To all the XP-10 haters.

[Tierborn 188]

Not just the FPS/settings. There's still the ocassional OOM error.

i dont believe you even have FSX ....

[Rimshot 1,134]

Not just the FPS/settings. There's still the ocassional OOM error.

All software can crash. X-Plane does as well, at least I find a couple of hits when I Google X-Plane crashes. So what's your point?

[GoranM 3,762]

i dont believe you even have FSX ....

All software can crash. X-Plane does as well, at least I find a couple of hits when I Google X-Plane crashes. So what's your point?

If you read a few posts back, someone posted they can't recall having any problems with FSX. I never mentioned X Plane. I mentioned that I recall many people having CTD's, FPS issues and OOM errors with FSX. I was correcting the poster.Why so defensive?

[Gibbage 199]

If thats your default settings, shows how much you have used it ;) Or do you just fly the trike out of Friday Harbor that often?

[GoranM 3,762]

If thats your default settings, shows how much you have used it ;) Or do you just fly the trike out of Friday Harbor that often?

Default flight for Acceleration.

[Rimshot 1,134]

If you read a few posts back, someone posted they can't recall having any problems with FSX. I never mentioned X Plane. I mentioned that I recall many people having CTD's, FPS issues and OOM errors with FSX. I was correcting the poster.Why so defensive?

Defensive in the sense I got the feeling you were making negative comments about FSX. Not only FPS issues, also crashes. Sorry if I misinterpreted. Then again, I hardly notice you making negative comments about X-Plane. On the contrary, you've been very defensive about it. Nothing wrong about that though, don't get me wrong

If thats your default settings, shows how much you have used it ;) Or do you just fly the trike out of Friday Harbor that often?

That's what my FSX looks like as well when I load it. I always build a flight from this default situation. I've been using it like this since the day it was released. So it doesn't say anything about how often you use it.

[GoranM 3,762]

Defensive in the sense I got the feeling you were making negative comments about FSX. Not only FPS issues, also crashes. Sorry if I misinterpreted. Then again, I hardly notice you making negative comments about X-Plane. On the contrary, you've been very defensive about it. Nothing wrong about that though, don't get me wrong That's what my FSX looks like as well when I load it. I always build a flight from this default situation. I've been using it like this since the day it was released. So it doesn't say anything about how often you use it.

I've openly criticised the flaws in x plane. Two of my main issues with it are no seasons and no tropical waters. (I like the tropics). Hopefully they get added in the V10 run.But see how easy it is to get defensive about a product. Just as you were doing. Nothing wrong with it though. It's nice to see passion. I just choose not to discuss x plane in the Flight forum since Geof locked the other thread.

[Rimshot 1,134]

But see how easy it is to get defensive about a product. Just as you were doing. Nothing wrong with it though. It's nice to see passion.

It sure is!

[Glynn 405]

i dont normally read the Avsim fourm so if any one replys to this dont expect a response from me. But...Let me first say i dont Hate Xplane. What i Hate is people who use the Word "hate" as a Synonim for "Disagres with my openion about".My thing is they are both sims. if you prefer one to the other, thats great. Crack open a beer and have fun. dont get on the fans of the others nerves just becaues they arent useing the same one as you.And just becaue i feel like saying it. Nither one is realistic. Altho if i had to pick wich one is more realistic id still go for FS. even thoue its not winng by much. And before anyone says that Xplane is used in real world ATD's. my Flight school has a redbird Flight sim (FAA approved) it used FSX.

HelloI think I get where you are coming from, could you run that past me again in English please.

[Geofa 108]

Geof, I can assure you all of that can be accomplished in FSX as well. It just requires someone knowing how to properly set up the flight dynamics.My point is X-Plane is being touted as the 'best'... and yet they release with the absolute worst examples of flight dynamics I could imagine. GA aircraft in particular are inherently stable, not unstable. In FSX you see that, in X-Plane... you don't. The King Air C90 is an extremely smooth flying aircraft in real life and it's fairly well balanced in it's behavior. It has extremely snappy pitch and roll performance. In X-Plane... that simply wasn't there. I couldn't keep the X-Plane C90 level at all. It kept wanting to roll left or roll right. It wouldn't trim for level flight. Absolutely nothing I tried could elicit stable behavior. It simply was not realistic at all.

Odd because I own just about every add on aircraft for FSX and have not experienced what I described till tonight on Xplane. I still agree though -the default aircraft do exhibit what you describe.

[GoranM 3,762]

Well, both versions are made by Carenado, F33 for FSX and X Plane, so it's unusual to see more accurate performance and flying characteristics in the x plane version than FSX version, unless X Planes flight model truly is more accurate. Judging by this kind of evidence, it certainly appears that this is the case.

[greggerm 312]

Sounds to me like BOTH platforms, MSFS and X-Plane, can have realistic feeling flight dynamics if the developer/author puts in the appropriate amount of effort. MSFS does it one way, X-Plane does it another.X-Plane claims to have the superior method, but much like MSFS, there is an art to making a simulated airplane feel realistic. Austin likes to tout that his flight dynamics engine is somehow inherently better, but as the default airplanes in X-Plane show, the blanket statement that X-Plane is better at modelling flight just isn't true. In all cases, skilled programming and familiarity with the real airplanes are needed to truly tailor a flight model in either platform.It's certainly possible that X-Plane might give a developer more tools to refine the feel and actions of their flight model, but it takes much time and effort to get to the point where these refinements start making a difference.-Greg

[mmann 72]

Great post Greg! Just the right balance of facts, without too much prejudice; which is pretty rare for a post that compares FSX and X-Plane.

[WarpD 824]

Well, both versions are made by Carenado, F33 for FSX and X Plane, so it's unusual to see more accurate performance and flying characteristics in the x plane version than FSX version, unless X Planes flight model truly is more accurate. Judging by this kind of evidence, it certainly appears that this is the case.

I would disagree what your conclusion based on one simple fact that's not being stated. The FS flight model (primarily the .air file) is undocumented and presents a complex problem for people developing flight dynamics. In that regard, it inherently makes it more difficult to create accurate flight dynamics for FSX. It doesn't actually indicate the flight model (what FSX is capable of) is inferior in any way.

[n4gix 4,947]

That's what my FSX looks like as well when I load it. I always build a flight from this default situation. I've been using it like this since the day it was released. So it doesn't say anything about how often you use it.

The very first time I installed FSX (during beta testing), I changed the "default flight" to be the C172 on the bloody ground with the engine off and battery/avionics off. Real planes don't suddenly appear in the air flying...