From an engineering point of view, XP is much more powerful than FS. FS on the other hand can deliver a betterresult with "average" designer skills in my opinion.

People such as I, see through "average" attempts on the first simulated flight. We usually know, through years of experience..........as to who is going to produce a worthwhile model (in regards to MSFS). That's why I'll download a product, either freeware or payware, and think "hmmm", never to use it again. And then I'll stick with a few great products for years. I'm picky.................but they don't have to "spin"....:)L.Adamsonedit: And the same goes for X-Plane, although I might yet not know of some of the best authors, besides the few I'm familiar with. But I've downloaded quite a number of X-Planes, only to think "yuk". This proves that an X-Plane built in an hour, just doesn't cut it...

X-Plane and MSFS have the same potential for FDM, it's a case of what you put in to the FDM and the design of the aircraft that determines if it handles properly or not. Garbage In Garbage Out. X-Plane has some issues with the FDM, however the default aircraft should NEVER be compared. MSFS has at least FS04 ports of aircraft, X-Plane is using stuff still from version 7 (and possibly 6) that winds up messing everything up when you consider how much Austin changes the FDM over time. Admittedly it gets stable with the FDM after the first few builds, and usually you only need minor tweaks to get the same handling over time (and if something gets screwed up, they want to know so they can fix it on their end). In reality however, any developer who complains about having to re-do an aircraft from version 9 for version 10 needs a reality check. Why should I buy a payware which is a port of a payware for an older version. And really, unless you are messing with betas, you should be fairly stable over time, it's only when you get in to beta do things get chaotic.Overall however, neither sim has a better FDM, each is equally able to give GIGO. It's just a case of MSFS has a more mature add-on market with more professionals and experience in that market.X-Plane and MSFS have equal amounts of problems, it's just a case of which one is more frequent with changes and which one has more experience behind it. I'm looking forward to 10 to see what changes, however I don't feel it's wise to compare the sims. I made that mistake before, and I got ripped to shreds for it. You can't compare the two sims, while they are both flight sims, they approach things in a way so different that you can't compare one against the other. It's like comparing a Macintosh apple to a Fiji apple. Their both apples, however they are different types of apple.

In reality however, any developer who complains about having to re-do an aircraft from version 9 for version 10 needs a reality check. Why should I buy a payware which is a port of a payware for an older version. And really, unless you are messing with betas, you should be fairly stable over time, it's only when you get in to beta do things get chaotic.

It's not going from X-Plane 9 to X-Plane 10, that had developers nervous about producing for X-Plane, it going from X-Plane 9.0 to 9.1 to 9.2 to 9.3... Within only a couple of months of each other. If X-Plane 10 follows the same pattern, it will still be difficult to get the the better FS developers to support it. Austin needs to put out a stable release, that will hopefully only need 1 and at most 2 service packs spaced far enough apart that won't spook these developers, if X-Plane is going to get the 3rd party support it really needs!

XP's flightmodel is MUCH more stable now than it used to be!I can't remember any significant FM fixes since early v9.Simply because most issues have been addressed and there areno "biggies" left. This has been a necessary process and I applaud Austin for having the balls to keep improving the FM and not think short term profit.He's an engineer and thinks like one. He takes it personal if we can document an errorin his FM and will therefore fix it.M

It's not going from X-Plane 9 to X-Plane 10, that had developers nervous about producing for X-Plane, it going from X-Plane 9.0 to 9.1 to 9.2 to 9.3... Within only a couple of months of each other. If X-Plane 10 follows the same pattern, it will still be difficult to get the the better FS developers to support it. Austin needs to put out a stable release, that will hopefully only need 1 and at most 2 service packs spaced far enough apart that won't spook these developers, if X-Plane is going to get the 3rd party support it really needs!

I was referring to that specific case. I talked about the incremental patches earlier in that post when I was talking about stability of the FDM. X-Plane generally isn't getting that major of changes to the FDM without a major version change. Other than adding new functionality, and things like that, there may be the occasional massive upgrade to the FDM, but that's rare. You may see some minor tweaks, but if you design your aircraft properly you shouldn't see much of a change, and it would normally be for the better. You can even e-mail Austin if something needs to be implemented/changed/fixed, I'm sure if a major development house asked for it, it would get priority.

