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 fanIt really doesn't need to be an either/or situation.

Look Geofa, most of todays flight simmers look for the realism of the whole aircraft. Plus, sometimes the sloped runways makes it fairly impossible to takeoff. One example is the Rejkyavik Airport in Iceland, where the actual terrain difference is so high, that when the sloped runway function is turned on in X-Plane, the runway's terrain diff is too high to take off with.Additionally, some aircraft are good in the interior, but the exterior models are just too inaccurate. This is why I chose FSX over X-Plane.

Look Geofa, most of todays flight simmers look for the realism of the whole aircraft. Plus, sometimes the sloped runways makes it fairly impossible to takeoff. One example is the Rejkyavik Airport in Iceland, where the actual terrain difference is so high, that when the sloped runway function is turned on in X-Plane, the runway's terrain diff is too high to take off with.Additionally, some aircraft are good in the interior, but the exterior models are just too inaccurate. This is why I chose FSX over X-Plane.

I also chose fsx right now.However..Realism is in the eye of the beholder.Fact of the matter is there are a lot of things in xplane that are more real than fsx and there are a lot of things in fsx that are more real than xplane.Xplane doesn't just simply "suck". It just models different things. Why not support both-it is good for simming and one really can have both on their hard drive. It's good for flight simulation to do so imho-especially if we want things to get better in the future-or to even have a future.

Why not support both-it is good for simming and one really can have both on their hard drive.

You aren't allowed to do that! What are you thinking?? :(

Plus, sometimes the sloped runways makes it fairly impossible to takeoff. One example is the Rejkyavik Airport in Iceland, where the actual terrain difference is so high, that when the sloped runway function is turned on in X-Plane, the runway's terrain diff is too high to take off with.X-Plane sloped runways is a really nice feature, but it also has to be tied to a really accurate mesh for it to work. A sloped runway at 38m mesh is a lot different then that of a 1m or better mesh resolution.

I tried X-Plane latest version. It's amazing that the whole thing is basically done by one guy, Austin.There are some things about X-Plane that I really like, but, generally, it's still years behind FSX in the scenery and aircraft department.

I tried X-Plane latest version. It's amazing that the whole thing is basically done by one guy, Austin.There are some things about X-Plane that I really like, but, generally, it's still years behind FSX in the scenery and aircraft department.

The aircraft department seems to be slowly catching up but the scenery department is definately behind.Since Rex just came out this week, a gex/utx and ulitimate traffic II would do wonders...I agree though-though there is much I like in xplane and try to like-it is still definately behind...

I used to design planes for MSFS and x-plane years ago but everytime Austin states that the new version would 'leapfrog' MSFS, MS sims advanced even more. That's for sure of course related to the manpower available as well.X-plane has some very realistic features but in the end you are not sitting in a real plane in either sim.So what counts very much for me is the immersion and that's where only FSX outclasses X-plane by a great amount.E.g. looking out of the window in FSX when using sceneries like Switzerland X or PNW, is simply breathtaking realistic. Although I'm not using AI traffic in FSX, X-plane still feels rather sterile.That's also one of the main improvements from FSX over FS9, (and e.g. the simulation of turbulence as well).For me FSX just feels and looks much closer to being there IRL, especially on short final or after take off, where the crisp scenery textures and sometimes superbly realistic runway textures are highly visible and important.For designers X-plane has another serious problem and nothing has changed over the years: If you design a plane you can be sure that Austin introduces 'new' features or 'corrects' things with almost every version which for sure screws up your fine tuned plane. Either only the fuel flow, or the whole turbine simulation etc...

If you design a plane you can be sure that Austin introduces 'new' features or 'corrects' things with almost every version which for sure screws up your fine tuned plane. Either only the fuel flow, or the whole turbine simulation etc...

That's the big scare for a lot of developers. It basically makes doing "boxed" versions all but impossible. Downloadable software you can still issue updates, though, but playing catch up can be a pain.

GOefa,

I also chose fsx right now.However..Realism is in the eye of the beholder.Fact of the matter is there are a lot of things in xplane that are more real than fsx and there are a lot of things in fsx that are more real than xplane.Xplane doesn't just simply "suck". It just models different things. Why not support both-it is good for simming and one really can have both on their hard drive. It's good for flight simulation to do so imho-especially if we want things to get better in the future-or to even have a future.

Geofa, FSX until now is still a more advanced simulation when compared to X-Plane. The realism settings of the airliners were just terrible, not only within the depth and realism of both the exterior models, but also counting up to the flight dynamics and high-fidelity systems, they do not make you feel like you are in the real thing. Besides, my computer isn't strong enough to run both sims on one PC. Only FS9 would work, along with FSX when my father finishes the whole reinstallation of the computer. X-Plane feels a little too heavy for my PC. Additionally, if you think that I have FSX on my ULCPC, then you're WRONG. I only use it whenever I look for add-ons and for posting in the forums, that's all.

GOefa,Geofa, FSX until now is still a more advanced simulation when compared to X-Plane. The realism settings of the airliners were just terrible, not only within the depth and realism of both the exterior models, but also counting up to the flight dynamics and high-fidelity systems, they do not make you feel like you are in the real thing. Besides, my computer isn't strong enough to run both sims on one PC. Only FS9 would work, along with FSX when my father finishes the whole reinstallation of the computer. X-Plane feels a little too heavy for my PC. Additionally, if you think that I have FSX on my ULCPC, then you're WRONG. I only use it whenever I look for add-ons and for posting in the forums, that's all.

