Of course I do. I've been around X-Plane, MSFS, and others............since the invention. I also own all these items.

So..................what don't I get.

 

BTW---- You moved on from FSX..........mind stating why? Personally, I'm not moving on from anything, or solely to anything............until it exactly takes the place of real flight. I told my wife, who loves real (GA) flying, that we could just sit side by side at the computer desk, and explore the world. She didn't go for it.

 

L.Adamson

 

I'll jump in and tell you what you don't get.

It's been said umpteen times. No one is stopping you or anyone else from preferring FSX over X Plane. If you don't believe X Plane is better, that's 100% perfectly ok and you are absolutely entitled to that opinion.

The part you don't get is that there are those that disagree with you, and it's obvious you don't respect that decision. You constantly talk about the Real Air Marchetta and say how accurate it is. Great! I'm sure it is. And you supported them by purchasing it, hats off to you!

But you, and only a select few others who are the regular FSX fire brigade, are trying to dissuade the X Plane enthusiasts who frequent these forums by shoving your comments in our face by using very clever word play saying that "I use both for a very complete experience, but FSX still has the upper hand for X, Y and Z reasons."

Larry, leave it alone. It's a FLIGHT SIM. It's a HOBBY. It's not real life. Let us enjoy it as well as these forums in relative peace without the preaching, the crusades and complaints about development timelines (fs_av), the criticisms about the lack of urban scenery (greggerm), and the constant biased, opinionated statements. If you have a complaint about X Plane, use the appropriate channels. Hint: The avsim forum is definitely not one of them. When you or anyone else constantly complain in here, it just seems like whining.

Support your preferred flight sim. I encourage you to! Support both if you wish. It's up to you. Freedom of choice is something that cannot be taken away from us.

Like another post in this thread stated...there is another subforum for FSX enthusiasts. Make your presence known there and enjoy it. Smile and be happy. We're not getting any younger and I, along with many others, just want to enjoy hanging out at our little corner of the avsim universe without being told "yes, b-b-but, FSX has seasons a-a-and lookup tables and it's just as accurate as blade element theory and Austin shouldn't be saying X Plane is better just because of blade element theory, etc, etc, and again, etc..."

Bottom line, what you don't get is this...

We do not care about how great FSX is, or how accurate it's look up tables are or can be, or its seasons, it's scenery, it's complex add ons that take 4-5 years to make and whatever else makes it so great to you and others. Ask the questions if you have them. I, and perhaps a few others (if the debates stop) will be more than happy to help answer them if we can. Respect the answers and our choice of preferred sim, and everyone's happy.

It really is as simple as that.

Hopefully, now, you get it.

 

Small Edit: I will tell you 1 fact. I, along with a few others, have not been so open to answer peoples questions as much now because of the constant statements that resemble...

"But FSX can do this and this and if X Planes flight model was that good, then the default aircraft would be 100x better!"

Morten and I have gone to great lengths to explain how the flight model can be made to near 100% accuracy...on several occasions.

Personally, I don't want that kind of interjection from someone who wasn't even involved in the original question, but is on some kind of "mission" to shoot down any reply I, or anyone else, cares to give.

Something to think about.

I've been using MSFS since FS5.1. I currently have FSX installed on Windows 7 64bit, and X-Plane 10 on Mac OSX. I think the whole realistic feel can be very subjective, and I tend to concentrate the way the developers make add-ons feel. I love my PMDG 737NGX, it's been my favorite add-on to date. I love the immersion of the systems that I just don't get with any XPX add-ons. JRollins CRJ is the closest thing, but I'm not fully impressed with it. I think the feel of XPX is nice, and I'm fine with the textures, the lighting, and the way things look in general. I don't complain too much about scenery in general since I spend my time in the cockpit high in the sky. Scenery will be of more importance to GA and bush fliers. However, I do love airport add-ons. I don't live in Europe, but I spend most of my time on FSX flying the 737 to places in Europe. There are tons of fantastic European add-on airports that keep me busy.

 

What I hate about FSX for me is that it is rather unstable. It freezes, it sometimes minimizes to the task bar for no apprehend reason. Just yesterday I flew from Luxembourg to Lisbon, and as I was getting on final it locked up. It drives me nuts to do some of these longer flights to have it lock up or minimize to the task bar, and sometimes I can get it to come back up, sometimes I can't. I'm worried about doing some transatlantic flights because of the instability. Which brings me to XPX. It's been stable, and it runs native on Mac OSX. I don't like the lack of wonderful add-ons. There are some great developers signing up like PMDG to develop for XPX, so that's good. Again, I place heavy importance on system simulation of an add-on. I don't want it to just look good, I want to feel as if I am actually in that aircraft. I don't like how developers for XPX rely mostly on 3D cockpits and not use 2D panels as well. We're just not at the stage yet where we can forget the 2D all together. I mostly fly in 3D, but there are certain things I like to do and setup in 2D.