XP's flightmodel is MUCH more stable now than it used to be!I can't remember any significant FM fixes since early v9.Simply because most issues have been addressed and there areno "biggies" left. This has been a necessary process and I applaud Austin for having the balls to keep improving the FM and not think short term profit.He's an engineer and thinks like one. He takes it personal if we can document an errorin his FM and will therefore fix it.M

He is an engineer, and yes, he does solve practical problems. Props to anyone who knows what I just made a reference to.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Report_SimulatorTrainingFlawed_203211-1.htmlInteresting article.Airline simulators use Lookup Tables, no?Goran

Interesting article.

+1You can find the NTSB report here: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2010/AAR1004.htm

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Report_SimulatorTrainingFlawed_203211-1.htmlInteresting article.Airline simulators use Lookup Tables, no?Goran

Since you will never loop or roll or spin the big airliner sims, lookup tables will work fine for the most part.

Since you will never loop or roll or spin the big airliner sims, lookup tables will work fine for the most part.

Yup except the lookup tables are populated using sophisticated sensors on the actual plane.. FS doesn't do that I'm afraid. In fact you can for the most part just make it up and no ones the wiser.

Airline simulators use Lookup Tables, no?

Are you implying that a simulator using blade element theory would not be capable of exhibiting similar deficiencies? Because that's not true.

look up tables are't just for airline simulators my friends... They're used anytime you want to speed up the processing of a 2nd order differential equation. Even if I wanted to draw multiple circles, I would make a look up table because solving for SIN(X) everytime Is going to be very slow indeed! You do a few reflections and get 4x effeciency as well. How many data points does it take to draw a proper circle?, roughly 1000. What surprises me is none of you seem to understand the fact that even x-plane populates lookup tables. What surprises me even more is some users believe the same flight model from 1998 can compete against today's X-plane.

Are you implying that a simulator using blade element theory would not be capable of exhibiting similar deficiencies? Because that's not true.

Hi Mountain Man (don't know your real name as you didn't sign your post.)Can you explain why you don't think it's true. Depends what you mean by "similar deficiencies". The wind and weather in x plane is very different to the wind and weather in MSFS. There was even a comparison done in PC Pilot saying X Planes weather system was far more realistic. The report basically says airline simulators cannot simulate crosswinds properly. Airline simulators use lookup tables. No one here is saying X Plane is a flawless simulator. What most of us are saying is the CORE FLIGHT MODEL, the sims flight engine, is more realistic than MSFS. What we have to work with, as developers, is more realistic. X Plane is based on physics. MSFS is based on lookup tables. Goran

What most of us are saying is the CORE FLIGHT MODEL, the sims flight engine, is more realistic than MSFS.

Which is a misconception. Each program simply uses different means to reach the same end, and each is capable of achieving the same results.That said, I'm seriously considering purchasing X-Plane simply because it supports Linux, which I think is its primary (and arguably only) advantage over Microsoft's offering. The only thing holding me back is that there's no built-in flight planner, and the AI traffic and tower interaction is not as well developed as FSX. Maybe I'll wait and see what improvements X-Plane 10 brings to the table.

Which is a misconception. Each program simply uses different means to reach the same end, and each is capable of achieving the same results.

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.

which I think is its primary (and arguably only) advantage over Microsoft's offering.

Based on what observations? You cannot make an honest assessment of x plane by flying a few default aircraft for 10 minutes at a time or listening to other people who are biased towards FSX in the first place and haven't even flown x plane.

The only thing holding me back is that there's no built-in flight planner, and the AI traffic and tower interaction is not as well developed as FSX. Maybe I'll wait and see what improvements X-Plane 10 brings to the table.

FSBuild is compatible with x plane. ATC is definitely not like FSX or FS9. These have been addressed and will be avilable in XP10.Look forward to seeing you in the X Plane world.Goran

That said, I'm seriously considering purchasing X-Plane simply because it supports Linux, which I think is its primary (and arguably only) advantage over Microsoft's offering.

I'm running X-Plane on Linux and it's great. :(

The only thing holding me back is that there's no built-in flight planner, and the AI traffic and tower interaction is not as well developed as FSX.

As Goran said, FSBuild may be a solution for Windows (I did not test this on Wine), but I'm using GoodWay as a flight planner. For traffic and ATC I'm using IVAO.But if you want AI traffic and AI ATC, you'll have to wait for a future X-Plane version.Happy flying !