Is x-plane 10 worth it?

[ap1 16]

jcomm, Is there any thing that I will miss from FSX? It seems like to me that x-plane DOES look pretty good. The graphics are pretty nice. But is the x-plane UI hard to use or what? And also what about the aircraft, are they as good as FSX or acutally better? One other thing too, when you go to high altiudes in x-plane 10 like let's say FL350, does it look like your really up there? In FSX, when I was that high, it never looked like I was that high.

 

So if you could answer my questions that would be great. And sorry about the small font in the 2nd paragraph. Thanks!

[jcomm 5,926]

Tough question ap1... I'll try to answer with what I miss...in a rather erratic, as it goes... list.

Trying to be honest will probably start a thread of critics FSX vs X-Plane, trying to emphasize how better FSX is... but I am only listing what I think you will miss, not what I think you will gain :-)

 

From FSX you will miss:

 

- the easy placement of your aircraft at specific ramps, with the airport database in FSX being far more complete than in X-Plane10

- the more detailled weather settings, even if some will be perfectly useless in terms of the internal simulation (i.e. dew point is useless, but wind and cloud/layers are not limited to 3...)

- the Moon phases :-)

- the better twilight, with light being available credibly, pretty much like in RW, near sunrise/sunset, without it being pitch dark too late/soon

- a better interface to set your radios, although some add-on aircraft have it easier than the default...

- the clouds are a problem, because you have less types/forms in X-Plane10, and they are static with the wind, but IMHO they look far better in X-Plane10

- a way of loading different load stations in your aircraft (pilot, passengers, cargo, etc...)

- more credible behaviour of light aircraft on ground when wind components even not too intense are present (they tend to weathervane above what I consider normal)

- better simulation of variable winds, but a much worse simulation of windshear and turbulence in FSX. Anyway, while the effects of winds and turbulence are overall more realistic in X-Plane10 provided there are no variable winds reported, they certainly need to get addressed...

- better default ATC (IMHO)

- Seasonal textures (can be addressed by 3pds)

- Landclass (should get better with the upcoming 64 bit version)

 

I never liked the "hallo" aroud the aircraft at cruise levels like the one you mention, on previous versions of X-Plane, but it got better in X-Plane10. It's dependent on the graphics card you have and rendering settings... An attached screen may help....(taken at FL350 aprox... over Portugal, sky clear, max visibility). While the looks may sound far from what you would like to have, X-Plane10, contrarily to MSFS, has a very credible structure of the atmosphere, up to orbital distances, including the temperatures at the various layers and the behaviour of bodies at very high/orbital levels!

 

 

 

 

[JonRD463 146]

XP default 744 at FL350 over Colorado

 

 

Maybe it's a subjective thing, but I do fly cross country 4 times a year on 2 roundtrips to Atlanta from Seattle, averaging between FL340 and FL380 and that looks pretty much like what I see out the window.

[ap1 16]

So Jcomm, did you have your settings on low in x-plane? The pictures you showed are far from realistic than what I saw that can happen in x-plane 10. What do you recommend I should get for my computer? But thanks for the pictures!

[ap1 16]

So Jcomm, did you have your settings on low in x-plane? The pictures you showed are far from realistic than what I saw that can happen in x-plane 10. What do you recommend I should get for my computer? But thanks for the pictures!

[greggerm 312]

By the time I got FSX, I kept it just default.for all the time I had been flying on it. Thanks!

 

Well, that changes the arguement a bit.Most FSX'ers have a stable of addon scenery, aircraft, and utilities which make it not only a capable package, but also a bit of a tangible investment which is tough to cast aside for a new bride.

 

If you are running vanilla FSX with no significant addons, you should give XP10 a serious shakeout. Without having invested heavily in FSX means you could invest in XP10 instead. You are one of the few people who will be comparing stock FSX against stock XP10, and you might find that XP10 will suit your needs.

 

Again - try the demo and take full advantage of it. Understand some of the differences between XP10 and FSX by reading some of the posts here and at other sites.

 

Finally, remember that nothing says you cannot use BOTH platforms if you find them both entertaining.

 

Good luck!

-Greg

[ap1 16]

Understand some of the differences between XP10 and FSX by reading some of the posts here and at other sites.

 

I have another question. Are the default aircraft in XPX easy to get used too? What I loved doing in FSX and FS9 is taking the default aircraft on flights from airport to another usually doing long haul flights. And why I asked about if XP10 looks good at hight altuides is, because I love making flights in the default jets. I'm USUALLY not a person who likes to invest in lots of addons for the simuations. So if you could please tell me about if the aircrafts are easier of harder to get used too in xpx ten, that would be great.

 

One more thing, I heard about the new atc in XPX, it looks pretty good, I know how to make the flights in XPX at least. I go to simroutes.com and find a flight plan I would like, and then put it in the atc system and fly it. I know the atc doesn't have sids and stars in it, but that's not really a problem for me.

 

But thanks for all the really kind help!

 

Adam

[SpiritFlyer 987]

Prepar3D is the future of flight simulation, let the flaming begin, lol.

 

jymp,

 

This forum is for those who belong here because they either have already chosen X-Plane as their sim of choice, or are seriously considering it. You don't belong here, so you will be disallowed from writing in this thread. If you try this kind of approach elsewhere in the X-Plane forums you will be suspended or banned.

