But your theory is flawed in 1 respect. You can model a box in FSX and make it fly as close to a Cessna or Boeing as possible. Make the same box in X Plane and it simply won't fly because it lacks the physics and aerodynamic qualities an aircraft has for sustained flight.

You're right that the in-game model in FSX has no relation to the flight model, but that's irrelevant if your goal is to realistically model the flight dynamics of a Cessna. In other words, look-up tables are capable of approximating real-world flight dynamics just as well as blade element theory. And, yes, X-Plane's flight modeling is also just an approximation. Think about it: a home computer is simply not capable of calculating in real-time the millions of variables that affect an airplane, meaning that if X-Plane is to be playable in any sense, the calculations have to be vastly simplified.

ATC is definitely not like FSX or FS9. These have been addressed and will be avilable in XP10.

Hmmm... then I think I'll keep my eye out for XP10 since I really like interaction with the tower in FSX. Word is that they're aiming for a before-Christmas release, so we don't have that much longer to wait.But then I wonder, do they usually offer an upgrade discount for people with a previous version?

You're right that the in-game model in FSX has no relation to the flight model, but that's irrelevant if your goal is to realistically model the flight dynamics of a Cessna. In other words, look-up tables are capable of approximating real-world flight dynamics just as well as blade element theory. And, yes, X-Plane's flight modeling is also just an approximation. Think about it: a home computer is simply not capable of calculating in real-time the millions of variables that affect an airplane, meaning that if X-Plane is to be playable in any sense, the calculations have to be vastly simplified.

This has been discussed to death. Best to just leave this argument alone. My theories are based on actual experience with BOTH sims. And extensive experience. Most, dare I say all FSX users who have dabbled in x plane haven't researched it enough to form a valid assessment on which sim is better for flight simulation.

Hmmm... then I think I'll keep my eye out for XP10 since I really like interaction with the tower in FSX. Word is that they're aiming for a before-Christmas release, so we don't have that much longer to wait.But then I wonder, do they usually offer an upgrade discount for people with a previous version?

I'll answer that question in a different way. Would you expect a discount if you had FS9 and wanted to upgrade to FSX?

I'll answer that question in a different way. Would you expect a discount if you had FS9 and wanted to upgrade to FSX?

I guess that's a no then, but it's not unheard for a company to give upgrade discounts for existing customers.Edit: I've been doing a bit of reading, and it seems that X-Plane 10 is going to cost significantly more than X-Plane 9 (some speculate as much as $100). Apparently the current $29 price point was arrived at for the purposes of keeping retail distribution after the "death" of Microsoft Flight Simulator, and they expect it to be a one-time thing since they're basically losing money on each sale (currently sales of the iPhone version are funding development on the desktop). So if I do jump on the X-Plane bandwagon, it'll be version 9.

I guess that's a no then, but it's not unheard for a company to give upgrade discounts for existing customers.Edit: I've been doing a bit of reading, and it seems that X-Plane 10 is going to cost significantly more than X-Plane 9 (some speculate as much as $100). Apparently the current $29 price point was arrived at for the purposes of keeping retail distribution after the "death" of Microsoft Flight Simulator, and they expect it to be a one-time thing since they're basically losing money on each sale (currently sales of the iPhone version are funding development on the desktop). So if I do jump on the X-Plane bandwagon, it'll be version 9.

Who's doing your math. X-Plane 9 is sold for $29 + post & packaging. It doesn't cost you $29 to produce 8 DVD's. Every sale they get now makes at least $20 profit. The current price is this low because we are nearing the end of the X-Plane 9 development cycle. Of course X-Plane 10 will cost a lot more (mostly because people are willing to pay more for a bigger beter X-Plane).I guess you read somewhere that the iPhone / iPad version makes them more money and that is correct. But I think the fact that they are platform independent (OS-X, Windows, Linux, iPhone/iPad, Palm Pre) and they use one code base for most of it means theyt can simply extend the code with features and use those features on any of the platforms they release on. Its a very efficient use of code & resources.Also bear in mind that X-Plane scenery uses free open data sources so there is no license fee they have to pay for using that.