 

Another thing I dislike about XPX is Austin, the developer. He doesn't seem to listen to the market, and only incorporates his ideas and seems resistant to change if it opposes his ideas. I think Austin is holding back a lot of potential. I wish X-Plane had more money, a larger team, and someone who listens to the market and developers.

 

My summary:

FSX - Awesome add-ons, but unreliable for me.

XPX - Lack of awesome add-ons, more reliable for me.

 

I still try and use FSX the most. If anyone has any recommendations as to what to do about freezing and minimizing the task bar, please let me know.

Strangely, and I hope I don't tempt sod's law, but since moving to Win7 64bit and running FSX on a new dedicated machine, I have had zero issues with stability. Mmm, OK, maybe not zero issues, but virtually zero. I am able to fly the NGX with all the usual addons and paraphanalia without worrying if FSX is going to freeze on my approach after a two hour flight! Why is this who knows. Maybe it's the dedicated machine, maybe it's Win7, maybe it's being careful when installing and uninstalling software. I don't know. So that area of FSX I am very happy with. The two areas that I would want to improve on, in a perfect world, would be increasing the LOD without blurries, ie better AG loading, and fewer stutters around big airports, although that isn't as big a deal as it used to be since using the 1/2 Vsync tweak that Word Not Allowed recommended. So, Xplane? Maybe, but as I said earlier, IMHO I think the sim will really come into it's own in about 18 months. BTW: It's interesting to read that some of you fellas are OK with the XP clouds ...?? As that is something that would prevent me from investing in XP straight away. They may be 3 dimensional in their construction but IMO I think they look extremely unrealistic. But of course this is purely subjective and down to the individual, as Goran says, freedom of choice.

Hello Howard,

 

Based on my own experience with fsx. P3d and xplane, and based on what youve explained. As to what is and is not important to you, I would recommend giving p3d a try. It will resolve some of the blurry scenery issues that occurred with fsx. This was the one issue with fsx that drove me nuts. Prepared wont totally eliminate this issue but make it a lot less noticeable. You will also be able to use all your current fsx addons. I used p3d for a while and liked it over fsx for this one reason.

 

As for x-plane 10 I get the idea it's not your cup of tea, at least not yet. I personally prefere it over fsx and prepared because I get a much better feeling of flight. I really can't explain it beyond that point, but I just feel a more fluid flight model. I also like the terrain representation better in rural areas , but better in fsx for urban landscape. The clouds which you mention in xox are one of the things I like in xplane 10. They normally don't look as good as say Rex clouds from a distance but flying through them is something to behold and that's more important to meso I guess it's all about personal preferences . I downloaded some alternate cloud textures for xplanex which made them look very much like Rex, but then they lost that 3d feel as I flew through them, so I ment back to the default.

 

Anyhow, I want to give you my honest opinion, I'm not going to say get xplane because that's what I prefere. I think from what you've said about what's important to you, xplane may not be for you, at least not yet. Keep an eye on it and in a year and half or so you may be ready for a change and xox will have matured a lot and be just what you want.

 

I hope this helps answer your questions and if you have any questions about installing addons for p3d, feel free to pm me.

Ps. I'm typing this on my iPhone so forgive me if there are spelling issues lol.

 

Rob

Yes it does seem this thread has gone the way of many others.

 

Personally, I don't think a thread like this should be closed down as it can be valuable but there could be some guidelines. It does very much sound like the org is not the place were users can get the information they want when they are FSX users and want to try a change. Avsim does have forums for multiple sims and I think we can play nicely.

 

As I said for myself I would just buy it but not everyone is in a position to splash out to try something that they might not use.

 

We just have to be a little bit grown up about it. It is all about opinions. If someone says they think a feature is better you can let that go. It doesnt have to be the turning point for another runaway bad thread.

 

There are definitely some recurring themes that dont need to be here, like flight models. Sure, xplane says it's theory is better and in practise it makes no difference. A well modeled plane is good in either sim. That particular debate serves no purpose except to have an extended argument.

 

For some xplane users, you should understand that what FSX people are used to may be different than what you are used to. Not every query is ###### stirring. Take it for it's surface value.

 

Yes, sometimes an FSX user will come here and ask other FSX users who are also xplane users why they like it and the pros and the cons. Where else will they ask this? In the FSX forum where the xplane users are not watching?

 

Just be sensible about it.

Yes it does seem this thread has gone the way of many others.

