Well, good luck with that. However, I suggest against using X-Plane for its lack of AI. I would suggest FlightGear. No, bugs, no FSX issues whatsoever, perfect! I still prefer FSX though. The controls are easy, especially when it comes to using FS9 aircraft, either default or third-party. The installation is like clipping a paper into one.

Well, good luck with that. However, I suggest against using X-Plane for its lack of AI. I would suggest FlightGear. No, bugs, no FSX issues whatsoever, perfect! I still prefer FSX though. The controls are easy, especially when it comes to using FS9 aircraft, either default or third-party. The installation is like clipping a paper into one.

I try to convert all the time. Just never seems to work-as soon as something better for xplane comes out something even better for fsx comes out. Pretty interesting since fsx is "dead" and xplane is "alive".I hope xplane 10 will make the decision making even harder in a good way.

I just want to thank everyone for your thoughtful and helpful responses. It's really helped me put everything back in perspective. After reading your posts,I think it would be best to go ahead and use both the MS and X-Plane sim for now. Why not enjoy the best of two worlds.Thanks Again

I just want to thank everyone for your thoughtful and helpful responses. It's really helped me put everything back in perspective. After reading your posts,I think it would be best to go ahead and use both the MS and X-Plane sim for now. Why not enjoy the best of two worlds.Thanks Again

Wise words-why not?..and if you decide it was wasted time-look at it like a contribution to charity. Your modest contribution may keep something alive and improving that at some time may be worth the investment....

My opinion:FSX will have a great time the next 3-5 years. Hardware is getting faster and great add-ons will be developed.So FSX is not dead. BUT: It is dead end. The core is old and outdated. And when a new sim arrives (Aerosoft, X-Plane X or whatelse) many people will sit on a bunch of FSX-add-ons and cry because they can use them anymore. Just my 2cWalter

i wanna get this out.In February i switched to x-plane saying it was good and all that and i stood by that for months. but i switched back to FSX for many reasons. When i want an aircraft i cant ever find a good one. Even if i do find one its some crappy ten minute mash together. Airport scenery is crap and some airport's terrain is over done. like at KATL the crossing over from runway 10 to the rest of the airport its like a HUGE hill on the taxi way. Thats a huge terrain error.Not only that but the weather is pretty screwed up too. When flying up to 2000 you get like 0 visibility than it returns to normal. even on a clear day. In other words the X-plane community is barely developed and growing EXTREMELY slow.

In my experience this is typical for a first real try with X-Plane. First you see the things it does beter after some use you realize that the FS franchise does some things beter. I have been switching between FS and X-Plane over the last 2 years. At the moment X-Plane gets around 80% of my sim time.Your comment about the X-Plane development community is hash and not entirely correct. Just go over to www.x-plane.org and try some of their montly Best-off competition winners. The vibe I now feel at X-Plane.org brings back the good times when AVSIM had the Bears Cave section with every month newer and beter add-ons to try out.One of the problems is that the X-Plane community has its own home so there is little discussion and information about X-Plane here on AVSIM. So trying out X-Plane for the first time is hard. You have to find your way in another community. That community is a times very closed and not newbie friendly.One of the posters here mentioned there is no 'fully working' FMC for X-Plane. There are 2 free FMC's for X-Plane (Vas FMS, X-FMC) and one payware (UFMC). The payware one has a special version for the x737 http://www.eadt.euMaybe these FMC's are not 'fully working' but I personaly have seen MSFS payware FMC's with less functions.Its hard to compare X-Plane an FS-X and ultimately there is no need to do so. We can always use both.

I try to convert all the time. Just never seems to work-as soon as something better for xplane comes out something even better for fsx comes out. Pretty interesting since fsx is "dead" and xplane is "alive".I hope xplane 10 will make the decision making even harder in a good way.

