>>The aircraft department seems to be slowly catching up<<Ouch, Geoff, are you nuts? There's a reason many "smaller" simulator companies are using X-Plane. Shame on you. You wont find a better software package under $300.00 that closely resembles true flight dynamics. Wow........ Please refrain from misleading folks.Mitch>As I mentioned before-I still prefer fsx...<<And I understand this as you simply fly a single engine airplane in real life.Folks, for realism, not scenery, you wont find a better platform than Xplane. Its not even debatable...Mitch

Ok... enough with the "blah-is-better" flight dynamics statements. They are lies. FSX isn't as bad as X-Plane fans want people to believe and X-Plane isn't as good as they want people to believe either.Both sims have strengths and weaknesses but neither of them is superior to the other in recreating flight dynamics. Neither.Also, if you're going to claim something like 'many "smaller" simulator companies', I certainly hope you're prepared to list them. I personally question the honesty and accuracy of that statement.

>>The aircraft department seems to be slowly catching up<<Ouch, Geoff, are you nuts? There's a reason many "smaller" simulator companies are using X-Plane. Shame on you. You wont find a better software package under $300.00 that closely resembles true flight dynamics. Wow........ Please refrain from misleading folks.Mitch>As I mentioned before-I still prefer fsx...<<And I understand this as you simply fly a single engine airplane in real life.Folks, for realism, not scenery, you wont find a better platform than Xplane. Its not even debatable...Mitch

No I am not nuts Mitch.I was actually refering to the quality of aircraft-virtual cockpits, instrumentation etc. The majority are substandard compared to anything for fsx, and the ones that are touted so far as the best it can do I would put in the mid range of quality for a typical fsx aircraft. Do you own fsx? I ask because I find many xplaner's that make such claims do not.But since you bring up flight dynamics, that is one of the reasons I don't use xplane much. It does a nice back and forth dutch roll that is very believable but past that the feel is wrong, and most often the numbers too. That includes screaching brakes on the takeoff roll when rudder input is used. You are wrong-I fly a twin engine high performance complex in real life. Before that a complex high performance single. 21 years of flying. Time in lots of different aircraft both single and twin. I assume you are implying that I can't possibly know how a plane performs and feels because of that? I will confess total ingnorance on jet aircraft-but singles and twins I think I know pretty well. If xplane did what I fly best, trust me-I'd be using it.... as you mention scenery-that is the second reason I don't use it much. The forests and mountain areas are very nice but when you get in the urban areas like where I live, it looks like a wasteland after a bombing. As I have mentioned -there are other things that xplane does very well, and why I suggest everyone gets a copy to try it out. I also think true flight simmers should support every sim.But these two areas you mention are actually what keeps me away.I am glad "smaller" sim companies are using xplane. There must be a reason the "bigger" sim companies are using fsx (esp).When someone says it is not debatable, one is nuts, and misleading people I think your post speaks for itself.

The X-Plane PR machine pushed the, "better flight dynamics", one too many times. Their last, significant push, was how X-Plane took into account actual airfoil design, and the characteristics of the 3D model itself, inside of its flight-algorithm. While it might be true that the model development software "tried" to process all of that information, when setting up the X-Plane equivelant of the MSFS air/cfg arrangement; But X-Plane (or a desktop computer for that matter) is not sophisticated enough to deal with all of that information, while in flight.Both simulators deal with a realtively simple set of parameters.. whatever number it is that X-Plane comes up with, it's no better, or more accurate than how MSFS handles it.. i.e. wing-effiecency, drag components, etc etc..I have but a fraction of Geofa's real flying experience.. but I am an experienced pilot.. and I've diven pretty deep into model development (my Cardinal, C310, and Bonanza are among the most downloaded freeware, ever).. ungodly amounts of time testing and tweaking flight dynamics. I'll say that neither FSX or X-Plane are better than the other, in any meaningful, flight-dynamics way... but FSX has a personality to its flight model, that just feels more realistic, to me.

Well, someday. In the near future though, both developers will have to be aware of Aerosoft's Flight Simulator 2012. The 747 VC in X-Plane is well below FSX's redention of the jumbo. The future of the MSFS series is still in doubt, yet Microsoft has stated that they remained committed the the franchise, which means that MSFS isn't dead at all. If the next version goes beyond X-Plane's knowledges it'll be hard for XP to challenge them.

I think you are missing the point. 1. Aerosoft's flight simulator that "may" appear in 2012 is hardly a concern for anybody. That entire product is in such early stages I don't think it is even off of the drawing board. If it is released, it too will not be a concern for Laminar Research.2. You can't compare the VC of one aircraft like the 747 and base XP's capabilities on that. To do so would be a huge mistake. The development of VCs in XP has nothing to do with the simulator, but rather the general lack of high-quality payware developers in the sim (there simply are not many). I encourage you to look up videos of the CRJ being developed for XP.3. There is, for all we know, no development team for another FS and no plans for another. Microsoft stating they are, "committed to the franchise", really does not amount to a hill of beans.4. Again, XP development does not revolve around other FS products.You seem to forget how many years XP has been around, and as it stands now, it is really the "only" sim still in development.The entire XP vs FS argument is pointless anyways since competition is good. IMO, somebody who really loves flight simming would support all groups, not just one.

I've tried most simulators. Everyone had their problems at first. The only difference is that, at least with FSX SP2, most issues have been rectified by add-on or freeware sceneries and airplanes.FSX, out of the box, was useless for most. It did not run well on almost every system. As the hardware grew, FSX was patched to SP2, and payware sceneries & aircraft evolved, we now have a platform that really shines. I see Orbx as a great example of what can happen when creativity meets the FSX platform. What you get, is simply the best simulator experience available. There's so much to love about FSX. That's if you have the hardware and software to make it come alive.X-Plane is like a toy to me. It's more for the dreamer and not the "real" pilot. Real pilots love scenery. They love beautiful airplanes. Plus, they love the weather. FSX & REX 2 are a gem together. I'm only just scratching the surface.X-Plane fails to deliver the beauty of flight. Who cares about flight dynamics? This is a sim, not a real airplane. It's all about the visuals and FSX is the platform that most talented developers support.

X-Plane is like a toy to me. It's more for the dreamer and not the "real" pilot. Real pilots love scenery. They love beautiful airplanes. Plus, they love the weather. FSX & REX 2 are a gem together. I'm only just scratching the surface.X-Plane fails to deliver the beauty of flight. Who cares about flight dynamics? This is a sim, not a real airplane. It's all about the visuals and FSX is the platform that most talented developers support.

Didn't you contradict yourself there lol?"XP is not for real pilots, and we don't care about flight dynamics (which xplane has as a strength so people say), and real pilots don't care about FDE's haha"It's just funny to me what you wrote - I still remain an FSX fan though

After reading through the OP's initial post, it seems to me that this thread, along with most other similar X-Plane topics that are strategically placed in FSX only sections here in AVSIM and elsewhere, are just thinly disguised X-plane advertising attempts. Any experienced flight simmer who has advanced computer equipment, sophisticated add-ons, improvements, and adjustments find comparisons between FSX and X-Plane to be ludicrous at best. FSX, so modified, is like what FS-13 or 14 might have been built like out the door, and is light-years ahead of what FSX was when first introduced, as well as today

but for serious simulation flyers, FSX does not have any worthy competition yet.

I prefer silly simmers, regardless if they use FS9, FSX or X-Plane. Anyone with me?

