Wise statement. I see the only posrible benefit in a superior flight model compared to FSX if you are able to ignore the nuked world. But does XP model it really better than RealAir and Milviz?

 

In those that depend directly on the core limitations of MSFS, such as the poor reciprocating and turbine engine models, the wrong way mixture works as compared to RW, the necessity of introducing some abnormal coeficients in order to get proper sideslip (but having it's nasty side effects such as an abnormal need to use rudder for turn coordination...) , X-Plane10 outperforms FSX Gold, even with RealAirs (it's not a fault of RealAir but rather something tied to the core of FSX,

 

IMO------All of this superior flight model stuff, that I've read for years, is pure marketing. But lot's of users seem to believe it. As a pilot, plane builder (RV6), I just don't see it. And I do use RealAir 3rd party aircraft for the comparison to X-Plane. RealAir shows what FSX is capable of. I have not yet tried Milviz.

 

As to mixture & slips, I do have some differing thoughts. FSX wants a user to be actively using mixture at around 6000'. If you're not leaning at that altitude, then the engine is suffering power wise. And I'll be leaning FSX at 4600', which is the elevation of my next door airport. I live in mountain country, and leaning has always been essential for flying non-turbo boosted airplanes around here. As far as I'm concerned, FSX is sufficient for leaning, if we don't try to get into the areas of lean of peak. Just pull the mixture back for best power, and let it go at that. I'm not going to worry about exact EGT comparisons to real airplanes, as they vary anyway. As to slips, they've always been a RealAir specialty. I've never found a simulated airplane that slips better than they do. Do note, that for lean of peak (LOP)operation, real planes should have fuel injection, and a monitor for each cylinders CHT & EGT. Many airplanes, and especially older ones, might just have a CHT & EGT gauge for just one cylinder (the usually hottest one)

 

For years, it's my belief that some X-Plane users think X-Plane is more life like because of a fluidness. As far as I'm concerned, real life flight isn't all that fluid. It's not like what I imagine a "fluid" magic carpet to be. Sometimes, I can be zipping along at near 200 mph in the (real)RV, and it seems almost motionless. The ground just appears to move slowly underneath, while the plane is extremely smooth in calm air.

 

Bare in mind, that I'm not saying that the X-Plane models are inferior. It's just that they're not any better, than some of the best that I've been using for FSX for quite a few years now. There is no way, that I'd dump FSX in favor of X-Plane, and leave RealAir type additions behind.

 

L.Adamson

Thanks for sharing your point of view. I had big hopes in XPX, after XP9 made me come back to FSX. I think XPX is the final nail in the coffin of my XP carreer.

I'm hanging with it, mainly for the helos, the night flight and some of the other top-notch payware (like the Leading Edge DC-3). But I find myself drifting back to FSX more and more. I would have hoped that, nearly a year after first release, we'd have seen a faster pace of improvement in the environment beyond the windshield. I understand it's a matter of competing priorities and limited resources, but in spite of the excellent feel of flight, I can't get to the suspension of disbelief - the "you are there" feeling - the way I can with FSX and its best payware. Someone here recently referred to XP10 as a technical simulator, and that's what it is for me right now. I hope it gets beyond that. I'm working on a new build now and when I have it finished, I'll move both FSX and XP10 over to it. I'll probably spend most of my time with FSX but I'm willing to wait and see.

I recently re-installed everything due to a new system build and also Win 8 (yea I know, but I had to try it). Anyway, I just got done re-installing FSX and addons and XP10 with addons as well as other sims I use. I just recently spent some time with FSX and some of my orbx addons to name a few and even bought a few planes I missed out on over the last few months, but I have to say I still enjoy XP10 more. Im, not sure what it is. FSX is a fantastic sim, but I find myself spending more time with XP10 despite its warts and growing pains. XP-10 is progressing slower than I thought or hoped, but it is progressing and for now, its still my primary sim, but that could always change. DCS world had been getting a lot of use lately and IM eagerly awaiting the DCS Huey since I learned to fly helos in one back in my Army days. Rob

Yes, I keep an eye on DCS too :-)

I will not get back to X-plane unless some miracle happens, and that would involve at least a fix to the torque and wheel drag, as well as a fix to the time of day settings... Unfortunately I doubt any of this will find it's way in during the v10 run....

but I find myself spending more time with XP10 despite its warts and growing pains.