But still, even when they add the terminal buildings and fix the "runways follow terrain countour" issue, they still won't settle for AI. It's pretty disappointing, noting that with only static planes, I'm just like the last plane in the skies. Overall, X-Plane sucks. :( Simply because they lack detail in airport scenery and lack AI traffic. Also, the 747-400 there was like FS2002 quality, no wing flex, not much of a detail, nothing's good about their jetliners (I didn't mind anything about the add-on/expansion pack aircraft)

My opinion:FSX will have a great time the next 3-5 years. Hardware is getting faster and great add-ons will be developed.So FSX is not dead. BUT: It is dead end. The core is old and outdated. And when a new sim arrives (Aerosoft, X-Plane X or whatelse) many people will sit on a bunch of FSX-add-ons and cry because they can use them anymore. Just my 2cWalter

That is not true. Do you think, that when FS2004 became completely outdated when FSX arrived, do you think that the add-ons were no longer usable, and that FS2004 users cry? NO! Infact, FS2004 aircraft continue to grow in detail each day. X-Plane should go into a dead end someday, and so will FlightGear. So if X-Plane falls into discontinuation someday, then no supports are given, and that the supports for the add-ons are inferior as they are no longer supported, what are you going to do? FS? Let's just look when FS11, FS12, FS13,CFS3+ or FS-whatsoever goes up the markets. Note: Aerosoft is an addon developer, NOT a flight simulator.

But still, even when they add the terminal buildings and fix the "runways follow terrain countour" issue, they still won't settle for AI. It's pretty disappointing, noting that with only static planes, I'm just like the last plane in the skies. Overall, X-Plane sucks. :( Simply because they lack detail in airport scenery and lack AI traffic. Also, the 747-400 there was like FS2002 quality, no wing flex, not much of a detail, nothing's good about their jetliners (I didn't mind anything about the add-on/expansion pack aircraft)

Do realize that everyone who uses sims do not necessarily fly airliners or even care about wing flex.There are some things that xplane does extremely well that fs has never done-to name a few-excellent systems failures and ability to set random failures of just about everything on the plane. There are other small things (I love the bird collisions-I came so close to having one myself on Sunday) icing effects, ability to see storms on a stormscope, sloped runways, cloud shadows-to name a few. I think it has the best looking water.Despite that I still do the majority of my simming on Fsx as it really has what is useful to me...and yes I like to see a little ai traffic too.I personally think all flight sims available should be on a flight simmers drive-but then I am a flight sim fan.It really doesn't need to be an either/or situation.

Do realize that everyone who uses sims do not necessarily fly airliners or even care about wing flex.There are some things that xplane does extremely well that fs has never done-to name a few-excellent systems failures and ability to set random failures of just about everything on the plane. There are other small things (I love the bird collisions-I came so close to having one myself on Sunday) icing effects, ability to see storms on a stormscope, sloped runways, cloud shadows-to name a few. I think it has the best looking water.Despite that I still do the majority of my simming on Fsx as it really has what is useful to me...and yes I like to see a little ai traffic too.I personally think all flight sims available should be on a flight simmers drive-but then I am a flight sim fan.It really doesn't need to be an either/or situation.

Well stated Geof. I still have FlyII on my computer for the excellent Seneca and TBM700 simulations.

I Heard REX is going to be available for X-plane soonhttp://realenvironmentxtreme.com/xplane.html

I Heard REX is going to be available for X-plane soonhttp://realenvironmentxtreme.com/xplane.html

It has been out since the 14rth...

It has been out since the 14rth...

Eh...I've only heard about it now

I Heard REX is going to be available for X-plane soonhttp://realenvironmentxtreme.com/xplane.html

It already is, in fact they just released the first service pack for it!! This should solve the poor X-Plane online weather generator problem. X-Plane is a very capable simulator, but it limitations is what kills it for me, like poor ATC, limited AI and the big one for me, hard coded limited visibility to 25nm. I think if it wasn't for the visibility issue, I would use it more often. The fact though that as it is with similar scenery density, it just slightly out performs FSX with up to 175nm visibility, indicates to me it would have problems dealing with the amount of AI and extended visibility FSX is capable of.

It already is, in fact they just released the first service pack for it!! This should solve the poor X-Plane online weather generator problem. X-Plane is a very capable simulator, but it limitations is what kills it for me, like poor ATC, limited AI and the big one for me, hard coded limited visibility to 25nm. I think if it wasn't for the visibility issue, I would use it more often. The fact though that as it is with similar scenery density, it just slightly out performs FSX with up to 175nm visibility, indicates to me it would have problems dealing with the amount of AI and extended visibility FSX is capable of.

AI and whatnot is supposed to be one of the aspects addressed in X-Plane 10.

Note that if I requested AI and told X-Plane anything about it being on MSFSX, I'd get kicked outta there.