Wait half a year for X-Plane 10.2 and then consider if it is convincing to you. In its current state it is not fully recommendable for a variety of reasons wich you will hear about surfing this and other forums.

 

If you definately want to switch away from FS, then consider purchasing X-Plane version 9, wich should be very cheap now. It's stable and most stuff like plugins, scenery (all but those built with version 10 tech) and even payware planes like the ones from Carenado(*) run, too.

 

(*) to be precise: they are built for version 9 and only partly compatibable with 10.

I do agree XPX has the feel down well, especially noticeable during approaches and traffic pattern in small planes, planes have a good flying sensation. FSX can feel a bit more stable. On the other side of the fence, I think XPX can feel _too_ unstable at times, especially during taxiing and in clouds. For example, XPX thinks the marine layer in southern California is akin to flying through thunder clouds and knocks my Bonanza around with gusts of 1000fpm. Mmmhmmm.

 

Engine modeling seems much better than FSX. It's interesting comparing Carenado's planes in both simulators. On the other side I think XPX planes seem to fly like a brick when cutting power on final.

 

There are times when landings are severly stable, and times that the plane should give the impression of dropping like a rock with power off on final....as is possible with a C/S prop. Therefor, I wouldn't condemn either sim for it. If anything, I wish that more C/S equipped aircraft would drop quicker instead of floating..............for either sim.

 

L.Adamson

I think the terrible graphics thing is not related to how nice the graphics are but how much related to reality they are.

 

XP 10 does a very nice rendition of suburgatory with very nice looking graphics at reasonable framerates. I dont think hardware is always a factor with low FPS as my FPS have fluctuated since release while running on the same hardware.

 

Certainly xp 10 looks visually more pleasing than fsx default if you are not judging it by how close it meets reality as far as buildings etc but I certainly get why people think it doesnt look as good when their criteria is based on landmarks, buildings, etc.

I just arrived from a thorough test made to xp10.10B6 on my rig. Took about 1 hour, tested almost everything I could think of, using the demo of course, and all I can say is that I am VERY SATISFIED with the performance, smoothness, weather effects (gusts/turbulence/icing/etc...).

 

:-)

As I have said in other posts, the night flying is really satisfying. What I am in fear of is that once the AI is added we may lose the fluidity that many of us currently are experiencing. It is just so dead out there!

 

Bob

I just arrived from a thorough test made to xp10.10B6 on my rig. Took about 1 hour' date=' tested almost everything I could think of, using the demo of course, and all I can say is that I am VERY SATISFIED with the performance, smoothness, weather effects (gusts/turbulence/icing/etc...).

 

:-)[/quote']

 

turbulence is still too wild. with turbulence 1 i hardly can keep small aircrafts in the air...

If it's a small aircraft, like a single engine trainer, it can get knocked around pretty good if it's only mildly windy in the "real world" of flying.

An aircraft like the Beech Skipper is not allowed to fly if winds exceed 8kts.

If it's a small aircraft' date=' like a single engine trainer, it can get knocked around pretty good if it's only mildly windy in the "real world" of flying.

 

An aircraft like the Beech Skipper is not allowed to fly if winds exceed 8kts.[/quote']

 

i know, and the gust wind feels very very realistic compared with my c152/c172 experiences. this is what makes xpx superior to other sims!

 

but turbulence is different, it comes quite often when setting real weather conditions but has nothing with what i encounter in the air...

There are 2 things I've seen people complain about regarding Xplane that, quite on the contrary, I find as quite positive aspects of the sim:

 

- The joystick/hardware configuration interface, which I find rather complete and easy to use

- Turbulence, which I find rather realistic, or at least a lot more than in MSFS versions before MS FLIGHT (the overall environment wind/shear/turbulence in FLIGHT are excellent, and have nothing to do with FSX or FS9...).

 

I have been under severe turbulence in gliders, in RL, and believe me, it is quite a ride. Many friend pilots have found what it is to get inverted in a couple of seconds, flying even a heavy AS-K21....

Hello,

 

I think my issue is XPX doesn't do light gusts in small planes. All clouds seem to be treated as storm clouds. While XPX shows the effects of going through a giant cumulous cloud in a Florida summer nicely, when I get the same exact experience trying to climb through the marine layer in San Diego, something isn't right. In fact, I can't imagine much of a difference in wind in the fog or not -- it should not be losing and gaining 100kts a second in these conditions.

 

 

I've also had times in San Diego in XPX not having enough rudder during taxi to keep the plane straight in a 5kts wind. I don't know if this is Carenado's issue or XPX's though and this may be a completely different issue.

 

@GoranM The Beech Skipper only allowed for 8kts?Where do you get that? 8kts is almost no wind at all and the Skipper is in the category of 152 or Tomahawk. In fact it has a max demonstrated crosswind component of 15kts and has a cruising speed of 97kts. Granted, much more of a wind than that and you may be able to walk faster than it flies ;)

Timmer,

 

such experiences would be a show stopper for me, but strangely I never came across such weird situations. Yesterday I was flying under severe thunderstorms, with gusting winds and turbulence up to level 3 on xplane's "environment" console, and my C172 bounced a lot, but I was able to taxi and takeoff with it...

 

This means I am not trying the exact scenarios. Could you suggest a specific weather setting for me to test ?

 

Thx in advance!

Good morning!

 

I always fly with real weather so I have no experience customizing anything. The interesting thing is it's just the binary "in clouds" versus "not in clouds." For instance, I went flying around Florida during that tropical storm a month back and it was windy as expected but it wasn't until I fly into a cloud that I got thrashed around.

 

You may want to try taking off at KMYF in San Diego in the morning with real weather. 90% of the time it'll be overcast to the west along the coast with calm winds. Until you hit the actual clouds.

 

But, honestly, as someone enjoying the sim, I wouldn't go looking for ways it falls apart. It's like purposely trying to practice stalls and spins when you know it won't be modeled. Enjoy the 80% where it works quite nicely. :)