I guess so. But your theory is flawed in 1 respect. You can model a box in FSX and make it fly as close to a Cessna or Boeing as possible. Make the same box in X Plane and it simply won't fly because it lacks the physics and aerodynamic qualities an aircraft has for sustained flight.Goran

This is also the problem with X-Plane achieving an accurate flight model, because it requires the designer to input complete design specs, not just the weight, dimensions center of Gravity of the entire aircraft, but for each part, wings fuselage, tail etc... To do so would require the designer/modeler to be an aeronautic engineer to do it right, especially for the more complex aircraft. This is why to date there is no accurately modeled airliner in X-Plane. The closest models are all GA models. Provide some examples if I'm wrong, even if it's payware which I'm willing to try, because other then the claims people have made of X-Plane fidelity, except for a few GA models like Tom Kyler's MU-2 (an I believe he has to do some tweaking of the numbers himself), I haven't seen it. As I said in the past, I don't doubt that X-Plane isn't capable of producing high fidelity flight models, but it's not as easy as everyone makes it out to be. Yes you can probably get it to fly that easy, and maybe even fly well but chances are it won't fly accurately by the numbers. There are too many dimensions that the average X-Plane designer doesn't account for. Say what you will about look up tables, but it makes it far easier for an experienced designer to get the aircraft to fly by the numbers. For example I have flown a Mustang through aerobatics and landing and the A2A mustang models this to a tee. takeoff speeds are accurate as well as climb, stall, landing speed, and range. I could even do low speed maneuvering with the rudder right at the buffet before stall, just like the real one. It also models the difference in the flight characteristics of having fuel in the center tank vs no fuel. I haven't seen that on any of the Mustang models I've tested in X-Plane. If you have a suggestion for a good Mustang, I'm more then willing to try, as that is my favorite plane.

Yeah and shall we start a list of things in X-planes physics model in general that are not implemented in FSX. I can think of a number of terms ending in -wash that aren't done in FSX. You guys seems to be overly obsessed with performance figures... sorry but outside of Lift, what does an FSX model actually do?In fact the company A2A doesn't use the FSX model at all, I believe they have their own physics model outside of the SDK/.AIR files. Oh and I think that goes for PMDG as well. So the top guys don't even use FSXs simple model now do they.

I guess so. But your theory is flawed in 1 respect. You can model a box in FSX and make it fly as close to a Cessna or Boeing as possible. Make the same box in X Plane and it simply won't fly because it lacks the physics and aerodynamic qualities an aircraft has for sustained flight.

On the other hand, there is a You Tube video floating around somewhere, in which an X-Plane Cessna 172 is yanking a Boeing 747 around the sky. The 747 isn't even flying. It's just hanging vertical at the bottom of the rope. This is why I don't get all wrapped up in this box & physics thing. It's a fact, that X-Plane incorporates hidden flight surfaces to achieve proper results. And these same hidden surfaces will work for boxes, busses, etc.L.Adamson

Yeah well weight isn't done by the FEM, it's kind of a user input just like it is in FS.

Yeah and shall we start a list of things in X-planes physics model in general that are not implemented in FSX. I can think of a number of terms ending in -wash that aren't done in FSX. You guys seems to be overly obsessed with performance figures... sorry but outside of Lift, what does an FSX model actually do?In fact the company A2A doesn't use the FSX model at all, I believe they have their own physics model outside of the SDK/.AIR files. Oh and I think that goes for PMDG as well. So the top guys don't even use FSXs simple model now do they.

