roller coaster ride until I was able to dial up the stability and smoothe things out.

with you on this one Alan

Edited February 10, 201214 yr by Pirata

It is more difficult to design a plane in X-Plane. You really have to know a lot of things about the real plane, to get to the realistic flight behavior of the original. In a way it is much easier in FSX, where you simply tell the simulator how it should behave.

I've been around these flight simulators for over two decades. In that time, I've been involved with numerous 3rd party aircraft for the MSFS series, beta testing from a pilot's view. There is nothing "simple", when it comes to programming a believable plane for MSFS. The people that really know what they're doing, have been doing it for many years. It's truly a learned art. MSFS isn't anywhere close to a "fill in the blank" type of software.It's suppose to be X-Plane.................that should be easy to design. Just throw the correct specs in "plane maker", and out pops a perfectly performing replica! But...........we now know that's not the case. Just like the MSFS series, X-Plane also requires intense programming, from those who have spent time learning the craft.L.Adamson

Posts in the MS Flight suggest that Flight is bad so I am thinking of going to XP 10. Have not been flying since 5-6 months and as XP10 supports linux I would go for it.Just want to know how good is XP10 and does it cover sceneries ?

If you've never had XPlane before, it does not resemble MSFS. It is a different approach to flight simulation.I got it configured in less than 15 minutes: I like it although, I tend tou use MSFS more due to the overwhelmingavailability in quality addons: XPlane also has a high number of quality addons, alot but, not as much as MSFS.The ATC coding is different and, it's one of the things I have always wished that they would change.I see posts here of people having different problems running XPlane: I have none.Besides being pretty, it is also a fine simulator.

Edited February 11, 201214 yr by eSimmer

If you've never had XPlane before, it does not resemble MSFS. It is a different approach to flight simulation.I got it configured in less than 15 minutes: I like it although, I tend tou use MSFS more due to the overwhelmingavailability in quality addons: XPlane also has a high number of quality addons, alot but, not as much as MSFS.The ATC coding is different and, it's one of the things I have always wished that they would change.I see posts here of people having different problems running XPlane: I have none.Besides being pretty, it is also a fine simulator.

I had XP9 but due to no ATC I got FSX.

It's suppose to be X-Plane.................that should be easy to design. Just throw the correct specs in "plane maker", and out pops a perfectly performing replica! But...........we now know that's not the case.

I think this was clear from the beginning. A real plane is more than its aerodynamics. I think this is one of the reasons why X-Plane looks even more confusing. On the one hand you have the airfoil where every small change has many, nearly unpredictable side effects (thats one of the reasons why X-Plane was originally written), but on the other hand you have to cope with the plug-in code as in FSX.The code was developed to develop a plane, not to enter the statistics of a real plane, where you always forget some tiny, but so important detail.In FSX you can always say: I don't bother how this works, I know that the plane handles this way, so my plane has to do the same.You normally try to avoid such things, since it means a lot of additional code, but in X-Plane you always doubt yourself ("What did I do wrong? Do I really fix something, or do I add another fault to handle an error in a totally different location?")..

I am ditching FSX but keeping FS9 and going XP10, on my system FSX runs OK at @20-29 fps @mid-high sets. Hope my Athlon X3 is strong enough for XP10 else I my pocket going to get lighter by upgrading to Intel.Thnx to all.

Note to XP10 potential users, there is currently a Bug which kills the frame rate if you have ANY clouds or cars turned on IF you are using an ATI card. The developer stated that it's a known bug and that they're working on a fix.

Yes, That was an interesting discovery. Turned off cars & clouds, turned on HDR with AA, and what do you know: 25ps in Seattle. 40fps elsewhere. Previously that would have been 15-20fps in seattle depending on cloud settings.Not the latest and greatest ATi card: The 5850, but if they fix this bug, I'm guessing I've saved myself the desire to upgrade my rig.

I've completely missed that. Got to try it out. However, no cars and clouds sound a bit boring. Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

crap then I need to have a Nvidia card , who likes flying without clouds.

After fiddliong around with XP10 for app. 3 weeks now: Promising. But far from ripe. I don't consider it the sim of my choice for the next year or so.

crap then I need to have a Nvidia card , who likes flying without clouds.

They are working at it, keep in mind there are bugs with nVidia cards also. If you use to high of global shadows settings your water turns lavender a little higher than that your shadows turn brilliant red and green, looks like it is trying to go anaglyph 3D. nVidia is supposed to be working on that too.

This explanes why my computer running a 9800GTX+ is getting the same frame rate as my computer with an ATI HD6950.This bug needs therapy.

Just ordered my copy of XP10 - should arrive in a couple of weeks. I might hang around here as the "other" forums seem quite hostile for some reason.

I am wondering if X plane 10 will run well on the Toshiba X5010, I have made a post in the Mobo/hardware section "Are these good for FSX" . I need a laptop and due to budget constrains I have a choice between an upgrade for the desktop and a new laptop so I going for a new laptop.