 

Personally, I don't think a thread like this should be closed down as it can be valuable but there could be some guidelines. It does very much sound like the org is not the place were users can get the information they want when they are FSX users and want to try a change. Avsim does have forums for multiple sims and I think we can play nicely.

 

As I said for myself I would just buy it but not everyone is in a position to splash out to try something that they might not use.

 

We just have to be a little bit grown up about it. It is all about opinions. If someone says they think a feature is better you can let that go. It doesnt have to be the turning point for another runaway bad thread.

 

There are definitely some recurring themes that dont need to be here, like flight models. Sure, xplane says it's theory is better and in practise it makes no difference. A well modeled plane is good in either sim. That particular debate serves no purpose except to have an extended argument.

 

For some xplane users, you should understand that what FSX people are used to may be different than what you are used to. Not every query is ###### stirring. Take it for it's surface value.

 

Yes, sometimes an FSX user will come here and ask other FSX users who are also xplane users why they like it and the pros and the cons. Where else will they ask this? In the FSX forum where the xplane users are not watching?

 

Just be sensible about it.

 

This is exactly the type of 'level-headed' response that I have been seeking here. Thanks Jason, I totally agree and it seems the two or three hard headed ones are even starting to mellow a little. That is nice also. Like I stated in my plea to Stephen not to shut us down and walk away, where else could we be having a discussion such as this? Thanks again.

 

Ray

Well fellas, from where I'm sitting, the thread has been extremely interesting and informative. Thanks Rob and Jason for your very level headed and helpful replies.

I wonder what would happen if I posted the X Plane equivalent of this screenshot...

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/378287-so-whos-made-the-switch-from-fsx/#entry2407483

in an FSX forum and I mentioned that I like X Planes clouds better.

I don't think anyone would need more than 1 guess as to what the outcome would be.

I wonder what would happen if I posted the X Plane equivalent of this screenshot...

http://forum.avsim.n...x/#entry2407483

in an FSX forum and I mentioned that I like X Planes clouds better.

I don't think anyone would need more than 1 guess as to what the outcome would be.

 

I don't wonder at all about that. I thought there was some sort of hope for the multiple users based on your earlier post, but, I guess not.

 

EDIT: That was a REAL dumb statement on my part. Sorry, Please don't reply.

 

Ray

I wonder what would happen if I posted the X Plane equivalent of this screenshot...

http://forum.avsim.n...x/#entry2407483

in an FSX forum and I mentioned that I like X Planes clouds better.

I don't think anyone would need more than 1 guess as to what the outcome would be.

 

Please do. BUT............you had better have a good reason for doing so. It was stated that FSX's clouds look like highly defined billboards, in a comparison to X-Plane. I have seen shots that look like dotted billboards, yet my real weather FSX "saved flights", usually look like what I posted. And I have NO FSX weather addons. The way I look at it, perhaps you're surprised how well the screenshot looks. Perhaps you didn't realise that FSX is capable.

 

In the meantime, lets get back to what YOU don't get. You seem to believe that I have an agenda of pushing FSX over X-Plane. That's not true, unless of course you keep insisting that X-Plane is 100% capable of accuracy in flight dynamics. In that case, FSX will never have an equal in your mind, and I'll always be a confrontation. In the meantime, why would I still be buying X-Plane addons..............if I was so entrenched into FSX? Do, you ever wonder?

 

You do keep harping on the 100% numbers.............as if X-Plane is purely capable right out of the box, and in the RIGHT hands. Artificial stability is unacceptable; it only takes 3 mins to fix major mistakes by others, since most others have no idea of what they're doing. I do not go along with all of that. Your opinion or not. Like any other "real airplane forum"..............I don't respect your opinion enough to "say nothing". Why............would I do that? I'm not the one that starts these FSX versus X-Plane debates, but I also don't just sit by, while I see inaccuracies in some statements. Geez, I even stood up for X-Plane, when Austin's cheesy April fools joke was posted on the Flight forum. It's not all that bad; just like you said, it's just a flight hobby.

 

L.Adamson

I find it interesting that the original poster in this thread was (*and remains!) appreciative of all the commentary relevant to his original question. That includes all the positives about X-Plane, the negatives, and the comparisons. The turning point in the thread seems quite obvious to me.

 

I have to say that while I see a lot of good scenery, lots of it appears to be photosceneries, which I don't particularly care for. So what is the opinion of anyone who has moved from FSX and can offer a very objective view point, cheers fellas...

 

Since GoranM has decided to invoke my name a couple of times as someone who likes to "complain" a lot about X-Plane, I'll take that as an invitation to share my opinions, in order to keep the thread relevant for the original question and help a fellow hobbyist make an informed purchasing decision:

 

X-Plane has a lot going for it, but it's not ready for me to switch, or even use part-time yet. I am a very scenery-oriented sim pilot and since you (Rockliffe) brought up the topic of scenery, I feel I can share my thoughts. I do a lot of sim flying in and around urban areas, and the current rendering of cities leaves a lot to be desired. While the display engine itself is smooth and high performance, cities look like extensions of their suburban surroundings. We are told X-Plane needs additional art assets (textures, models, etc) to bring cities to a state of believability. XP10 It looks great in rural areas, and is

second to none

in nighttime environments, but the vaunted "plausible world" improvements fall short in the cities an dense suburbia, and it needs time and development efforts to catch up. Thankfully, some of my concerns are slated to be addressed in the forthcoming v10.10 update, which will be coming out soon. Until then, as I always recommend, definitely download and try the

demo

. While you'll be limited to the Seattle area and 15 minutes of flight time, you will be able to fly over urban, suburban, and rural areas to see if it suits you. It will only cost you the time it takes to download and try.

 

Now that I've said my (*supposedly) preaching, crusading, complaining, biased and opinionated statement, I'll get back to enjoying my holiday off.

-Greg

Morten and I have gone to great lengths to explain how the flight model can be made to near 100% accuracy...on several occasions.

 

Yes, let's discuss this. There is quite a difference between you and Morten. Morten freely admit's, when he doesn't agree with Austins programming. On the otherhand, you tend to imply that the base program is nearly perfect...........to design an airplane, if it's used by those with capable minds. If that's the case, then surely NASA, Boeing, Cessna, and countless others would have no need for wind tunnels, etc. X-Plane could have saved Cessna two prototypes lost to spins.............if only Cessna had designed the rudder with X-Plane. Boeing could have saved to "cash" too.

 

Yes, I believe that near 100% accuracy can be achieved; but that's for duplicating the flight dynamics of an "actual" flying plane. In the meantime, XP as a design program is still "ballpark", unless of course, you read all of the crap spread over the internet. I do get quite a kick out of reading some of these debates on forums I've never head of. Just type XPlane versus FSX, as I mentioned earlier. According to these other threads, FSX is a "game" at best, while X-Plane duplicates an actual flying aircraft because of it's modeled airflow. See, a lot of people actually believe this stuff.

 

L.Adamson

I find it interesting that the original poster in this thread was (*and remains!) appreciative of all the commentary relevant to his original question. That includes all the positives about X-Plane, the negatives, and the comparisons. The turning point in the thread seems quite obvious to me.

 

 

 

Since GoranM has decided to invoke my name a couple of times as someone who likes to "complain" a lot about X-Plane, I'll take that as an invitation to share my opinions, in order to keep the thread relevant for the original question and help a fellow hobbyist make an informed purchasing decision:

 

 

X-Plane has a lot going for it, but it's not ready for me to switch, or even use part-time yet. I am a very scenery-oriented sim pilot and since you (Rockliffe) brought up the topic of scenery, I feel I can share my thoughts. I do a lot of sim flying in and around urban areas, and the current rendering of cities leaves a lot to be desired. While the display engine itself is smooth and high performance, cities look like extensions of their suburban surroundings. We are told X-Plane needs additional art assets (textures, models, etc) to bring cities to a state of believability. XP10 It looks great in rural areas, and is

second to none

in nighttime environments, but the vaunted "plausible world" improvements fall short in the cities an dense suburbia, and it needs time and development efforts to catch up. Thankfully, some of my concerns are slated to be addressed in the forthcoming v10.10 update, which will be coming out soon. Until then, as I always recommend, definitely download and try the

demo

. While you'll be limited to the Seattle area and 15 minutes of flight time, you will be able to fly over urban, suburban, and rural areas to see if it suits you. It will only cost you the time it takes to download and try.

 

Now that I've said my (*supposedly) preaching, crusading, complaining, biased and opinionated statement, I'll get back to enjoying my holiday off.

-Greg

 

Hee hee, cheers Gregg, nice one. That's the kind of reply I find helpful. The default scenery, either in FSX or XP is irrelevent to me as I always fly in addon scenery. This allows me to fly in what I feel is the best flying experience I can achieve. Flying default, as I said earlier, means quite the opposite in most cases. I would feel exactly the same about XP, BUT only if addon sceneries and aircraft were up to the high standard of those we enjoy currently in FSX, or in fact better. If what I read is accurate regarding XP's engine, then developers will be able to use the extra performance and smoothness of the engine to produce exceptional sceneries beyond those of FSX.

 

Don't eat all the popcorn Alain :LMAO: