Just curious on this. Carenado has aircraft for both FSX and XPX. Are there any differences when comparing the same aircraft between the 2 sims. I have listed below off the top of my head some comparison categories, but if you have a comparison not listed please comment if you would.1.Feature implementation gain or loss2.VC look and feel3.FDE4.MiscellaenousNot sure how many of you out there have both sims and the same aircraft, but I am very curious.RegardsBob

Just curious on this. Carenado has aircraft for both FSX and XPX. Are there any differences when comparing the same aircraft between the 2 sims. I have listed below off the top of my head some comparison categories, but if you have a comparison not listed please comment if you would.1.Feature implementation gain or loss2.VC look and feel3.FDE4.MiscellaenousNot sure how many of you out there have both sims and the same aircraft, but I am very curious.RegardsBob

They are pretty much the same, visually. XPX and FSX have a different "feel" as far as the physics are concerned though, but that's subjective. I do feel that the gauges and such are a bit crisper in XPX, and easier to comprehend, probably because of the newer graphics engine in XPX.

They are pretty much the same, visually. XPX and FSX have a different "feel" as far as the physics are concerned though, but that's subjective. I do feel that the gauges and such are a bit crisper in XPX, and easier to comprehend, probably because of the newer graphics engine in XPX.

Thanks for your input!Bob

If you turn on the dynamic shadows and go into the VC, the XPX VC looks better imo.

As far as I can tell, xp10 inherits from previous versions that bank instead of yaw due to slipstream on prop aircraft.Tested the xp10 demo, latest beta, just to find out to my dismay that every prop (default), no matter if single or twin, banks to the left when throttle increased, to the right when you pull it ... No hint of yaw (and the ball almost allways centered).The same, just as with xp9, applies when flying straight in cruise flight. You have to permanently use aileron input or aileron trimm.I can't understand, and I wonder if the carenado models overcome this rather irritating characteristic of xplanes.Under climb power on, say, a C152, a Piper180, etc... and a pitch up attitude will call for right rudder to counteract slipstream effects. In cruise the aircraft is usualy designed to fly straight without major corrections appart from those required due to turbulence/wind perturbations. Not the case with props in xplane, unless you use counter-rotating props!!! Irrealistic cant of engine axis, fin, etc... also do not solve the problem :-(

Edited January 15, 201214 yr by jcomm

As far as I can tell, xp10 inherits from previous versions that bank instead of yaw due to slipstream on prop aircraft.Tested the xp10 demo, latests beta, just to find out to my dismay that every prop (default), no matter if single or twin, banks to the left when throttle increased, to the right when you pull it ... No hint of yaw (and the ball almost allways centered).The same, just as with xp9, applies when flying straight in cruise flight. You have to permanently use aileron input or aileron trimm.I can't understand, and I wonder if the carenado models overcome this rather irritating characteristic of xplanes.Under climb power on, say, a C152, a Piper180, etc... and a pitch up attitude will call for right rudder to counteract slipstream effects. In cruise the aircraft is usualy designed to fly straight without major corrections appart from those required due to turbulence/wind perturbations. Not the case with props in xplane, unless you use counter-rotating props!!! Irrealistic cant of engine axis, fin, etc... also do not solve the problem :-(

Very nice technical interpretations. Thank you! Maybe someone will chime in on this and offer an explanation.RegardsBob

Not to get too far off topic, but what is involved with creating a plane for Xplane? What I mean is, Carenado seems to have no problem creating planes for both platforms. Their planes from both sims look to be the same visual model. Were they able to port it over from one to another using some sort of tool, or did they have to rebuild it from scratch using info from the FSX version? Im not a programmer, so Im just guessing.They seem to crank out planes so fast and now, do it for 2 platforms! Just wondering what their secret is and why other developers havent done the same so far. I guess its not that easy as running it trough some sort of converter or everyone would be doing it.Rob

the flight model is done by an XP dev.

(Thought my reaction is better here than in X-Plane vs. FSX)Thoughts after 1 week of XPX:Yes the clouds, terrain textures and scenery in MY FSX are much better and look more realistic overall, but i have Flight Evironment X, Ground Environment X Europe and Ultimate Terrain Europe.If i download realworld weather: in X-plane there is usually more turbulence, in FSX less.I always add some more turbulence in FSX also when i download real weather, then the WEATHER result 'feels' more the same.XPX reacts a bit more to the weather in general.The difference in feel of the FSX and XPX Cessna 172 is mostly in the yaw and pitch controls that act more 'jumpy' and vivid in XPX.In FSX they are 'softer', less violent.As an experienced FSX pilot you adept easily to the a bit more 'challenging' feel of XPX.Wich is more real?Also there seems to be more gravity in the XPX world, aircraft 'fall' a bit quicker.However there is a rather big difference for the Beech Baron 58 in reaction to violent rudder movement in flight:The FSX Baron reacts rather slowly and with some backside movement but less than the Cessna.The XPX Baron reacts violently and it can easely lead to a (spiral) dive.Real life Baron pilots: which is more real ??

Edited January 15, 201214 yr by Bartbear

As a glider pilot I use mostly Condorsoaring, but very recently discovered CumulusX! and Aerosoft's DiscusX. Flying gliders in MSFSX was never this realistic, and I have real Portugal and Spain terrain. Problem is my computer (an old p4) and not being able to afford for so many good add-ons.While XP allows fo tweaking, as far as I know tis doesn't include weather, so, even if with it's problems, weather in MSFS + good weather injector + CumuklusX + FSUIPC ends-up giving a much more realistic weather environment, At least MSFS's weather allows for non-ISA temperature variation with alt (yet, it is not possible to model non ISA pressure variation...).The other big problem with xplane is the flight model in props and that irrealistic bank effects when throttle is applied. Bank instead of yaw is irrealistic, even more while cruising!