SERIOUSLY? So according to you people, why bother to take a car on a 1 hour test drive? Surely you can't tell anything about the car in an hour right? Surely you need to test drive the car for years before you can make a decision about it? Why bother to even release a DEMO - oh, I'm sorry, its no longer a DEMO its now a BETA. Apparently opinions are not valued unless they are in line with yours. So let me restate my uninformed opinon of the DEMO, whoops, BETA to align them with yours:Tried XPLANE, it has great promise, I see nothing wrong, its great. Best thing ever.Feel better now? *sigh*

these guys will become very hostile if you say anything thats not glowing about XP.

I'm sorry sir but Mike is very right about the flight model. I think everything else looks nice but that is most important thing and it's not good at all. I fly a Cessna for training but it's even much stable and easy to control than an x plane aircraft. I bought XP9 last year but could not have a flight with it because of that.

Sir? I don't think anyone calls me "sir" except the checkout chick at my local supermarket. Anyway, it's been mentioned before. The default flight models are default. It's irrational to judge a sim based on its default flight model. Would you compare the default 737 flight model for FSX to the PMDG 737? Of course not. It's the same thing in X Plane. When has someone reviewed the default flight models for FSX? I haven't found ANY.There are COUNTLESS variables in X Plane that determine the flight model. Much more than in FSX. If an author makes the flight model incorrectly, of course it won't fly accurately. X Plane is not THAT automated that you can just say "Put wing here, Fuselage here, panel here" and then let x plane determine everything. It needs a LOT of work.

Sir? I don't think anyone calls me "sir" except the checkout chick at my local supermarket. Anyway, it's been mentioned before. The default flight models are default. It's irrational to judge a sim based on its default flight model. Would you compare the default 737 flight model for FSX to the PMDG 737? Of course not. It's the same thing in X Plane. When has someone reviewed the default flight models for FSX? I haven't found ANY.There are COUNTLESS variables in X Plane that determine the flight model. Much more than in FSX. If an author makes the flight model incorrectly, of course it won't fly accurately. X Plane is not THAT automated that you can just say "Put wing here, Fuselage here, panel here" and then let x plane determine everything. It needs a LOT of work.

Well just trying to be polite there, Sorry. Anyway English is not my first, neither it is my second language... And I don't think your remark has anything to do with the subject here.But in any case what I'm saying should be easy to understand and test. I don't know a lot about flight models but if you take a default fsx 737 and a default xplane 737 and fly them, you will still feel a huge difference in the realism.

... I am not bashing X-plane in any way. I have great respect for Austin and what he has done. He certainly flies a lot in the real world, owning two neat planes. However, as another real pilot here (me), XP never gives me that amazing in flight, virutal cockpit feeling that FS does.. and now with Active Camera for FS, never will... unless XP develops a similar camera system.... and after all these years ...... so many times, I have only booted up X-Plane only to hear the same old sound engine he's had since day one....... sorry, but after using FSX as well as the PMDG NGX, the X-Plane sound system is still far outdated and toy sounding

Peter, I whole heartedley agree with you about X-plane's sound system which I find has remained unchanged for a while and it desperately needs an overhaul. I am surprised about the camera system though, as out of the box, XP10 seems to have many more view options than other simulators. It's something that Laminar Research has been working on as a main feature for 10. Maybe the user interface for it needs to be simplified. Cheers Rhydian

if you take a default fsx 737 and a default xplane 737 and fly them, you will still feel a huge difference in the realism.

Absolutely 100% true. But which one is more "realistic". Realism can be a very subjective term. And the debate is endless. It all comes down to which one you prefer. There will always be "experts" on a 747 flight model or a 737 flight model and the full extent of their flying experience is nothing more than a single engine GA. Wouldn't it just be easier to say "I have x amount of hours in a real C172 and the default X Plane/FSX Cessna 172 has its shortcomings in this, this and that"? Not "the x plane/FSX version is nowhere near realistic."It honestly makes me smile when I see REAL pilots give their views on flight models and they have never even flown the thing in reality.

