Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

RobbieHe

X-Plane vs. FSX

Recommended Posts

LarryI never said I don't like hearing much about it, I said we've heard ENOUGH about it. Imagine everyone in avsim mentioned what aircraft they flew in the real world...in every single post they made...and then they made reference to that aircraft in every example about flight models. No one doubts your knowledge in the aviation world, but is it really necessary to mention the Vans in every single post you make?I mean, in over 90% of your posts, you have "In my Vans RV6..." or "On my Vans RV6 that I fly..." or "My Vans RV6 has..." or "When I fly my Vans RV6 in the mountains..."I don't mean any disrespect, but I get it. You're A pilot. But you're not THE pilot. And now we have all been made aware that your wife is a pilot with 114 hours in your Vans.You don't need to mention what you fly. Even my daughter knows what you fly. She reads some of these posts (she fell in love with aircraft when I took her to the airport when she was 3) and she keeps asking me, "What's a "Vans"??"BTW, my name is Goran. not Gorem.
No Goran, my wife is not a pilot....P.S. ---- show your daughter what a Van's is. It's a preferred airplane for F16, F18, Airbus 380, Boeing 737,747, 757,767,777, Cessna Citation.........pilots when they're not flying for business hours. These are just examples of pilots who I personally know, or are on our RV forums. The Airbus 380 pilot, had his RV parked next to the 380 at Oshkosh.BTW--- didn't you make a Dutchess for XP? I hear about it constantly! I don't know much about it though, and my wife doesn't either.One other thing, I've flown many airplanes besides the RV. It just happened that I built and own one. And it's much more fun to fly than most GA aircraft.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

No Goran, my wife is not a pilot....
Remember this...http://forum.avsim.n...84#entry2209584Or a direct quote...
I think he needs a ride in a real plane. At least in calm conditions. BTW--- I'm showing this thread to my wife. She has 114 hrs. in our RV6. She's often made the comment while flying over the Great Salt Lake, or the farm lands of southern Idaho.............that it seems as if we're standing still. And yet we're at approx 200 mph, and perhaps 2500 - 4000' agl. And then of course, I have to say............that some simmers just don't believe it....
Either she is a pilot or she isn't a pilot. One of those is a lie. (sorry, I call it how I see it)
And then of course, I have to say............that some simmers just don't believe it....P.S. ---- show your daughter what a Van's is. It's a preferred airplane for F16, F18, Airbus 380, Boeing 737,747, 757,767,777, Cessna Citation.........pilots when they're not flying for business hours. These are just examples of pilots who I personally know, or are on our RV forums. The Airbus 380 pilot, had his RV parked next to the 380 at Oshkosh."
I don't have a problem with you or anyone else flying a Vans. But you mention it like it's the king or queen of all aircraft. It's like watching the same episode of a tv show every single day, twice a day.
BTW--- didn't you make a Dutchess for XP? I hear about it constantly! I don't know much about it though, and my wife doesn't either.One other thing, I've flown many airplanes besides the RV. It just happened that I built and own one. And it's much more fun to fly than most GA aircraft.L.Adamson
Yeah. And I mentioned it in the avsim forums maybe half a dozen times. I certainly don't reference it nearly as much as you reference the Vans RV6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi M,referring to the bank instead of yaw subject, I can't really give you much data, although you can extract it from the various output forms XPlane allows us to use, anyway, this is a simple basic feature that we learn from RL experience flying prop aircraft. Austin, being a RL pilot as well, and having flown prop aircraft knows about it for sure. He certainly knows that when, say on a P180, his Cirrus, a C172, etc... he throttles up on takeoff/climb power, the yaw will be practicaly the ONLY effect he will feel from the slipstream of the prop on the tail fin/rudder. Rudder input is used to counteract and on some airplanes it can even become tiresome - say a Rallye or a Robin, where you have to keep quite a good amount of right foot to counter slipstream yaw effects.Xplane's prop airplanes bank instead. The worst part of this problem is that, when cruising, straight and level, bank tendency opposite prop rotation is present as well, and if you reduce power you'll get a right bank tendency (for a clockwise rotating prop as seen from the cockpit).
