Back in the day, it was suggested that while MSFS had the better scenery and airport details that X-Plane had better flight dynamics. Is that still the belief today? I'd sure like to get into carrier landings and would consider X-Plane if the flight dynamics were indeed better.Thanks,RH

It's not the case. The quality of flight dynamics is dependent on the aircraft developer, in X-Plane as i FSX. What I like in X-Plane is the stronger influence of winds and turbulence. It's too much turbulence in X-Plane, but FSX feels too static to me. Overall I think X-Plane does it better. But this is not the same as flight model.

try both. X-Plane has a free demo. Then decide yourself.

You can try the demo to find out which you prefer. Hmmm not sure if the Carrier is in the demo, I think it should be.Hehe ok I just tried it (unsuccessfully) well I got it down ok but bent the prop. Very nice carrier by the way. Very nice graphics.You might need to go to snohomish in the demo to find a carrier.

Thoughts after 1 week of XPX:Yes the clouds,rain 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

if you feel it is too violent, go to "joystick" and "nullzone" settings dialog. try different values for stability augmentation and response settings. try to find the setting that suits you the most.

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.

A real life Cessna 172 isn't jumpy. It's rather sedate, and lackluster. That's the problem; as some of the challenging feel of some X-Plane models shouldn't be present at all. That's why I'd get annoyed and quit after five minutes. Things are changing though. I could almost say that some X-Plane models are becoming more like my favorite add-ons for FSX................but that would probably just irritate a few developers... :(

Edited January 15, 201214 yr by LAdamson

Something else....I haven't tamed the control settings in XPX at all. In newer versions of XP9, I haven't moved the sliders either. Seems the default 172 is more sedate in these two versions without changing settings.

Since I have basically no real world experience I can't tell whether FSX or X-Planes flight model is more accurate. To me X-Plane has a more fluid and realistic feel.This video suggests that at least for this situation and this aircraft (Carenado C152 II) the flight model seems to be not completely off.

But this may vary much from file to file.

Edited January 15, 201214 yr by manuthie

wow that is so close to the real thing. Where you find that video, or did you do it? I guess it could be doctored to match the real one but I don't think so as it'd be rather pointless.

wow that is so close to the real thing. Where you find that video, or did you do it? I guess it could be doctored to match the real one but I don't think so as it'd be rather pointless.

I found it on youtube - I didn't do it myself.

My biggest problem with xplane 10 is ported from previous versions, and it really spoils an otherwise interesting experience...Prop aircraft in xplane behave so differently from their RW counterparts in what concerns to slipstream effects that it is really a disappointment at least for me. Using climb power on a single or even tween and a climb pitch you will have siginificative roll (as if the torque was huge) instead of yaw. Adjustments to your prop will be refrelcted in bank, with not even the slightest hint of yaw (even the ball stays mostly centred).The only possible tweak is to include counter.rotating props, or an invisible prop aligned with your true prop, rotating opposite. Not a great deal of a solution! Ah, and I know all about the possibility of canting engines, the fin, etc... It simply doesn't work realistically.In MSFS, even with so many FM limitations, I do not have this BUG!Regarding atmosphere, It would be great if it was possible to tweak it using pluggins, otherwise we are stuck with an ISA atmosphere, where temperature and pressure always follow the same ISA lapse rates with altitude, no matter what weather conditions you're going to fly through. At least in MSFS it is possible to set non-ISA temp lapses, and there are good weather engines, and FSUIPC to overcome some strange weather phenomena...Honestly, in a flight simulator, I couldn't care less about the cars on roads with their nice lights... Some really BASIC flight characteristics have to be reproduced, at least to give an hint of how it is in RL....

Edited January 16, 201214 yr by jcomm

Prop aircraft in xplane behave so differently from their RW counterparts in what concerns to slipstream effects that it is really a disappointment at least for me. Using climb power on a single or even tween and a climb pitch you will have siginificative roll (as if the torque was huge) instead of yaw. Adjustments to your prop will be refrelcted in bank, with not even the slightest hint of yaw (even the ball stays mostly centred).The only possible tweak is to include counter.rotating props, or an invisible prop aligned with your true prop, rotating opposite. Not a great deal of a solution! Ah, and I know all about the possibility of canting engines, the fin, etc... It simply doesn't work realistically.

Yep, so true.I'm using X-Plane since early v9 and I only use XP, 'cause I think overall it's so good and such a powerfull tool to learn quite a bit about aerodynamics, basicallcy to visualize things you can't afford in real life.But having to use aileron trim all the time to make a single prop plane fly straight, whilst their real counterpart no nothing about aileron trim, kind of annoys me.It seems to me that it's not an easy one to fix, but Austin should come up with a better solution, than suggesting to use the trim tab option in planemaker and to use aileron trim in flight.The aircraft I have in mind(C172, PA28, DR400....) don't have aileron trim tabs as far as I know, they may have some very slight difference in their wings angle of incidences, so that one wing produces a little bit more lift than the other to counter prop torque. But I think that will only work at one power setting at a certain airspeed, pretty much like a trim tab, I guess.

Edited January 16, 201214 yr by marcus11

Thanks guys for the responses!RH

The one thing I loved in XP9 was the way it felt, not sure if it was realistic or not, but it actually felt like you are floating or flying. In FSX it almost felt like you are flying on tracks, if that makes any sense... It may have had more to do with the 60+ fps I could get in XP9 as well. The only reason I didn't stick with 9 over FSX was because of the lack of addons and the lack of ATC and other A/C.I know 10 isn't much better in that department but at least it is a start. Hopefully over the next couple of years devs will finally give up on FSX and put the effort into learning a new system. I know it will be a painful and slow process but as it stands I just don't see any other reasonable direction if you want to stay in business. It really would be a shame if LR lets this golden opportunity slip by and lets another company goble up the hardcore community.