It's an improvement on FSX's basic formula. X-Plane is well known for spitting aircraft out of "Plane maker" that don't come close to replicating a known model. To get it close, the X-Plane/Plane maker model requires some serious tweaking, just as a good FSX/FS9 model does. So what's the difference? Personally, If I hear too much more of the X-Plane superiority crap, I'm going to become totally MSFS pro---- again. At the moment, I use both, as I've yet to find an X-Plane/ MSFS aircraft that takes the place of real flight.L.Adamson

Yeah and shall we start a list of things in X-planes physics model in general that are not implemented in FSX. I can think of a number of terms ending in -wash that aren't done in FSX. You guys seems to be overly obsessed with performance figures... sorry but outside of Lift, what does an FSX model actually do?In fact the company A2A doesn't use the FSX model at all, I believe they have their own physics model outside of the SDK/.AIR files. Oh and I think that goes for PMDG as well. So the top guys don't even use FSXs simple model now do they.

That's the Accusim models, the Mustang they have now is not Accusim. I believe though they are developing one. Even without Accusim, the Mustang is right up there with the RealAir models. I can't wait to fly it with Accusim.

It's an improvement on FSX's basic formula. X-Plane is well known for spitting aircraft out of "Plane maker" that don't come close to replicating a known model. To get it close, the X-Plane/Plane maker model requires some serious tweaking, just as a good FSX/FS9 model does. So what's the difference? Personally, If I hear too much more of the X-Plane superiority crap, I'm going to become totally MSFS pro---- again. At the moment, I use both, as I've yet to find an X-Plane/ MSFS aircraft that takes the place of real flight.L.Adamson

Well lets take another example of spitting out models. The last Aerosoft Airbus X model didn't even ship with a proper/tested flight model, even though it went through a lengthy beta. So if we can expect this kind of laziness from the world's largest FS addon company, what can we say about all the others that are still sticking to the basic formula. With X-plane the problem is immediate no manufacturer in the world uses standardized parts to put together an aircraft. There are the NACA wing types, but outside of small cheap aircraft or even kit planes what are the chances? None. So for me they both are flawed in their own ways. What makes it interesting tho is Austin going around saying his model is better, which I guess fuels the fire and shows he's not willing to change. Anyways as a programmer, I also take issue to the way it's developed. Just sloppy OOP design for the SDK, that would never fly well with a Windows developers and I think that's a big reason as to why you don't see anyone remotely even thinking about changing over. They just don't get it, and why should they when it's contrary to everything the Windows OS does in the first place. Every time I declare a variable I don't like the idea of having to go and register it on a website so no one steps on my code. How dumb can you get when every FSX developer goes out of their way to use the standardized names as much as possible to begin with. Also the lack of framework in any sense of the word just makes it impossible to begin with. Things aren't going to change, unless more MAC users start making aircraft and sharing their code at the same time....which honestly I guess is a smaller market than even FS9.

Well lets take another example of spitting out models. The last Aerosoft Airbus X model didn't even ship with a proper/tested flight model, even though it went through a lengthy beta. So if we can expect this kind of laziness from the world's largest FS addon company, what can we say about all the others that are still sticking to the basic formula. With X-plane the problem is immediate no manufacturer in the world uses standardized parts to put together an aircraft. There are the NACA wing types, but outside of small cheap aircraft or even kit planes what are the chances? None. So for me they both are flawed in their own ways. What makes it interesting tho is Austin going around saying his model is better, which I guess fuels the fire and shows he's not willing to change. Anyways as a programmer, I also take issue to the way it's developed. Just sloppy OOP design for the SDK, that would never fly well with a Windows developers and I think that's a big reason as to why you don't see anyone remotely even thinking about changing over. They just don't get it, and why should they when it's contrary to everything the Windows OS does in the first place. Every time I declare a variable I don't like the idea of having to go and register it on a website so no one steps on my code. How dumb can you get when every FSX developer goes out of their way to use the standardized names as much as possible to begin with. Also the lack of framework in any sense of the word just makes it impossible to begin with. Things aren't going to change, unless more MAC users start making aircraft and sharing their code at the same time....which honestly I guess is a smaller market than even FS9.

