as fsx is ..hope xplane will for the future-all for desktop sims saving rw money-really!!!!

[Jacoba 55]

Very true.Then there are those like me that have been flying for 20+ years that just want something that is useful to them to save rw expenses.I am hoping xplane can give me more usefulness for the future-so far I gave it a fair shot but it isn't saving me as much money as fsx is ..hope xplane will for the future-all for desktop sims saving rw money-really!!!!

I have high hopes for X-Plane as well and in the absence of ACES I hope Austin, et al see the potential they have for laying claim to an already captive audience. One that he will have to do very little to attract other than give them a sim that appeals to their tastes.And one aspect of this is to create an environment that attracts and holds powerhouse, big name add on developers. If he can provide a platform that would attract such names as PMDG, Flight1, EagleSoft etc... then it would be game on. Sadly, until this happens I think X-Plane will continue to exist as a niche sim supported by the rare and occasional introduction of some speciality add on like the CRJ that's looming out there or the Saab 340 and Beechcraft Hawkers from Leading Edge.

[LAdamson 240]

Latest garbage from the infamous org. forum. This is from someone who claims to have 15 hrs. in a Cessna 172, and therefor feels he is qualified to do this review.Problem is, there are those who believe it, and no one to say much against the claims made. I'd blow this review out of the water, since it's so rediculous.....but then I'm not allowed to do so. The FSX default Cessna doesn't react anything like the claims made in this thread. I read this at least three times, shaking my head in disbelief...... what is said about the FSX Cessna 172. It's complete nonsense.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hello,I recently tried the X Plane 9 demo and have a few questions about the retail version before deciding on purchasing it. I had been using flight simulator X until having the good fortune of finding out about X Plane 9. The differences between the two seemed so pronounced that I spent the better part of a day comparing the two different simulators. What I did was to design a test of the Innsbruck Kranebitten Airport (LOWI) with the default cessna 172 model airplane.The comparison was a flight performance and subject aesthetics test which each had to accomplish in my opinion to be a silmulator. Some of which both passed.Could the Cessna 172 track the center line on take off without darting all over the runway?Could the Cessna 172 make a straight out departure while maintaining 80 kts, then be trimmed for 80 kts without having to exert pressure on the joystick?Could the Cessna 172 then level off at 4000ft and be trimmed for straight and level flight +/- 100ft?Could the Cessna 172, onced trimmed for straight and level flight, make a reasonably coordinated 20 degree banking turn while maintaining 4000ft +/- 100ft. ?Could the Cessna 172 enter slow flight, trimmed for 65 kts, with full flaps and fly straight and level without exerting pressure on the joystick/yoke?Which brings me to the part that has caused me to quit FSX altogether...Can the Cessna 172, onced trimmed for 65 kts, with full flaps, then maintain a constant descent rate with a direct relationship with the throttle rpm?X Plane 9:I was able to slowly and gently cause the Cessna 172 to go from straight and level flight at 65 kts to a smooth descent ratewhich varied in small increments such as -100 ft/min, -200 ft/min, -300 ft/min etc, and having experienced the worst of what FSX had to offer, I was only hoping for approximations such as straight and level, -250 ft/min , -500 ft/min etc... Here X Plane 9 passed with flying colors, and most importantly when I would pull the throttle back, the airplane would gently start its descent, which gave the feel you really get when trying to land a cessna 172, that of floating down to the runway.FSX:Trying to change throttle settings would elicit progressively violent and jerky reactions. A change in the throttle as little as 100 rpm, would cause a -400 ft/min descent, followed by a sharp oscilation back to as much as +100 ft/min, eventually settling somewhere in the middle such as -200 ft/min. I was almost as if you had jerked the joystick/yoke causing the pitch to change and then suddenly let go. (However the criteria was to exert no pressure on the joystick/yoke at all, and let the trim wheel do the work, such as in real life). The larger the variation in rpm change, the larger the oscilation would become. My research may not be spot on, but I have found various references that state the Cessna 172's glide ratio is 9 to 1, and when trimmed for approximately 68 kts, even without power, should descend no more quickly than around -780 ft/min, or for that matter, the best rate of climb is only +720ft/min. Which is where FSX gets wild. Going from straight and level flight, trimmed at 65 kts, full flaps, I pulled power back to idle and suddenly found myself in a -2000 ft/min plunge, which is pretty much free fall as if your wings had been torn off. Then when putting full power back in to recover, the plane then violently jerked all the way up to +1200 ft/min. This, to say the least, is impossible. However, this has an even more important implication for a simulator. What happens when you have to feather the throttle on approach to adjust your descent rate to match the VASI lights?You get a violently pitching, bobbing, weeble wooble all the way to ground effect. I'm almost 100% certain that FSX doesn't even model ground effect, and you get a very interesting reaction when you finally reach the runway threshold and attempt to flare. Instead of a gentle settling down of the rear landing gear and the stall warning horn going off, you get a -600 ft/min nose dive into the pavement. Thus ends the "simulation" for FSX. Unless ofcourse you decide not to flare at all and fly the Cessna 172 into the ground at 65 kts and over 1800 rpm, at which point you have to ask yourself, is this a simulation at all? In my opinion X Plane 9 reasonably "feels" like flying and does a good job of modeling that experience in the Cessna 172. I'm not sure about the various other planes, as I only have experience in an actual 1997 Cessna 172, N856 charlie papa Though I only have 15 hours, I managed to solo in only 13 hours, and have first hand experience of what that feels like. For me, without a doubt, FSX fails to replicate that experience in any meaningful way.Now for some quick questions to ask!1. In X Plane 9 how are navigational items such as the Garmin GPS used? I have figured out how to enter airport ID's and somehow select the map view, but only having access to the demo, I couldn't test their usefulness. Also it seems that only in 3D view are they large enough to look at in any meaningful way? Is there a way to simply bring up a large view of just the GPS as inFSX you could click on it, and it would expand the view and then when you had made the necessary adjustments you could make it small again?2. Are the ILS and autopilot landing features functional and useful, and can they be programmed in via the GPS unit? I'm very curious about the default GPS in X Plane 9 because I've seen several websites that advertise a payware version of GPS to replace it? Also I realize there's also a feature to plug in a real garmin, but that's not what I'm refering to.3. In relation to these features, such as GPS navigation, ILS landings, and autopilot usage, are there web, pdf, or video tutorials anywhere on how to use these features in X Plane 9? Youtube is overflowing with FSX tutorials, but I can't find a single on for X Plane 9?4. Scenery, while unfortunately, we're not quite yet in the age of "fully photorealistic" scenery, I am much more pleased aesthetically with X Plane 9 than the low fps mess that is FSX, however I'd like to know if it models different kinds of trees and vegetation for each climate region, ie, deciduous trees aswell as conifers and palms by default. I have found a website where someone has made what looks like a very nice nearly 400 mb overhaul to X Plane 9 trees and vegetation and even models accurate climate zone maps etc. Basically I just want to make sure that the "only tree in the world is a pine tree" thing that FSX does, isn't the case with X Plane 9.5. I could see a great many local and municipal even private airstrips are present in the GPS system, I even found the one I trained on and several smaller local ones, are they really presentin the retail version? I may be confused with the iphone version of X Plane 9 as I read an article that stated there were only a handful of "regions" to fly in X Plane?Thank you very much for your time, information and advice! I wanted to say in closing that I'm very impressed with X Plane 9. It seems to have much better general aviation modeling, "feel" of flying, and aesthetically pleasing scenery and weather than the competition. I can truely say that I can suspend disbelief while flying in X Plane 9, whereas in FSX I'm simply in... disbelief -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L.Adamson ---- and no, I didn't write the review above