[JonRD463 146]

Adam,

 

The default aircraft are a mixed bag. Some are excellent, such as the Baron 58 and the Kingair. Some, not so much. I've been playing a bit with the default 747, and it's pretty much on par with the FSX default 747, with maybe a few extras. It's got a really nice virtual cabin if you like goofing off in passenger view on those long flights. I understand you're more of a default user and don't get into addons too much, if I read your posts right. If it's because you don't really have a budget for addons, there are some nice freeware planes available. Most notably, the x737-800 and the QPAC A320. Both offer an impressive degree of system depth for freeware aircraft and they're good medium-haul planes that will do flights of up to 4 hours or so. The only drawback to them is the lack of a virtual cockpit, though I believe the EADT team (developers of the x737) are working on one. Right now, they both just use 2D panels.

[pryoski 84]

I like them both, and I should qualify that I'm actually referring to P3D and not FSX because I consider P3D to be a continuation to FSX.

For me X-Plane 9 and 10 are both brilliant with a very *live* feel to them as far as my perception of flight dynamics go.

Windshear and turbulence feels over modelled in XP 9, but seems to be a lot better in XP 10 but still more *obvious* than in P3D.

I still prefer XP 9 over 10, for the same reasons some people have mentioned that they prefer FSX because of addon investments. I have REX-Plane for XP9 and fly mostly Carenado aircraft, which are very well modelled, whether you fly them in XP or P3D/FSX.

So XP 9 looks FAR better than 10 in my view (with REX).

 

I use REX Essentials for P3D and love what it's done there as well. Sometimes it's difficult to tell XP and P3D appart from a visual perspective ... although the clouds and lighting in P3D with REX are a tad better than those in XP9 with REX.

 

Finally, REX's environment looks much better than the stock XP 10 environment IMO. I'm REALLY hoping for REX Essentials for XP10, once XP10 has completed it's beta cycle of course!

[ap1 16]

Well, thanks everyone for the posts! You have all been a big help to me. I kind of excited about getting x-plane 10. If anyone needs to add anything extra to me, that would be great! But thanks again!

 

Adam

 

've been playing a bit with the default 747, and it's pretty much on par with the FSX default 747, with maybe a few extras. It's got a really nice virtual cabin if you like goofing off in passenger view on those long flights.

 

Well actually, there's an FMC and has a little more autopilot buttons too. I guess that's all it has, and the other stuff you said. It looks like I will enjoy the 747 in XPX. Now what about the flight model. Do you think the XPX flight model is better than FSX? Thanks!

 

Adam

[Jason Howell 1]

I came *THIS* close to making the plunge to XP10. The reason i didnt is bacause i am tired of chasing the tiger of getting a sim to run good and having to buy all new addons and all the other things that go along with it. I finally have FSX running beautifully, and giving up all the addons i have sunk a lot of time and money into just isnt worth it to me. XP10 looks very nice, and so does that prepare fsx 11 thing, but i for sure am not gonna pay a monthly subscription to use it. Maybe when they come around and start selling it on store shelves without some kind of WOW payment plan...ill migrate.

[JonRD463 146]

Well actually, there's an FMC and has a little more autopilot buttons too. I guess that's all it has, and the other stuff you said. It looks like I will enjoy the 747 in XPX. Now what about the flight model. Do you think the XPX flight model is better than FSX? Thanks!

 

Adam

 

It's a very basic FMC and is available in most of the default XP planes. You can program a route and specify crossing altitudes, but it doesn't do any advanced things like fuel calculations, SIDs, or STARs. You can manually program SIDs and STARs if you have the approach/departure plates or all the waypoints. Don't get me wrong, you can program and fly a route from start to stop with it, but it's not exactly elegant in its execution. There's a freeware universal FMC called XFMC that, despite a few oddities, works alright. For 20 Euros, there's a universal FMC called UFMC by Javier Cortez that works much more nicely.

[jcomm 5,926]

I would just add a few more coments regarding why I finally decided myself for X-plane10.

 

1) The possibility of "flying" helicopters and other rotary wings in a much more realistic/detailled/sophisticated way than in MSFS. This is simply not possible in MSFS, not even using the best models (DODOSIM i.e.), and I spent hundreds of hours on some models in FS9 and FSX, trying to get the best out of the core FDM...

 

2) Same as above for lighter than air, and pretty much any airship you want to design with non-standard features...

 

3) The default soaring flight enviroment, not being as sophisticated as the ones we find in either SFS3, SilentWings or Condorsoaring, is still sufficiently complete to allow me to have some really good time flying, for now, the default AS-K21, which I also fly in RL.

 

4) The much more detailled / fully featured flight dynamics model, provided one knows how to properly take advantage of plane-maker and sometimes plugin programming too...

 

5) An even if not perfect, more close to real environment / atmosphere (up to outer space...) I could never fly an airship properly on MSFS's atmosphere... Above more than around 60000',forget it... In X-Plane you have a very acceptable model, regarding temperature variation, etc...

 

6) super / hyper sonic flight. Simply not possible in a realistic way in MSFS, although there are variables in the AIRfiles allowing for some "adaptation to reality in MSFS...

 

Above all, the feel I get when flying a GA around places I know from RL, without having to invest in expensive landclass / mesh / environment(earth and sky) products... It's there in the default install of X-Plane10.

 

:-)

[keithb77 308]

Well I tried the demo, and results are mixed

Default joystick assignments were arbitrary to the point of peversity..but easily fixed.

Yet to make sense of the viewing system though, can't find a sensible way to use the joystick POV hat, and I'm too old to turn myself into a christmas tree.

From a brief trip in the Baron flight dynamics seem rather better than FSX, though I had a very low frame rate which needs addressing.

Scenery initially good, twilight at Seattle. Not so good midday at Vashon Island (cf the OrbX FSX demo).

Swapped to a chopper and got a CTD so game over for the night, back to TakeOnHelicopters - same area, much more detailed scenery but never at night....

More investigation and a retry needed.

Cheers

Keith