Please promise me it gets better lol?

[Geofa 108]

I've learnt to backup the preferences file to save time in updates/resets. Having only used fsx in depth the last few months, I could say that setting it up and getting it running smoothly is more tedious than a few intuitive box clicks in xplane (and DOS never had that, but you can relive those days playing with your FSX.cfg file) As Goran says, it depends on the person. I find either interface perfectly fine, and I tell ya, I HATE having to keep hiding the menu in fsx. At least Xp is smart enough to auto hide it.

Ok-difference of opinion. Once again after 30 years or so (I didn't buy the early versions but have since the last 20 years)of xplane has been a continual coaster. Hope the next version gets me hooked...and I have never been a MS fan...till fs2002.

[MdMax 233]

Do you know how to make the gpu driver control the AA?

With my operating system, I'm using a program called "nvidia-settings" where you can force AA & AF in the OpenGL options.

[Tierborn 188]

......., I HATE having to keep hiding the menu in fsx. At least Xp is smart enough to auto hide it.

you really hate pressing the alt button to hide .... the world is so different nowadays

[GoranM 3,762]

the world is so different nowadays

You got THAT right.

[turner112 52]

"That's fair enough. But wouldn't you want something that is extremely flexible and customizable so you can set it according to what YOU want or would you want a small handful of preset configurations." Goran, Geofa wasn't saying he didn't want flexibility - he was saying that the interface - and I'm putting words in his mouth here - is archaic. Flexibility and elegance are not mutually exclusive.* I fully agree with him. While this is just opinion, there is is something to be said for human interface guidelines. The setup screens in X-Plane are some of the worst interface experiences I've ever encountered, and this is a pretty popular opinion. Simply put, it should look and work better. Another point: I love the smooth gauge animations - and the clear out-the-window visuals - but IMO the flight model is a little too smart for itself. I can tell you that I'm a fan of what Austin is doing - but I have not found an aircraft/settings that feel more --realistic-- than FSX. Smoother, more fluid? Sure. But the default 172 topples over (I know, I should try add-ons) and frankly, the aircraft seem to shimmy around constantly and unrealistically. (Are there any weather add-ons that can fix this?) I also have a much harder time trimming successfully in XP. Whether the "flight model" is better in either one is simply academic and is not relative in any way if it doesn't translate to what one experiences in the real world. I also am NOT a fan of a plane that slides around when it should be sitting still on a runway. Or 57 IKEAs on a 94 mile flight ;) I'll stop the rant there - both XP and FSX have many great things to offer, and the fact that we may be seeing new versions of each soon is only a good thing. Andrew All this said, I still use both. *For example, my wife. BAH-DUMP! Thanks, you've been a great audience.

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

I haven't had a problem with the interface but I agree regarding the flight dynamics on the default aircraft. This simulator is sold partially based on the fact it is "FAA certified" and to quote x-plane.com: "What sets X-Plane apart? "It's blade element theory, of course. By breaking down every surface of the airplane and calculating the forces acting on each piece individually, X-Plane delivers the most realistic flight experience available" I've spent the last week trying to tweak x-plane to work correctly with a Saitek Yoke and CH rudder pedals at our flying school. I'm still finding the handling unrealistic on all the aircraft I've tried. I've even purchased a payware Cessna Mustang to try and tweak using a properly tuned acf file but it's still like flying something in an arcade game. X-Plane has some great features not found in FSX. Sloping runways, "ground effect", good looking default scenery and mesh, authentic night-time textures, quick loading interface etc. Unfortunately I haven't yet found an x-plane aircraft which replicates flight as accurately as such FSX models made by RealAir or PMDG. I'm going to continue to test and tweak in x-plane 9 but so far I'm a little disappointed. Regards Adam PS: I have 800 current hrs instructing PPL students on the PA-28, Cessna 152 and 172. I know it's not much but I'd like to think it gives me some insight into how these aircraft should perform in a simulator.

[turner112 52]

"PS: I have 800 current hrs instructing PPL students on the PA-28, Cessna 152 and 172. I know it's not much but I'd like to think it gives me some insight into how these aircraft should perform in a simulator. " I'm sure you'll find someone who will dispute that... [edit] "authentic night-time textures" - they're pretty good - but what I really miss are the point-lights that used to be in XP. I think they are bringing them back. I wish I could find a really good model of a 161 that flies correctly (FSX or XP)... any suggestions?

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

Andrew am sending you PM.

[AADX 0]

hmm. I'm ~400hr CPL ASEL & Instrument. (150, 172, PA28-200R, PA46, C310.) I think what then should be asked or covered, is what do you think you should feel or see. I think there's a missing variable that's not being qualified. I want to suggest that it's x-plane weather effects. I want to say that it's x-plane turbulence and strength of wind it gives for weather effects. I know on my side that alone can completely destroy any semblance of believability when it comes to flying anything smaller than heavy_airliners in x-plane. I do all of my x-plane flying on weather set to CAVOK, zero weather or clouds to get undisturbed air. Then for recreation I let real-weather be applied, but I think x-plane weather, wind effects are too ..... have too much authority. I know that almost regardless of the aircraft in x-plane, most all with just a few knots of crosswind will get turned and blown. I've experienced that IRL in giant tail 150 with double digit crosswinds... but not otherwise. In x-plane, it affects all GA size&weight size aircraft. Something to think about to reduce wind speed by half and see what that changes in your impresison. As far as the Mustang goes, I have an unsolicited direct quote from a pilot who flies Mustangs that says "She sure does fly like the real thing." so, there's simulator uses that say one thing, and there's time-in-type pilots that say another. (not discounting your feedback Adam, just saying there is a perception discrepancy to explore) I think, it's two things. x-plane weather effects, and comparing two simulators. I think about it like this, since I only use X-Plane. X-Plane does some things good, and misses in other areas. For what it does well, explore and enjoy that. For what it does poorly, avoid that. X-Plane AI ATC.. I haven't used since I started flight training to see that it was just wrong. X-Plane weather effects.. after burning countless hours cross country in my then 150.. comparing to bouncing around in x-plane... thanks, weather-off (wind & turbulence at least, which was when they were separate from clouds. currently, clouds present = turbulence). So to me, there is knowing what is right. knowing that data is correct and verifiable. a # that can be pointed out and directly referenced. and then there is variable. which makes x-plane the variable. chips fall where they may sort of thing. so, lets see. how better can you describe what you think is non realistic. I may suggest you edit any particular plane in plane-maker and reduce control deflections by half. (planemaker, standard menu, control geometry). that will change things so that your real yoke movement amount might match real control surface deflection amount at that same control movement ratio. but then maximum deflections are unavailable which would be noticed at slow flight and landing where large deflections are needed. some people use phase-out by speed to emulate that effect. I think that effect makes controls feel sluggish at increasing speed when in reality they get very taut and more sensitive and effective at higher airspeed. p.s. Adam, thank you for engaging in this discussion with me, I put some additional things on your account at my site so that we can talk about the same aircraft for common reference.