Hi guys! Off topic a bit. I am currently planning to upgrade to FSX from FS2004, and I am not really into this comparison thing, I never used X Plane anyway...What I wanna ask, is it already 100 % sure that the MSFS series will never be continued? I know it is a silly question, but wasn't it worth developing? Wan't it a success for Microsoft, with such a huge user network? I'm just wondering, maybe one day they will continue. On the other hand, as I am a poor guy, I was always a least one, but usually two releases behind the current version, because I could not afford a good PC - and when it was FS2004 time, I used FS2000... When FSX came in, I upgraded to FS2002, and in 2008, to FS2004, but still behind the newest version, but now, that the series is not developed, I will finally reach the current version, which is great, because I am probably getting my new PC this or the next week. Not sure, but very likely, fingers crossed! So FSX is on the horizon for me, and I am very happy! Let's be happy, let's celebrate, sing and dance! Flight simulation ruleZ:-)))Kityatyi

I prefer silly simmers, regardless if they use FS9, FSX or X-Plane. Anyone with me?

HahahaBest Monty Python skit ever. My Dad still does some of the walks when we are in stores at random times. lmao

My of my online flying buddies is very serious about FS to the point of building custom controllers and control panels; he also used to have a PPL with hundreds of hours of flight experience. About 2 years ago he got really excited about X-Plane 9 (but loathed it too for its ATC short-comings) after dismal performance experiences with FSX. Lately I've been sending him screen shots from FSX embellished with the add-ons listed in my sig to let him know what he's missing, now that I've got a rig capable of running FSX. And guess what: he's now looking to get a new computer so that he can enjoy that savory FSX eye-candy too...seems the appeal of X-Plane has lost its luster.As for a future MSFS, I came across this at simforums:http://wherethejobsare.com/2010/04/07/pilo...s19-redmond-wa/Enjoy,

Didn't you contradict yourself there lol?"XP is not for real pilots, and we don't care about flight dynamics (which xplane has as a strength so people say), and real pilots don't care about FDE's haha"It's just funny to me what you wrote - I still remain an FSX fan though

I did not mean to be contradictory.Let me put succinctly,X-PLANE is a one star simulator. FSX + Acceleration has evolved into a 5 star platform that developers and simmers love.I hope I cleared that up.

After reading through the OP's initial post, it seems to me that this thread, along with most other similar X-Plane topics that are strategically placed in FSX only sections here in AVSIM and elsewhere, are just thinly disguised X-plane advertising attempts. Any experienced flight simmer who has advanced computer equipment, sophisticated add-ons, improvements, and adjustments find comparisons between FSX and X-Plane to be ludicrous at best. FSX, so modified, is like what FS-13 or 14 might have been built like out the door, and is light-years ahead of what FSX was when first introduced, as well as today

I use what is the best program around.. And to me, the best PC sim is still FSX.I've pretty much always been that way.. FS9 runs great on the newer machines..But the graphics and VC's just aren't on the same level. X-plane? To me, it has a good ways to go before it can equal, much less surpassFSX. But they have not had the years of development time that MSFS has..It's natural that it's going to be hard to catch up when the other sim has a 15 or whatever year head start. Anyway, if MS never produces any more PC sims, I assume another brandmay surpass it some day. But.. to me it hasn't happened yet.And you really don't have to spend loads of money to have a decent FSX machine. Actually you can do it fairly cheap these days. Of course, if one insists on running nearly every add on under the sun, it's a given that you will need more power and spend more money.To me, FSX is kind of like FS4... I remember running FS4 for quite a long timebefore FS5 came out. Course, in the case of FSX, there may well be no nextMSFS.. Which is think is a danged shame being as I don't recall it ever losing money for MS. I can see dumping a program if it's losing money. But I don't think that was the case with MSFS. I really am not expecting anymore PC versions of MSFS. Hope I'm wrong, but I kinda doubt it..End of an era.. But I'll be running FSX until something better comes along.

How long have you been using X-Plane?As a rather avid FSX user, I find your comments regarding X-Plane nonsensical at best.

Why is it that some members have to take this so personal that they resort to personal attacks. There's nothing absurd about my educated opinion about X-Plane.FSX is the platform of choice for the best devs. As long as developers continue to support FSX, and improve it with quality add-ons, I don't see why "I" would ever replace it.Just my opinion.