Again not everyone that simulates is into airliners and exterior models. Realism is relative.If you can run fsx on your computer you certainly can run xplane. Xplane runs equally well for the very reasons you mention-it models other things. If you are into wing flex and exterior models there is no doubt that fsx is a better platform.If you are into systems failures, icing, instrument approaches, being able to skirt bad weather by using onboard weather prevention-xplane might be better.But one thing is for sure certain-if you have the power to run fsx on your computer you certainly have the power to run xplane.As I mentioned before-I still prefer fsx...but there are some things that fsx can't do that xplane does and for those I prefer xplane.Why not have them both-it really isn't a contest? :(

But one thing is for sure certain-if you have the power to run fsx on your computer you certainly have the power to run xplane.

The only reason a system wouldn't be able to do both is systems with limited disk space, which today should be few and far between, but I guess it's still possible if there's is filled up with other programs.

I've just decided to stop using FSX and FS2004. After using both of these excellent simulators, as well as X-Plane (on and off) for many years, I think its time to for me to make a switch. As of today, I'm going to throw my support behind X-Plane and start using it instead. I'm not asking for anyone to agree with me, nor am I asking for support (I'll head over the the X-Plane forum for that), I just wanted to share a few thoughts about what led me to make this decision:First and foremost. Microsoft (MS) fatigue. The day that MS dropped the Aces franchise was a turning point for me and my view of MS was radically changed forever. Was I surprised? Yes, but I shouldn't have been. MS has a long history of starting projects and either leaving them half baked or dropping them entirely. I've always loved the MS Flight Sims and purchased every single one since FS98. Now, Other than Windows 7 which I really like and enjoy using (mostly because I have too for iTunes/iPhone support) I try to remain as MS free as possible. Also, I'm really tired of the MS activation hassles. Secondly, I'm tired of the FSX/FS2004 hassles too. I just had to do a complete reformat of my system and I'm not just no going to spend countless hours getting the MS Sims up and running again. (Gee I wonder how many activations I have left on my FSX disk?) Am I going to have to make another call to India to get FSX Activated again? I don't think so...Thirdly, I love the simplicity of the one folder X-Plane install/uninstall process. Lastly, I'm fully aware that FSX/FS2004 are the big gorillas in the flight simulation world and that X-Plane still looks a little rough in comparison. However, the X-plane franchise is definitely alive and well with support that I think I can depend on, at least for now. To me it seems like X-Plane is my best option for the near future.Thanks for listening.

Interesting. I'm not experiencing anything of what you have described as downsides to MS FSX. The solution for me for coping with complex installations is to make clones of my OS and FSX disks, since these are so cheap to do nowadays what with the low cost of drives. I haven't had to do a complete reinstall since using this tact. What's more, I have only had to use a cloned disk once in many years. And performance now, with FPS_Limiter and Bejote's tweaks, has been nothing short of perfection (within the confines of the total horsepower of my rig of course). With the incredible sceneries coming out of ORBX, and other features used daily such as FSPassengersX, REX2, etc I can't imagine a reason to jump ship, unless just to try something new, which is a good reason for sure. I've thought about buying an iMac for that reason, just to check out something different. I have installed each demo copy of X-Plane available over the years and have found it too one-dimensional to consider, and that was before ORBX and performance nirvana. All that said, it's nice to have choices.Noel

Tried XPlane twice....and wanted to love it. But alas, no. I flew back to FSX faster the 2nd time than the 1st. FSX gets more mature just about every day with the wonderful addons of scenery, weather, and planes. It's just a very friendly program if you have adequate hardware to experience it. FSX rules!Stan

Uhm why not install them both? there no rule that says 1 sim per PC.I have both on one of my PCs and they co-exist just fine together.

LOL!! I agree whole heartedly - on one partition I have installed (along with a multitude of other stuff):1. Combat Flight Simulator 2 (yep, you better believe it - still great fun to dip into once in a while)2. Falcon 4.0 Allied Force3. FS9 + numerous great addons4. FSX + many addons (growing by the day, well, perhaps more accurately, by the month)5. Lock On6. Real Flight G37. X-Plane 9.50rc3 + a growing number of addons including the recently released REXPlaneAnd, what do you know, they all run great! Even FSX, although I do have to admit there are a few issues and restrictions dictated, in the main, by my somewhat dated hardware. But hey, FSX isn't the only kid on the block and, as far as I am concerned, certainly doesn't justify any major changes or updates yet awhile.I'm still on XP Home 32bit, use PerfectDisk (currently version 11) and SpinRite to keep my HDs purring along efficiently and reliably and all is right with the world :)So please don't despair all you guys who constantly agonize over FSX. There is no reason at all why it shouldn't coexist with lots of other stuff and still run well. Looking after your operating system and regular maintenance is the key. I know, and I've never had to reinstall any of the above sims or XP since my last build 4 years ago.MikeASRock 939Dual-SATA2 (AM2CPU Board), AMD Athlon 64X2 6400+ (BE,3200MHz,Windsor),Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 Pro, 2GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 PC2-6400 4-4-4-12(2T) (Dual Channel), NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB (DDR3) (Forceware 197.45 WHQL), Samsung SyncMaster 226BW 22" LCD Display Monitor (1680x1050x32), SB Audigy2 ZS Platinum (Drivers version 6.00.0001.1371), Western Digital Caviar SE16 (WDC WD5000AAKS-65YGA0) SATAII, 16MB Cache, 500GB + Hitachi Deskstar (HDP725050GLAT80) UDMA-6 / ATA133, 7MB Cache, 500GB, ASUS DRW-1608P2S Optical Drive, Antec P150 case with NeoHE 650W PSU, CH Products USB Yoke, Pedals and Fighterstick, Creative Gaming Headset HS-900, TrackIR Pro ver. 4.1 (build 37) with TrackClip Pro, Logitech MX1000 Laser Mouse, Windows XP Home Edition (SP3), DirectX 9.0c

X-Plane's virtual cockpit leaves a lot to be desired.