[SQUAWKIDENT 3]

Hi there, I'd certainly agree with you regarding the weather engine. I've turned that off now as all it does is introduce some rather unrealistic unstability which presumably is an attempt to replicate turbulence. This seems to happen whenever the weather is anything other than CAVOK as you say. I REALLY want to like x-plane. I would love to use it for our students. FSX is just too clunky and unrealistic in too many respects. I'm hoping x-plane will address some of those issues eventually. I've sent you a PM AADX. Cheers Adam

[GoranM 3,762]

There'll always be opinions about x planes interface. All I'll say is it's different.As for the flight modelling, that's been argued to death. Feel free to peruse the other threads.

[GoranM 3,762]

I also am NOT a fan of a plane that slides around when it should be sitting still on a runway. Or 57 IKEAs on a 94 mile flight ;)

Have you heard of OSM2XP?http://osm2xp.com/

[cvearl 60]

.........To be honest, you are the first person I have ever seen that has complained about assigning views to the Hat Switch in x plane.By no means am I meaning to sound insulting, but it took me literally 30 seconds to set up my hat switch for the various views and no more than 2 minutes to set everything else up that I need.There are many default, out of the box settings already implemented. Views included. They're just different to FSX and you probably haven't found them yet. In that instance, there isn't much to do at all to get x plane working properly. If you want help, I'll be more than happy to point you in the direction of the various shortcuts.

Make that second. I hated that. Make that Third. A guy I helped afterward on his said the same thing. It's a tedious task to assign views to the HAT.C.

[cvearl 60]

I have alot of FSX hours. A few dozen Xplane9 hours and 10 hours in a few real planes as I am just starting my Aviation journey.These sims depend greatly on aircraft model. Visually and through behaviour. There is so much garbage for FSX that FSX can be blamed for alot of things that are not it's fault. Same can probably be said of Xplane. Heck same can be said of Windows 7. You install crap you find laying around the internet and Windows 7 is junk soon. I digress. FSX is, like Xplane, a "platform" from which to make a sim. It is only as good as what you add to it. Period. Just like Xplane. This is where they start to part ways. There is more for FSX (but this looks to be changing).Out of the Box is no longer a comparison. You have to add products to it to make it what you want it to be. Regarding plane models, PMDG, Real Air, A2A, Flight1 and some recent Carenado offerings are well made planes that fly by the numbers for FSX and will transform it into a new sim. Add to that REX for sky, cloud, water and runway tectures, ORBX scenery to get the world right-ish, EZdock and TrackIR to get your viewpoint where it needs to be and it is a completely different sim.With all that is currently available for it, it is currently the better product for all accounts but I look forward to trying xPlane 10 and Flight.Charles.

[Geofa 108]

I haven't had a problem with the interface but I agree regarding the flight dynamics on the default aircraft. This simulator is sold partially based on the fact it is "FAA certified" and to quote x-plane.com:"What sets X-Plane apart? "It's blade element theory, of course. By breaking down every surface of the airplane and calculating the forces acting on each piece individually, X-Plane delivers the most realistic flight experience available"I've spent the last week trying to tweak x-plane to work correctly with a Saitek Yoke and CH rudder pedals at our flying school. I'm still finding the handling unrealistic on all the aircraft I've tried. I've even purchased a payware Cessna Mustang to try and tweak using a properly tuned acf file but it's still like flying something in an arcade game.X-Plane has some great features not found in FSX. Sloping runways, "ground effect", good looking default scenery and mesh, authentic night-time textures, quick loading interface etc. Unfortunately I haven't yet found an x-plane aircraft which replicates flight as accurately as such FSX models made by RealAir or PMDG.I'm going to continue to test and tweak in x-plane 9 but so far I'm a little disappointed.RegardsAdamPS: I have 800 current hrs instructing PPL students on the PA-28, Cessna 152 and 172. I know it's not much but I'd like to think it gives me some insight into how these aircraft should perform in a simulator.

I have always felt the same until a few days ago when I purchased the Carenado F33 (I have 600 hours in one). This is the first plane in xplane that for me "feels" (and looks-real looking instruments etc.) like the real deal in takeoff, landings, and cruise "feel" -much more realistic than anything I've tried in fsx. With that said-the numbers are off-expected power settings, configurations produce wrong airspeeds and I even get 27" of manifold at 10,000 ft. So for the vfr experience this aircraft is great-for the ifr not so.Also-I find roll still isn't quite right. In anycase this aircraft has me using xplane again...