No it doesn't, or at least it's not any more "horrific" than what's offered by the default planes in FSX.The same is true of FSX if you happen to be flying outside one of the few specially detailed cities.You don't like X-Plane 10, that much is clear, but these kinds of exaggerated criticisms border on lies.

Completely agree with this post. For those that hate On xplanes flight model, FSX's flight model is nothing to scream about either. In both sims, 3rd party aircraft will most likely have a better flight model then the default aicraft. Ultimately it is not a battle of which FM is better, but just your personal preference. Regarding scenery, FSX's scenery isnt that accurate either outside of the handcrafted Buildings/ landmarks for some cities. If you compare vanilla fsx to the BETA of x-plane 10, In my opinion fsx's scenery is just blurry and non appealing. Xplane's scenery is not blurry, and the roads are accurate. While the placement of buildings is not accurate at the moment, it will only get better and more accurate with osm2xp, the new WED,the lego brick system, and contributions from the xplane community.

It's not supposed to fly like the FSX 172.

But you should still be able to fly it. It is by far worse flying than the FSX version. I'm not talking realism, both are bad, I'm talking just trying to take it to the air. It's like taking off in a 40knot stright cross-wind, even with calm air. It's not flyable, as are few of XPX's default AC.

He said the default aircraft don't fly any worse than in FSX. I can easily fly the default FSX 172, but I struggle to take off in X-Plane 10's 172.

+1When I fly the real 172's, on a calm day, I can trim the plane to take-off and climb almost hands off, with just some minor adjustments. They don't screach their wheels down the runway, lunge into the air and then bank violently to the left, causing a wrestling match between the pilot and the plane. :(

+1

I'm curious if ragging on X-Plane 10 makes the wait for Flight any more bearable for you? Or what would be the purpose of trying to trash a product, in a forum set up for a different product?

No it doesn't, or at least it's not any more "horrific" than what's offered by the default planes in FSX.The same is true of FSX if you happen to be flying outside one of the few specially detailed cities.You don't like X-Plane 10, that much is clear, but these kinds of exaggerated criticisms border on lies.

No MM, the fact that Las Vegas, in XPX, is green, and is unrecognisable in the sim to real life is no lie. I fly this area every week, trust me, it's more recognisable in FSX, even though the FSX graphics are not as good. And, YES, the FSX 172 is more flyable the XPX's, even though both are not good.

But you should still be able to fly it. It is by far worse flying than the FSX version. I'm not talking realism, both are bad, I'm talking just trying to take it to the air. It's like taking off in a 40knot stright cross-wind, even with calm air. It's not flyable, as are few of XPX's default AC.+1When I fly the real 172's, on a calm day, I can trim the plane to take-off and climb almost hands off, with just some minor adjustments. They don't screach their wheels down the runway, lunge into the air and then bank violently to the left, causing a wrestling match between the pilot and the plane. :(

You should get your joystick checked out!

I can fly it just fine. No where near perfect, but it's decent.Also, why don't we take this to a better forum.http://forum.avsim.net/forum/335-the-x-plane-general-discussions-forum/

I'm curious if ragging on X-Plane 10 makes the wait for Flight any more bearable for you? Or what would be the purpose of trying to trash a product, in a forum set up for a different product?

Meshman, I'm only stateing some real points, IMO (other will dissagree). There really are some very nice features of XPX, and I do continue to use it (i.e., I love flying in the weather and beutiful night lighting). But the absence of so many things make my craving for Flight that much more. At least comparing two sims creates contructive (sometimes not so constructive) debate.

I'm curious if ragging on X-Plane 10 makes the wait for Flight any more bearable for you? Or what would be the purpose of trying to trash a product, in a forum set up for a different product?

+1

When I fly the real 172's, on a calm day, I can trim the plane to take-off and climb almost hands off, with just some minor adjustments. They don't screach their wheels down the runway, lunge into the air and then bank violently to the left, causing a wrestling match between the pilot and the plane. :(

Interesting, I can fly the default XPX C-172 in exactly the manner you describe....I can track nicely on the runway, have a nice trimmed departure, and have an easily trimmed climb...just like the "real thing". I did have to tweak the joystick nulls a bit, but honestly, it's more in the user than the aircraft. Is the default XPX C-172 perfect, hardly. But it's very flyable and enjoyable--every bit as much as the default FSX Cessna.I love both sims, and don't understand how folks can be so negative about a sim that enjoys a relatively open architecture, and when you learn the settings, can lead to great results.Perhaps thou dost protest too much....BillKGYH

Edited January 1, 201214 yr by wcschulz3

XP 10 is a superior flight simulator in dynamics. X plane is actually certified by the FAA as an approved training software with the right hardware. That means that if you're a real pilot you can log hours while hours flown in FSX and Flight doesn't count.The sim lacks details in scenery and weather but that is not what the FAA looks on a flight training device.Hope this clears things.Teo

XP 10 is a superior flight simulator in dynamics. X plane is actually certified by the FAA as an approved training software with the right hardware. That means that if you're a real pilot you can log hours while hours flown in FSX and Flight doesn't count.The sim lacks details in scenery and weather but that is not what the FAA looks on a flight training device.Hope this clears things.Teo

http://www.bruceair....in_training.htm As I hope this clears things up too. They are both FAA certified. BUT, you would be hard pressed to find many schools that use either.

Edited January 1, 201214 yr by VegaSS

XP 10 is a superior flight simulator in dynamics. X plane is actually certified by the FAA as an approved training software with the right hardware. That means that if you're a real pilot you can log hours while hours flown in FSX and Flight doesn't count.The sim lacks details in scenery and weather but that is not what the FAA looks on a flight training device.Hope this clears things.Teo

Not true in the slightest. There are plenty of FAA certified simulators built off FSX. The myth that only XP is certified is absolute garbage.

I can fly the XP-10 172 with no trouble at all. I DO find some of the aircraft to be odd, because they seem half finished. The autopilots are very inconsistent. Some work well, some don't do anything. Some have buttons so you can turn the functions on, but no controls to adjust the settings. Some elements of the sim are well done, while others are lacking, like anything else.On the other hand, yesterday I was flying one of the default XP-10 aircraft and got it up to 7.9 mach :)

I could barely take off in the XP-10 Cessna 172. It flies NOTHING like the FSX 172 at all.

It's these kinds of gross exaggerations that lack credibility. If you can fly FSX then there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to fly X-Plane.

It's these kinds of gross exaggerations that lack credibility. If you can fly FSX then there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to fly X-Plane.

what? the interface is way different. Some will have difficulties making the adjustment.

When I fly the real 172's, on a calm day, I can trim the plane to take-off and climb almost hands off, with just some minor adjustments. They don't screach their wheels down the runway, lunge into the air and then bank violently to the left, causing a wrestling match between the pilot and the plane. :(

In another thread you claimed to have spent three days putting X-Plane 10 through its paces, and you mean to tell me that in all that time, you couldn't figure out how to do a straight and level take-off? Seriously? My 7-year old son can do a straight and level take-off in XP10 with a little bit of practice, so I can't imagine why you found it so difficult.