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

This is the problem I have with X-Plane. We keep hearing all about it's superior flight modeling, but when asked for examples few models exhibiting realistic flight models currently exist, and then only GA models. Hopefully models like yours will fill this void. Besides the FM issue, the other problems like the visibility issue, Lack of ATC or reasonable AI just leaves me cold. Also scenery detail at high altitude is terrible. These are all things that are said to be addressed in X-Plane 10, so hopefully then I'll get a better feeling for X-Plane.This is at 37000 feet

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!!

Uhmm if you do the math you'll find out pretty much that what you did is impossible in real life regardless of which sim you use to prove your point. Bottom line those wings will snap off way before you even reach 90 degrees at which point the g load can be up to 18x what it is at straight and level. That's why it's never been attempted nor will it... but somehow you say FSX is better at it? At what exactly? Modelling something neither sim does?

Who's doing your math.

This guy: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=47073&view=findpost&p=526510He's one of the X-Plane developers and had this to say about the current pricing: "That low price point has been difficult; mobile sales currently fund desktop development; desktop development doesn't pay for itself at that price point. . . I want to calibrate expectations; X-Plane 10 will be at a higher price point than version 9. Selling the full sim for $30 was (I hope) a one time thing."$100 for X-Plane 10 was speculation from other people in the thread, but I can't say it's out of the realm of possibility.

If you or anyone else chooses to believe FSX is the "better" simulator...

It's not about which is "better". My point from the beginning is that neither one is inherently better; rather, they're different but equal. You can create a plane that flies great in X-Plane just as easily as one that flies lousy. Same with FSX. Each simulator simply uses a different means to reach the same end which is a computer simulated airplane that flies approximately like the real thing.

This guy: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=47073&view=findpost&p=526510He's one of the X-Plane developers and had this to say about the current pricing: "That low price point has been difficult; mobile sales currently fund desktop development; desktop development doesn't pay for itself at that price point. . . I want to calibrate expectations; X-Plane 10 will be at a higher price point than version 9. Selling the full sim for $30 was (I hope) a one time thing."$100 for X-Plane 10 was speculation from other people in the thread, but I can't say it's out of the realm of possibility.

You said 'they're basically losing money on each sale'. Thats not what they are sayinghere. They say "desktop development doesn't pay for itself at that price point". So that means X-Plane 10. Most of the current improvements in X-Plane 9 Desktop are either bug fixes or features they made for other code releases (the iPhone versions & the professional versions). So ther isnn't any development for X-Plane 9 anymore. X-Plane 9 sold at $ 29,- will still make them around $20,- profit. Without Microsoft competing in the serious sim market (the jury is still out on how serious and how soon Microsoft Flight wil be) Laminar is free to charge at least $80,- maybe even more. It all depends on the out of the box features. We can be sure that the scenery is much beter then in X-Plane 9. One look at the data in Open Street map will show you how accurate the new water, roads, forrests en generic towns & city's will be. (maybe a bit less accurate then OSM as in some area's they now have to much data per tile so they will have to choose how much they use) Now for me personally global scenery thats close to Ground Environment X details is easily worth $ 80,-. That $ 80,- also funds further development of the X-Plan code to include even more features.I payed around 80 Euro for my X-Plane 9. So around 80 Euro's sounds like the right price for X-Plane 10.

Uhmm if you do the math you'll find out pretty much that what you did is impossible in real life regardless of which sim you use to prove your point. Bottom line those wings will snap off way before you even reach 90 degrees at which point the g load can be up to 18x what it is at straight and level. That's why it's never been attempted nor will it... but somehow you say FSX is better at it? At what exactly? Modelling something neither sim does?

No I said FSX couldn't do it, but X-Plane could. That was what I was questioning. That was with overstress options on. So obviously that is not modeled well in either sim. Even if over stress wasn't an issue, at 5000 feet airspeed would have bled off into an unrecoverable stall. Something the FSX model did, but not X-Plane. These aren't light aerobatic planes or fighter jets.

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.

For starters, quite a number of the ACES team were pilots. Many of 3rd party developers for MSFS are pilots. This isn't a case of just a bunch of gamers doing their thing. MSFS went all out..........to involve 3rd party programmers and pilots for beta testing, which would last for months. I know, because I was in the beta testing process, as well as testing for several third parties. Therefor, let's do away with the notations of "game", when it comes to attempts to make a point. This ticks me off too.When it comes to X-Plane, I could care less if it was invented by a pilot/engineer. It's the final results that count. Much of the hype for X-Plane revolves around Austin's desire for a better flight sim..........16 years ago, or so. MSFS has also changed drastically since that time...........yet X-Plane still uses it in it's ad campaigns, as if it was yesterday. Until a few years ago, an X-Plane couldn't even go inverted without severe problems. Since that time, X-Plane has changed it's flight dynamic formulas. The same applies to MSFS, and especially what 3rd parties have come up with. L.Adamson

Why do you continue to argue the point?Look at the theme of the thread. It's an x plane bashing thread in an x plane forum.What would happen if I go to Airsimmers forum and start bashing their Airbus?I can say with unfathomable certainty, I will be banned.The overwhelming majority couldn't give a rip if a person loves FSX. But it's obvious that FSX simmers do give a rip if we like x plane. Let us enjoy it. There is an easy solution. Don't like it? Don't use it. Crisis over.

Why do you continue to argue the point?Look at the theme of the thread. It's an x plane bashing thread in an x plane forum.What would happen if I go to Airsimmers forum and start bashing their Airbus?I can say with unfathomable certainty, I will be banned.The overwhelming majority couldn't give a rip if a person loves FSX. But it's obvious that FSX simmers do give a rip if we like x plane. Let us enjoy it. There is an easy solution. Don't like it? Don't use it. Crisis over.

I have been following this thread since the beginning and I don't see any bashing, just a spirited discussion. I use both FSX and X-plane(being as they are differently flawed), and enjoy both, but I am always intersted in comparing and contrasting the two, just so I know where to go go for the most high fidelity simming."But it's obvious that FSX simmers do give a rip if we like x plane." BTW this statement is a broad and innacurate generalization.

"But it's obvious that FSX simmers do give a rip if we like x plane." BTW this statement is a broad and innacurate generalization.

So is what most people say about x plane.

Why do you continue to argue the point?Look at the theme of the thread. It's an x plane bashing thread in an x plane forum.What would happen if I go to Airsimmers forum and start bashing their Airbus?I can say with unfathomable certainty, I will be banned.The overwhelming majority couldn't give a rip if a person loves FSX. But it's obvious that FSX simmers do give a rip if we like x plane. Let us enjoy it. There is an easy solution. Don't like it? Don't use it. Crisis over.

Well maybe it was this post with a link to another of Austin's rants that started it! This is something that really Gnaws at people when a developer (Especially of a base platform) feels free to bash it's competition, especially when there is so little evidence by what's available in their product to back it up. Have you ever read articles, blogs, posts from anyone at Aces, including Phil Taylor criticizing X-Plane publicly for any of it's faults? "Yes, it's better to test it yourself, but you can also read 2 pages here about this:"http://forums.x-plan...showtopic=41398

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.

Hehe.. well first of all just the idea of comparing airliners way outside the envelope where hardly anyone knows exactly what happens is pretty pointless.But lets talk a bit about that just for fun :PFrom an Aerodynamic point of view there is nothing in theory that prevents a 737 from doing a roll.On the contrary - a 737 can achieve very high rollrates!However, from a Structural Engineering point of view a roll would probably end in exceeding the 2,5G-limit.Another issue is offcourse that the engines are not designed to run inverted so they might stop.So rolling an airliner is not a great idea neither in real or in the sim.Both sims are capable of producing good results if the designer knows what he is doing.To illustrate this,lets have a look at your video;Anyone see a MAJOR designer mistake?The B737 has phaseout on the rudder and rudder deflection on the pic here should be about 4 deg - not 30 or whatever.So this proves the designer here obviously had little knowledge about the 737 he was making and the only reasonhe gets away with it is because he is using a lookup table on the rudder behaviour!In XP on the other hand the designer will NOT get away with a mistake like this...This in a simple way illustrates the basic difference of the two sims. Which is better dependssolely on the designer.M

You said 'they're basically losing money on each sale'.

Because they basically are.

Look at the theme of the thread. It's an x plane bashing thread in an x plane forum.

Dude, nobody's bashing X-Plane. It's a good sim. It's just not necessarily the best. It does some things better than FSX, and it does some things worse. Pointing out that simple fact does not constitute "bashing".

Shall I quote a few people.Bernt Stolle, perhaps. Maybe I should quote his PM's to me. And his thoughts on X Plane. I can tell you, he didn't say what you are saying. That, I can assure you of. He even chose to hide under the username of SG38, thinking he wouldn't be found out.Don't kid yourself, "Mountain Man". There is bashing going on, and plenty of it. Maybe not by you, but definitely by others.Goran

Wait I am confused, if he said negative things about X-plane in a PM, then he's not bashing X-plane in this thread.