Wow this turned hostile, I'm buying XP10 as I did XP9. Heck XP10 has convinced me to buy my first XP payware plane since it should be compatible.

Absolutely 100% true. But which one is more "realistic". Realism can be a very subjective term. And the debate is endless.It all comes down to which one you prefer. There will always be "experts" on a 747 flight model or a 737 flight model and the full extent of their flying experience is nothing more than a single engine GA. Wouldn't it just be easier to say "I have x amount of hours in a real C172 and the default X Plane/FSX Cessna 172 has its shortcomings in this, this and that"? Not "the x plane/FSX version is nowhere near realistic."It honestly makes me smile when I see REAL pilots give their views on flight models and they have never even flown the thing in reality.

I would not call myself a pilot I only have 28 hours on a cessna 152 and few hours solo so far... You can continue smiling But that's not the subject that matters now. You better go work on your flight models to make it more realistic because I'm not the only one who think so. I do not have any preference with any simulator but when I found something unrealistic I will say it.

A review of a BETA, time limited version of X Plane that has JUST come out.Mike, come on. This is a joke post, right?Have you done a review of Prepar3d, yet?At least that's not in beta.I'm also interested in any other reviews you have done. Can you provide links?Also, what aircraft are you rated on and how long have you been flying?

Do you get paid by Laminar Research?I only ask because every single negative thing which is said about X-plane is jumped on by you and a few other cronies. You accuse people of not giving things enough time, not knowing what they're talking about, not having the right add-ons installed etc etc etc.As for you saying that you shouldn't judge the default flight models, I think if you actually visit the X-plane website and read some of Austin Meyers statements then judging the default flight models is exactly what you should be doing.

Peter, I whole heartedley agree with you about X-plane's sound system which I find has remained unchanged for a while and it desperately needs an overhaul. I am surprised about the camera system though, as out of the box, XP10 seems to have many more view options than other simulators. It's something that Laminar Research has been working on as a main feature for 10. Maybe the user interface for it needs to be simplified.Cheers

Peter is referring to "active camera". It's not a position in the cockpit. I lets the cockpit amimation, such as siderails, move in comparison to a static and motionless cockpit against an outside scene. It makes the concept of VC's seem much more real.It was introduced by third parties in FS9, and became standard with FSX

Do you get paid by Laminar Research?I only ask because every single negative thing which is said about X-plane is jumped on by you and a few other cronies. You accuse people of not giving things enough time, not knowing what they're talking about, not having the right add-ons installed etc etc etc.As for you saying that you shouldn't judge the default flight models, I think if you actually visit the X-plane website and read some of Austin Meyers statements then judging the default flight models is exactly what you should be doing.

No, I don't get paid by Laminar research. I wish I did.Can you show me these statements that Austin Meyer made?And I acknowledged many shortcomings in x plane. I would love the sounds to be better. I would love to see seasons. Seasonal waters. Tropical waters. Jump on EVERY SINGLE negative thing said about X Plane? Hardly.

Just ordered my copy. Still liked the review though.

Can you show me these statements that Austin Meyer made?

The statements are everywhere! The default Cessna 172 is used as the promo aircraft in full page spreads for X-Plane 9 in popular aviation magazines. Of course if Austin retracts previous "flight model" statements in regards to X-Plane 10, then I offer my apologies. As to version 10, I don't have it. Can't, and won't make any statements regarding it.

No, I don't get paid by Laminar research. I wish I did.Can you show me these statements that Austin Meyer made?And I acknowledged many shortcomings in x plane. I would love the sounds to be better. I would love to see seasons. Seasonal waters. Tropical waters. Jump on EVERY SINGLE negative thing said about X Plane? Hardly.

Surely you have to be joking, else you've been living under a rock for the past decade.

As to version 10, I don't have it. Can't, and won't make any statements regarding it.

Well that makes sense...I'm glad you're keeping it subjective.

Surely you have to be joking, else you've been living under a rock for the past decade.

Give me the benefit of the doubt. Can you show me?