jcomm,Not 100% sure I understand you right but..AFAIK, X-Plane models BOTH propwash and P-factor. Attach a shot of the propwash over the tail causing yaw.(static on runway, purple lines, from lelf to right hitting the rudder). On my XP Archer (which I also fly in real) you have togive significant right rudder, especially at low airspeed+full power (like takeoff). So to me that seems realistic.With regard to P-factor, as your links say, it will at an AoA (climb+cruise) give you a left BANK which X-Plane also does well atleast on my Archer. (it is trimmed so there is no bank in cruise)This being said, I can PROVE that the propwash is a bit weak in X-Plane. I suspect this is intentional(!) because of the ground model. Long story, but if it was100% realistic, most prop aircraft would end up in the ditch on takeoff because of gear friction/computationalcreep issues.The other thing is offcourse that real aircraft have buildt in trim tabs, offset stabilizer, canted engines etc that the XP designer mightnot be aware of and the aircraft will not behave correct in this regard.M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my iPhone.......She does have 114 hrs in our RV6A. That's 114 hrs in the right seat. I'd say that, that's enough experience to make the comment she did, about perception of speed. Did I ever say she was the pilot and I was the passenger? Of course not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LarryShe has 114 hrs. in our RV6. She's often made the comment while flying over the Great Salt Lake, or the farm lands of southern dahoWhen someone says something like this, in this kind of context, I would take it to mean she has flying hours in the pilots seat. If I went by your context, well, I have over 200 hours in a Boeing 747-400, roughly 50 hours in a 737NG and about 6 in a Dash 8Perhaps if you said she has 114 hours as a passenger, it would be clearer. I don't think ANYONE could interpret your statement as your wife having 114 hours as a passenger.(read it a few times)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone.These types of threads can easily get into the personal exchanges, I hope this will stay civil.I will give my opinion, with intent to be used as constructive / useful feed back and if anyone cannot accept it as such, stop reading now.Both sims have good points and these are some things that I would like to see done differently in XPX, since I would just be using up energy and gain nothing by giving any feedback to MS, I will not do it.I have a fairly extensive Real World flying background and ALL the feedback is based on MY personal observation / feel of the Real World.Reference acft. C172, with many settings in forward view, Lateral Field of view from 45 to 85, in MSFSX I use 50% view. VC cockpit adjusted to see the 6 Pack and a small part of the cowl. For this I adjust the model to get the view I want. You can also achieve the same result using +- and Up Down arrows but they would change if you reset the Forward Panel view, this has changed since XP9.As far as performance I see no problem running either sim, and FPS is not an issue, XPX is a little more demanding on the hardware but that is a none issue for me.I will Not go into fine / small details about models and or scenery, just some things that I would like to see addressed.Nr.1.XPX and XP9 seem to have an out the window / forward view that appears to be sloping up, ahead of you, even when the terrain is flat or sloping down a little. What I am trying to convey is that there is a wrong feel when I look out from the cockpit.To elaborate, I am up at 1600 Ft. on the ILS to KLGB and I have no sense / feel of height that I see in real life, if anything the Runway seems to above the cowl. As I approach the Runway, and I am on the Glide Slope at VDP, the far end of the Runway seems to point up, when it should look closer to flat looking. Also in the last Phase, the Flare, where you normally end up in an attitude where the cowl points right above the end of the runway, in real life, in XPX you can still see almost half the runway, if you try to set the cowl on the end in the XPX you end up Stalling.Nr.2.With Xwind in the 10-15 Kts., it's just about impossible to keep the aircraft on the Runway. I was able to modify that in XP9 with some planes but it adversely affected other things.Nr.3.Unable to use the Twist on the Joy Stick, to view Left Right, normally used as Rudder on the Joy Stick. I have Rudder pedals, reason, no Null adjustment for the axes, without it every movement of other axis wil affect the View. I would assume that this is an easy fix.Nr.4.Lack of "View center" assignment key, it was available in XP9 but missing in XPX. Useful to center your view without changing the cockpit position / zoom. Things that I like, is the feel in a coordinated turn that seems closer to the real life rate, the fluidity, the cloud opacity (did not see through them), before the RC2.The representation of the Roads, and other points in the scenery. TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morten, thx for the picture.P-factor, even if being quite negligible on most situations, accounts for YAW, not BANK.

jcomm,Not 100% sure I understand you right but..AFAIK, X-Plane models BOTH propwash and P-factor. Attach a shot of the propwash over the tail causing yaw.(static on runway, purple lines, from lelf to right hitting the rudder). On my XP Archer (which I also fly in real) you have togive significant right rudder, especially at low airspeed+full power (like takeoff). So to me that seems realistic.With regard to P-factor, as your links say, it will at an AoA (climb+cruise) give you a left BANK which X-Plane also does well atleast on my Archer. (it is trimmed so there is no bank in cruise)This being said, I can PROVE that the propwash is a bit weak in X-Plane. I suspect this is intentional(!) because of the ground model. Long story, but if it was100% realistic, most prop aircraft would end up in the ditch on takeoff because of gear friction/computationalcreep issues.The other thing is offcourse that real aircraft have buildt in trim tabs, offset stabilizer, canted engines etc that the XP designer mightnot be aware of and the aircraft will not behave correct in this regard.M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P-factor, even if being quite negligible on most situations, accounts for YAW, not BANK.
Right, I offcourse meant Prop Torque effect which will give you BANKhttp://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/dynamics/q0015a.shtmlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play both FSX and X-plane and I think X-plane is better now, and will soon be supiror to FSX in almost every way; However what's kinda a disapointing statement is that FSX was feature compleat 6 years ago (Wow, has it really been that long?) While X-plane feels like it's always been playing catch-up with FSX and still dosen't have all the features one would expect from a $mega_shok.gif program.The thing that really sets X-plane appart from FSX is that X-plane handels stalls and spins much more accuretly then FSX. When you stall in FSX or go into a spin, the game dosen't really know what to do. It feels like you fell into outer space or something and the aircraft stops reacting to areodinamic forces until you right the aircraft to point in the direction you're moving again. X-plane on the other hand feels much more realistic in a stall, as the aerodynamic forces still react ageinst that shape of the airplane even after the airplane has stalled or gone into a spin, making it much more easy to control in a stall or spin, and also much easyer to recover from stall or to land.The problem I always had with FSX (Not counting the memory problems that seem to desicrate my OS every time I think to play with the highest settings) is that landing the Boeing 747 was always a life or death situtation, every-time.In FSX, as soon as you stall the airplane stops genarating lift compleatly. This is extreemly appernt when landing the 747 in FSX, for if you come in and drop your airspeed to bellow 140knots or so, the plane will drematicly lose lift and fall stright into the ground. This by itself really ruined my expirence with FSX, as I would fly the 747 for an hour or two, and then crash on final more often then not.My conclusion is that FSX genarates lift on the airplane based off look up tables of wind tunnal data, but it dosen't have wind tunnal data for stalls or spins (I mean it's not like they put the airplane on it's sides in the wind tunnal to test how fast it would fall from all directions.) So when you stall your airplane in FSX you go from however much lift you get just above your stall speed to zero, and fall like a rock. X-plane when you stall, the plane will try and right itself and will still be genarating some amount of lift even in a stall.I think FSX is trying to make everyone a better pilot by doing this, or trying to make sure they don't get sued if someone tries something in FSX and it dosen't work in real life. Because in this way the game teaches you to fly the airplane without ever stalling, which is a much safer way to fly, and FSX is perfictly realistic, as long as you never stall. But X-plane is far more realistic when it comes to real world low speed stalls, spins and airtricks that the FAA would probably consider less then safe.Still, the best part of FSX for me was the missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is extreemly appernt when landing the 747 in FSX, for if you come in and drop your airspeed to bellow 140knots or so, the plane will drematicly lose lift and fall stright into the ground. This by itself really ruined my expirence with FSX, as I would fly the 747 for an hour or two, and then crash on final more often then not.
That's actually quite realistic behaviour. You use a different technique to landing a jet than landing a small prop. You don't stall it onto the runway, because as you've found large jets drop like a brick when they approach stall speed. Instead you fly it onto the runway, maintaining a constant speed and attitude. At about 50ft, raise the nose by a few degrees and pull the throttles back and let it settle on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I play both FSX and X-plane and I think X-plane is better now, and will soon be supiror to FSX in almost every way; However what's kinda a disapointing statement is that FSX was feature compleat 6 years ago (Wow, has it really been that long?) While X-plane feels like it's always been playing catch-up with FSX and still dosen't have all the features one would expect from a $ mega_shok.gif program.The thing that really sets X-plane appart from FSX is that X-plane handels stalls and spins much more accuretly then FSX. When you stall in FSX or go into a spin, the game dosen't really know what to do. It feels like you fell into outer space or something and the aircraft stops reacting to areodinamic forces until you right the aircraft to point in the direction you're moving again. X-plane on the other hand feels much more realistic in a stall, as the aerodynamic forces still react ageinst that shape of the airplane even after the airplane has stalled or gone into a spin, making it much more easy to control in a stall or spin, and also much easyer to recover from stall or to land.The problem I always had with FSX (Not counting the memory problems that seem to desicrate my OS every time I think to play with the highest settings) is that landing the Boeing 747 was always a life or death situtation, every-time.In FSX, as soon as you stall the airplane stops genarating lift compleatly. This is extreemly appernt when landing the 747 in FSX, for if you come in and drop your airspeed to bellow 140knots or so, the plane will drematicly lose lift and fall stright into the ground. This by itself really ruined my expirence with FSX, as I would fly the 747 for an hour or two, and then crash on final more often then not.My conclusion is that FSX genarates lift on the airplane based off look up tables of wind tunnal data, but it dosen't have wind tunnal data for stalls or spins (I mean it's not like they put the airplane on it's sides in the wind tunnal to test how fast it would fall from all directions.) So when you stall your airplane in FSX you go from however much lift you get just above your stall speed to zero, and fall like a rock. X-plane when you stall, the plane will try and right itself and will still be genarating some amount of lift even in a stall.I think FSX is trying to make everyone a better pilot by doing this, or trying to make sure they don't get sued if someone tries something in FSX and it dosen't work in real life. Because in this way the game teaches you to fly the airplane without ever stalling, which is a much safer way to fly, and FSX is perfictly realistic, as long as you never stall. But X-plane is far more realistic when it comes to real world low speed stalls, spins and airtricks that the FAA would probably consider less then safe.Still, the best part of FSX for me was the missions.
What planes are you comparing stall characteristics to, default? If so both sims default aircraft doesn't model stalls/spins well. Now take a model like the Real Air SF260, and the story is much different. I'm not sure what would be a comparable X-Plane model, Goran, or Morten would probably be able to suggest a few. Here's me flying a Mustang in a stall (No spin), and a comparison sim video using the A2A P-51D, which I think comes pretty close and was right on the numbers. The upcoming Accusim model promises to be even better!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoUF2MfDSiIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epCgYZ13YiU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's actually quite realistic behaviour. You use a different technique to landing a jet than landing a small prop. You don't stall it onto the runway, because as you've found large jets drop like a brick when they approach stall speed. Instead you fly it onto the runway, maintaining a constant speed and attitude. At about 50ft, raise the nose by a few degrees and pull the throttles back and let it settle on.
Even the small plane, that I always flew, would stall and fall through the flare.............if you allowed it. The constant speed prop acts like a brake, and airspeed diminishes very quickly. No floating like a Cessna 172, and little sense of ground effect. The plan is to be very close to the runway as airspeed falls below 60 kias. Either a steep descent with a flare at the right moment, or a bit of power is required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how true it is but I've heard several developers say that X-plane is more difficult to develop for than FSX, and that it is lacking in major areas as a potential platform for advanced simulations like A2A's Accusim products, for example. Scenery developers have also commented that its hard to work with, for example the removal of the default autogen and replacing it with custom scenery is much harder than in FSX.However, as you have probably read elsewhere, PMDG is considering producing add-ons for X-plane, so they have a different view.Having never developed for X-plane myself, I cannot comment on any of these claims, only repeat what I have heard directly from the developers themselves, and they haven't stated in detail what the problems are. One guy said that to make a decent aircraft in X-plane you basically have to code it from scratch, but that goes for any aircraft in any simulator.I'd be interested to here the technical details of why some developers are so against X-plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm... well, the 747 in X-plane 10 flys a lot closer to the one in FSX now. I still think it stalls better.
you guys are funny ... great FDE ... the 747 stalls good :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got X-plane 10 a few days ago and have been practicing on the 747 trying a nosie up, slow approch on the numbers landing to see if it's better then FSX. I must say the flight model on the 747 in X-plane 10 is lightyears better then the one in FSX, I can land it on the numbers almost everytime in XP10. What would have usally been a catastrophic landing in FSX, is now a rough landing in x-plane 10. You can even bounce the 747 in X-plane 10, which is something I never experinced in FSX.Look at this video where the guy lands it a bit rough in x-plane 10:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tsqsOFCtMCompare that to this short landing in FSX:http://youtu.be/NntjDsONtF0X-plane looks and feels a lot more realistic on landings. Which was my number 1 grip with FSX and why I switched to X-plane.Still I am upset with how X-plane 10 is not everything they said it would be in the adverts; false advertising anyone? Not to mention the senery looks horrible, almost worse then XP9 in some cases. I was flying around my home town in Santa Cruz and I kept getting lost because I had no idea where I was and nothing looked familiar, the senery has no destinction between commercal, residental and industreal sectors. It's all just houses everywhere. The only land marks you can use accuretly that are their in real life is the roads, and even they look all crazy.Still, I must say I find it funny that 3ed Party Developers find x-plane so unfreindly. Making planes in X-plane is one of it's primary features. It's almost got better support for 3PDs then it dose for it's user base.Oh well, I never bought any 3ed Party Content for FSX so switching to X-plane is really not that big of a deal for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valid point regarding the scenery, but I see this as only a temporary issue. The terrain resolution is really good and in combination with the roads, water areas etc; I think we will be seeing some rapid development when WED is released along with the normal development cycle of Xplane.PS And in the meantime to stay on the positive side of things, the lack of obvious townships, VFR fixes etc give opportunity to develop some instrument skills ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still I am upset with how X-plane 10 is not everything they said it would be in the adverts; false advertising anyone?
Yes I agree 100% and when I complained about this fact on the only XPlane "official" forum after paying 90$ canadian for XP10, I was attacked by the XPlane "fundamentalists" :) and they blocked my posts with arguments as bizarre and strange as one would expect from a religious cult followers :)With good faith I tried to switch from FSX by buying XP10 following the whole propaganda and preaching on their site for FSX people to convert (after the closure of ACES there was a big publicity) and there is always an overconfident marketing technique for XP as being the best simulator for PC while FS is seen as a toy etc etc... And that makes an outsider like me think that it is all that FSX is and even more...Anyawys I think XP10 has great features but unfinished (a little of this and a little of that) and the lack of seasonal variation is a big weakness in the scenery...As for the 747 in XPlane 10, it handles very well and very convincing on landing... The fact that I can manualy control Thrust without having to over do it like FSX is nice too.. I think the fact that the spooling time / "elasticity" of the engines response to the throttle are smaller in the XP 747 hence the easiness of maintaining lets say a 145kts on shorft final without having to always adjust thrust (in calm weather indeed)Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny reading all these threads about FSX vs. X-plane 10, I didn't know there are mods out there to fix FSX's stability issues. I just tried one of these things that tunes FSX's configuration file to give better stability. Man FSX runs so much better now, it's like night and day.Dose anyone know of some other good FSX stability mods? Preferably the free ones. My computer can handle FSX maxed out, but it keeps crashing due to memory leaks. XPX a lot more stable I would say; Although the lack of SLI support is giving me a worse frame rate then I should be getting otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a search for Bojote, that will probably get you about a thousand hits. (More or less), also NickN I thnk has a lot of excellent tips. Just Google fsx stability issues about 10 pages comes up the first time. Google all thise guys and you will be reading for days, if not months :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to hijack the topic but just a quick note - the Bojote mods are more about performance than stability, and they don't work for everyone. They're a miracle for some users (especially those on older systems) but can cause stability problems for others. All worth trying but be warned. NickN's guides are more about basic FSX setup and can produce a good mix of performance and stability. They can be confusing to read because he's been writing and cross-linking them for years. Start with this one but be sure to follow the links. He posts exclusively on Simforums (in the hardware section), by the way.Now back to regular X-Plane programming, already in progress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I'll look into that more, thanks.Although...I sware, FSX must have some type of magical hex cast on it by Bill Gates and his fellow members of the illuminati.I just set everything up to max and FSX was running perfect with the new configuration file. Then I flew over my home town again and looked at the defult senery, FSX still seems to have better senery then X-plane 10, landmarks are visable, and far away mountains render far more realisticly. I knew where I was and where I wanted to go, and was not lost unlike in XPX where everything looks the same. Not to mention the trees look far, far better in FSX then XPX.However right when I made this judgment call that FSX defult senery is still better then X-plane 10 senery, I stall out and crash into a house in one of those zero-G, no lift, stalls that plage FSX. It was like the exact moment I thought "Man, FSX is way better then XPX at senery"This is by no means an uncommon accurence. Everytime, I think I'm about to say FSX is better then X-plane, it somehow magicly proves to me that it is not better then x-plane by driving me insane with one of it's meny problems, usally ending in my computer crashing or my plane crashing and me swareing at my computer like it's possesed by demons. So then I switch back to X-plane because I have a much more stable expirence, and genaraly more fun flying in that game. However X-plane feels incompleate and the lack of content that should be their for the price tag drives me back to FSX after awhile and it starts all over again.So basicly we have two flight simulators that both have problems and both have advantages. One will drive you insane because of that lack of content for what you paid for, and the other will drive you insane because of it's possesd by evil spirits for the underworld!Chose your poison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know how you feel!With FSX I'm plagued with artifacts and autogen spikes. In X-Plane I just get an embarrassingly low frame rate! Can't win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However right when I made this judgment call that FSX defult senery is still better then X-plane 10 senery, I stall out and crash into a house in one of those zero-G, no lift, stalls that plage FSX. It was like the exact moment I thought "Man, FSX is way better then XPX at senery"
Over the years, I've seen just a few models that have unrecoverable stalls....................but they've been very few. I don't remember any for FSX either. However, there is no stall problem that plagues FSX. Use shift Z to see your airspeeds if it helps. Figure that turns will raise the stall speed. Lower the nose, add some power. It should work, as it always has for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites