Is XP-10 (Hawaii) scenery better then FLIGHTS' (Hawaii)?

[Deltalpha 3]

What's with all the negativity surrounding X-plane? Don't be so hard on XP10, the more sims we have the better, right?

[VegaSS 2]

What's with all the negativity surrounding X-plane? Don't be so hard on XP10, the more sims we have the better, right?

Because some negativity and critisizm is good for a sim with potential. Just because they exist, dosn't mean that we have to praise them. We are consumers, and that's what we SHOULD do when we spend our money for a PRODUCT. If there are aspects lacking, we speak our minds, for either sim. We are not picking on XPX, it's just the only "new" one out right now. Wait until FLIGHT is released, then you will REALLY see some critical MS fans (an non-fans)!!!

[Deltalpha 3]

Because some negativity and critisizm is good for a sim with potential. Just because they exist, dosn't mean that we have to praise them. We are consumers, and that's what we SHOULD do when we spend our money for a PRODUCT. If there are aspects lacking, we speak our minds, for either sim. We are not picking on XPX, it's just the only "new" one out right now. Wait until FLIGHT is released, then you will REALLY see some critical MS fans (an non-fans)!!!

I haven't read anything good about X-plane from the AVSIM users, any praise seems to be people trying to defend the sim. Spending money for the product? Sure, if you bought it. Most of the people in this thread don't own X-plane, or haven't even tried it (Cue the flood of users saying "Oh yea, I totally tried it!"). Looks like a lot of useless complaining...something about graphics and cities, I don't even listen to you guys anymore. If I want an honest opinion about X-plane, I would download the demo and try it myself or read the AVSIM review (if they are making one).

[maxter 0]

Interesting observations Geoff, thanks for sharing.I have ordered XPX and am waiting for the Flightsimstore to deliver, but what I have seen in the demo gives me enough comfort that this new sim has reasonable potential to be quite good and in certain areas exceed what FSX can deliver in the long run.While I have pretty much all that Orbx have produced and will continue to head down that path, the potential that XPX has in terms of flight and systems modelling I believe will really make this sim shine. An addition the famous Austin Myer "plausible world" has certainly enough potential once third parties get a hold and tweak what is a pretty customisable environment, one that I am going to dabble with in my local area.It's a shame that we have to become so tribal with our preferred flavours of simulator. Just wish more folks keep a more open mind as to the possibilities each new offering provides. I dare say there are many on this very board that are at this moment actively supporting FSX who not so long ago were slamming and decrying the efforts of the FSX development team in favour of FS2004, in an equally virulent display of gratuitous fanboyism...

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

Interesting observations Geoff, thanks for sharing.I have ordered XPX and am waiting for the Flightsimstore to deliver, but what I have seen in the demo gives me enough comfort that this new sim has reasonable potential to be quite good and in certain areas exceed what FSX can deliver in the long run.While I have pretty much all that Orbx have produced and will continue to head down that path, the potential that XPX has in terms of flight and systems modelling I believe will really make this sim shine. An addition the famous Austin Myer "plausible world" has certainly enough potential once third parties get a hold and tweak what is a pretty customisable environment, one that I am going to dabble with in my local area.It's a shame that we have to become so tribal with our preferred flavours of simulator. Just wish more folks keep a more open mind as to the possibilities each new offering provides. I dare say there are many on this very board that are at this moment actively supporting FSX who not so long ago were slamming and decrying the efforts of the FSX development team in favour of FS2004, in an equally virulent display of gratuitous fanboyism...

I honestly gave XPX a chance. I hoped it would be good...something to pass the time until another new flight sim (Flight) got here. After I tried the demo, I could safely say that I will never spend $80 to buy the full version. It is a HUGE disappointment and incomplete. Good luck VFR flying and not getting lost.

[eSimmer 10]

But again, the software is in beta PERPETUALLY, so it's a bit too early to tell what's in the pipeline.

I couldn't resist this one: if it's in perpetual beta, you'll "never" be able to tell... :(

[Guest HowardHughes]

The problem that XPX has is that for the same money you can pick up;FSX GoldA few high-end payware aircrat offers on saleREX 2.0 (recently on sale)A good chunk of OrbX stuffAnd straight away that annihalates 99% of what XPX currently has to offer.

[Geofa 108]

Unless your focus is a Ga aircraft that actually take offs/lands like a real one, rw weather downloads that give you a true overcast, lack of blurries, better performance for the same settings, great systems failures that are unpredictable, great sim stability,could name many others but you get the point.I have been a fsx user since it started (and yes during some of the same ramblings that were made against it when it came out). I am now using xplane for the offerings that it has that fsx still does not have.But then I have no loyalty to any sim---I use them all. Isn't it a wonderful thing that we have choice? There are still some that think fs9 "won"-never have understood that-it is also a great sim.Ps. I owned an f33 (deb) for 11 years. I have the Carenado f33 in both fsx and xplane. I find the one in xplane more real..valuable to me.

[Guest HowardHughes]

Unless you want a Ga aircraft that actually take offs/lands like a real one, rw weather downloads that give you a true overcast, lack of blurries, better performance for the same settings, great systems failures that are unpredictable, great sim stability,could name many others but you get the point.I have been a fsx user since it started (and yes during some of the same ramblings that were made against it when it came out). I am now using xplane for the offerings that it has that fsx still does not have.But then I have no loyalty to any sim---I use them all. Isn't it a wonderful thing that we have choice? There are still some that think fs9 "won"-never have understood that-it is also a great sim.Ps. I owned an f33 (deb) for 11 years. I have the Carenado f33 in both fsx and xplane. I find the one in xplane more real..valuable to me.

The argument about flight dynamics is hopelessly pointless. If you compare default XPX aircraft with default FSX then unbelievably FSX fares better. If you then compare payware XPX offerings with payware FSX offerings I'd happily say that XPX gets hided once again.As for better performance at the same settings - I'd say this isn't true at all. From everything I've seen XPX performs no better than FSX whatsoever. I just don't think this is true at all.I havn't seen a 'blurry' in years, nor have ever had FSX crash on me.XPX has certain things going for it, for example the night flying, but apart from that there's nothing that warrants a trip away from MSFS.Edit: In response to your comments about the F33 - that's great, and I hope you enjoy it. But equally I can start bringing out the 737NXG from PMDG, the Accu-sims from A2A etc. For me these absolutely demolish anything XP has ever had to offer, and completely negates the argument of it having a 'better' flight dynamics offering.

[Geofa 108]

I am not comparing flight dynamics-both sims have their plusses and minuses. If you read my post I compared one aircraft-which is done by the same manufacturer in both sims, and I prefer the xplane version because it flies more like my real bird did-that simple.What is in this thread was a still shot of a non released sim, and a compare to fsx and xplane-and then a denegation of xplane based on this single screen shot.I'll say again-check out some real shots-all 3 are pretty lame though I'd give the still screen shot award to flight.http://www.hawaiianw...hotos/oahu.htmlI'd also say let's do some compare of Toledo, Ohio (oops no shots in flight of that yet) or better yet Darrington, Wa. to a default fsx and on a default xplane-and then let's draw some conclusions-just to make it a little fair.You say "from what you have seen"-perhaps would be more credible with "what I have tried". I've been using xplane for over a month now and I assure you on my system I get double the performance with similar graphics settings on both sims. True it took me a few days to find the combo of sliders that give me everything just like fsx did-however the performance is so good I don't feel a need to look for tweaks at all.To take this still screen shot-and then jump to the conclusion that xplane has nothing to offer does not seem a logical argument, or even one that is favorable to flight simmers-who should be happy to have a choice in their flight sim needs, and our needs are very different. The only conclusion that really can be made here is that Flight (may) (when and if released) hold a better visual experience when flying over downtown Honolulu than xplane does.There is a lot more to a flight sim than downtown Honolulu, or even Hawaii.

[wcschulz3 18]

I haven't read anything good about X-plane from the AVSIM users, any praise seems to be people trying to defend the sim.Spending money for the product? Sure, if you bought it. Most of the people in this thread don't own X-plane, or haven't even tried it (Cue the flood of users saying "Oh yea, I totally tried it!"). Looks like a lot of useless complaining...something about graphics and cities, I don't even listen to you guys anymore. If I want an honest opinion about X-plane, I would download the demo and try it myself or read the AVSIM review (if they are making one).

Hi...I'm a fan of both FSX (with Sim Saavy satellite scenery), which I fly for "big iron on nice days", and XP-10. As Geof noted, XP-10 has its strengths. I think that the weather rendering and 3D clouds do "leap frog" MS (any version). Flying IMC at dusk or dawn in XPX is truly an experience (and renders the whole 3D buildings and textures argument moot, as you will be busy trying not to crash in the icing and low visibility!).I live in upstate in South Carolina, and I can VFR navigate in XPX with no problems--the lakes, rivers, mountains and roads are all where they need to be (radio towers too, but so far no water towers). Sure, the cities are a bit "green", but in a year there will be fixes as part of the updates, plus good entrepreneurial add-ons.I want Flight to be a leap up from FSX and to run more smoothly--but I'm skeptical it will be much more than a facelift. There is a TON of upside and open community building to XPX. We'll have to wait and see if the same can be said for Flight, which appears to becoming a much more closed-shop enterprise.I'll bet folk's tune RE XPX will be vastly different in a year. Just saying... :)BillKGYH

[Glynn 405]

There is a lot more to a flight sim than downtown Honolulu, or even Hawaii.

HelloYou are correct there is a lot more to a flight sim than some buildings in honolulu.things like realistic airports with the correct airlines in place, decent ATC and even seasonal textures.At this point in time in XP10 you can take off from a runway and fly to another runway, that's about it.ATC that does not work properly, Ai which is so bad they would have been better off just not bothering with it at all.You have to wonder what Austin is thinking about with his decision making, roads and cars everywhere but no airport buildingsIs it a road network sim or a flight sim ?.Geoff, if the caranado F33 was not available would you still use XP10 ?

[Geofa 108]

Good question-no my interest in xplane would not be as great if there were no f33-not so much for the f33 but for an aircraft that finally lands and takes off like a real one (I also bought the saratoga, mooney, and archer and enjoy them too). I don't use atc or ai in fsx-just don't need it and in the case of ai I'd rather leave it off to get further fps...which again goes to my point-we all require different things in a flight sim-it isn't a contest.

[Gibbage 199]

I guess we wait two weeks and find out?

[Mountain Man 142]

I'd also say let's do some compare of Toledo, Ohio (oops no shots in flight of that yet) or better yet Darrington, Wa. to a default fsx and on a default xplane-and then let's draw some conclusions-just to make it a little fair.

I tend to do a lot of virtual flying around Central Ohio and can say that X-Plane 10 offers an overall better experience than FSX ever has, from the graphics to the accuracy of the roads, its ability to accurately depict rural cities and landscapes, honest-to-goodness three-dimensional clouds, and overall performance and stability. As far as flight modeling is concerned, I have not noticed any dramatic differences between the default 172 in either sim (full disclosure, I'm not a real pilot, so the differences may be there but I can't tell).I've enjoyed flying FSX for many years, and while X-Plane 10 may not have showpiece scenery, it still feels like a next generation sim in many other (arguably more important) areas.