[Guest Sulman]

I have high hopes for X-Plane as well and in the absence of ACES I hope Austin, et al see the potential they have for laying claim to an already captive audience. One that he will have to do very little to attract other than give them a sim that appeals to their tastes.And one aspect of this is to create an environment that attracts and holds powerhouse, big name add on developers. If he can provide a platform that would attract such names as PMDG, Flight1, EagleSoft etc... then it would be game on. Sadly, until this happens I think X-Plane will continue to exist as a niche sim supported by the rare and occasional introduction of some speciality add on like the CRJ that's looming out there or the Saab 340 and Beechcraft Hawkers from Leading Edge.

It's the payware big jets, with comprehensive switchology and excellent modelling that really sell MSFS. Wilco and PSS started it back in FS2000, and then PMDG (established elsewhere) & others muscled in on the market with their own work. The rest is history. I do agree with your last point, but X-plane, slowly but surely, is getting much better. The standard of releases for both free and payware is has been at MSFS standards for a while, especially for GA addons. Yes, there's a lot of ###### out there, but there's much good stuff too. However, around the start of V9, outside of flight modelling and scenery (both of which are excellent) stock X-Plane still felt distinctly FS98 & 2000 to me, in terms of the user experience. Specifically I mean that one has to do a lot of work to get it where you want, whereas FS8,9,10 are pretty much ready out of the box. I've been with it since V5, and have used MSFS in parallel. Recently, things have started to change. I've always felt X-Plane is slightly inferior in finish, and I'm sure others have too, but recently this feeling has gone. 3rd party devs are starting to really exploit the object modelling, standard gauge, and plugin methods, and I think we'll see major, significant heavy-metal addons soon, perhaps within 18 months, one which will sell the sim; i.e. the very same model that has sustained MSFS for years. Benedikt Strattman & Javier Cortes may well be one such example. The newest Avroliner project is also looking seriously impressive. Have you seen the Falcon 7X? Amazing. I mean really, I was away Level-D'ing for a few months and came back around 9.20, and was astonished at the progress in addons, and this is just the start. I think X-Plane, to use a horrible phrase, may be at the tipping point. Where FSX and X-Plane differ most - right now - is potential.James

[Geofa 108]

"It's the payware big jets, with comprehensive switchology and excellent modelling that really sell MSFS. Wilco and PSS started it back in FS2000, and then PMDG (established elsewhere) & others muscled in on the market with their own work. The rest is history." I actually have never had any interest in payware jets-although I have bought a few just to see what they were about.My interest is highly detailed and faithful GA aircraft that I fly. All the offerings from Carenado, Real Air, Just Flight, Eaglesoft, and Flight One are what keep me with fsx. If the same quality was available for xplane I would for sure use it more.