Sticking with Airliners, I can give you a list of models in FSX, that have good flight models, PMDG, Level-D, FeelThere, both Embraer, and Airbus Vol 1. Even Captain Sim, while not perfect, fly's much better, then any airliner I've seen in X-Plane. Even the default 737 flight model is pretty good. For example this is a video I did out of frustration at a Youtube post, and wasn't going to post it, but someone asked to see it, so I posted it but didn't make it public. So pardon the sarcastic comments in it. This is a comparison of the FSX default 737 and the X737-800. Can you give me a list in X-Plane?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_x49sbpORgIf you have a suggestion of another more realistic model, (Preferably one with a VC) I'm happy to give it a try.

Huh? Comparison.. could you give me a video of a real 737 doing that, that way I could see the stress/wingflex in real time, and then judge which is better. Hard to do this expirement without a control no? Only Boeing I seen doing that crashed and burned before it reached 60 degree incline.

Huh? Comparison.. could you give me a video of a real 737 doing that, that way I could see the stress/wingflex in real time, and then judge which is better. Hard to do this expirement without a control no? Only Boeing I seen doing that crashed and burned before it reached 60 degree incline.

Do you honestly think a real 737, can perform that maneuver and recover at only 5000ft? I don't think you'll get any real pilots willing to find out!!

Sticking with Airliners, I can give you a list of models in FSX, that have good flight models, PMDG, Level-D, FeelThere, both Embraer, and Airbus Vol 1. Even Captain Sim, while not perfect, fly's much better, then any airliner I've seen in X-Plane. Even the default 737 flight model is pretty good. For example this is a video I did out of frustration at a Youtube post, and wasn't going to post it, but someone asked to see it, so I posted it but didn't make it public. So pardon the sarcastic comments in it. This is a comparison of the FSX default 737 and the X737-800. Can you give me a list in X-Plane?

If you have a suggestion of another more realistic model, (Preferably one with a VC) I'm happy to give it a try.

Tom(I may sound frustrated in this post but I assure you, I am not)I am very curious which version of the 737 you were using in X Plane. Also, the 737 you tested is freeware and there are some settings missing. For example, the radii of gyration is set at default. This can be set manually by the developer for far greater accuracy on all 3 axes. X Plane does enter a value automatically if the developer wishes. However, X Plane can not enter an accurate Radii of gyration for all 3 axes for ALL aircraft that look and perform similar to a 737. So sometimes user input is required as per the flight manuals.On top of all this, it is a little unreasonable to ask for a list of airliners for x plane as there are none with the level of detail that Level D or PMDG have to offer. Why would developers like PMDG come to x plane when they make millions developing for FSX and FS9? Most add ons for x plane are freeware and most of those were finished within days, meaning there is a lot of required detail missing. Hence the snap rolls, barrel rolls, 747 being dragged by a cessna, etc. I even modified the default 747 to give me enough thrust to propel me to Mach 18 going straight up. It's not hard to do and took me all of 20 seconds.In saying all this, there is the aforementioned 737-300 being made for x plane and I am also making a 747-200 and Saab 340 for x plane. I have already made the flight model for the Saab and it has been tested and approved by 2 Saab pilots so far with a 3rd waiting for a more completed version. If you or anyone else chooses to believe FSX is the "better" simulator, then by all means, keep flying it and keep enjoying it. Personally, I prefer a core flight model that relies on physics. Let me throw out a scenario...If we were to take a developer like PMDG against an x plane equivalent of PMDG and let them go at it to make as accurate a model as they can of any aircraft for their respective sim, my personal belief (and I think I speak for many x planers) is that the flight model would be far more accurate in X Plane than it would be in FSX. FSX is a game engine developed by 183 people who were part of Aces Game Development division at Microsoft. X Plane is developed by a pilot/engineer. This is not marketing hype made up by some schmoe. This is all fact and no amount of red faced arguing can change that.Just my $0.02c