 

I'm with you Comanche, I too find myself going back to XPX, in fact I completely took FSX of my drive. I don't know why so many people complain about XPX lack of "being there sensation" or "not realistic enought". I for one am not a real pilot but my brother who is commercial certified is. I have flown with him many times in a 182 cessna and what I cant tell you is that when he is lined up with the runway for landing, he's always working with the yoke, pedals, trim and throttle, in other words the landing part keeps him busy. He's even let me take the yoke from time time so I have a descent idea of the flying sensation.

 

On the other hand, In FSX I can land some of the default planes and even payware blind folded, they all feel like they are on rails, I mean I can practically land only working the throttle, this is boring to me and I find it non-realistic. That said, I'm not a RW pilot but in XPX the sensation of flying does feel right, at least for me.

 

I can understand the different needs, but to compare XPX to FSX in terms of "realism" and say that FSX has the edge, I just don't get it. I find it hard to believe that a guys like Austin Meyer, Ben and whoever else is involved have it wrong.

 

Granted, there are some issues that definitely need to be addressed, some have been very well pointed out by jcomm. Hopefully they will be worked out.

 

just my 2 cents

I recently re-installed everything due to a new system build and also Win 8 (yea I know, but I had to try it). Anyway, I just got done re-installing FSX and addons and XP10 with addons as well as other sims I use. I just recently spent some time with FSX and some of my orbx addons to name a few and even bought a few planes I missed out on over the last few months, but I have to say I still enjoy XP10 more. Im, not sure what it is. FSX is a fantastic sim, but I find myself spending more time with XP10 despite its warts and growing pains. XP-10 is progressing slower than I thought or hoped, but it is progressing and for now, its still my primary sim, but that could always change. DCS world had been getting a lot of use lately and IM eagerly awaiting the DCS Huey since I learned to fly helos in one back in my Army days. Rob

 

me too, im also booting up DCS once in a while which looks and runs perfectly on my pc. i got bored of xp10 with it's missing features(time of day, seasons, etc.) but i still like it's traffic and road system. I work in aviation and in the past 2 months i haven't flown my civ sims because of boredom. I'm playing other sims, rpg's and some shooters. Maybe i will come back when xp10 goes 64bit with some more updates to the scenery.

And people say gentle sex is whimsical.

I find it hard to believe that a guys like Austin Meyer, Ben and whoever else is involved have it wrong.

 

They don't have realism wrong... they have realism different.

 

People will experience and enjoy their simulation in different ways... personally, I don't care too much about perfection in flight models - so long as it is reasonable. While both platforms have examples of very very good and very very bad flight model experiences, it is fair to state that they both do at least reasonable job. X-Plane's improvements in flight modeling above being merely reasonable don't matter much to my personal tastes, so this vaunted difference in the platforms remains a bit irrelevant to me and my flying styles.

 

I have a keener interest in the view out the airplanes windows, rather than if the approach speeds and handling are nailed down to the nearest tenth of a knot and bluster of wind. I am far more sensitive to the scenery and scenic elements in a simulation than I am the minutiae of a flight model. Therefore, I am biased towards enjoying the platform which does that better. It's not to say that X-Plane does it poorly in any stretch (*have you seen X-Plane at night?! Daaaayum!). Since it is an area of interest for me (and I prefer to fly in the daylight), being merely reasonable doesn't cut it for me.

 

For folks with a more aerodynamically-minded view on things, it might be just the opposite. Because X-Plane may do a better job simulating airflows and flight models, they might lean far more towards X-Plane because of its strength there, accepting it's merely "reasonable" scenery as a tradeoff for this strength. Regardless of your interests, focuses, issues, or pet peeves, there hopefully is at least one civilian flight sim platform out there to meet your current goals. You might even find that one sim or another meets ALL your goals at once!

 

JComm gave X-Plane one of the strongest attempts to migrate to X-Plane I think we've all seen, but in the end, it didn't give him the satisfaction that other platforms do. His thorough trial is something to be admired, and his decision after the fact respected - regardless of its outcome. It would appear that most people are indeed granting him that respect, which I find heartening.

 

-Greg

JComm gave X-Plane one of the strongest attempts to migrate to X-Plane I think we've all seen

 

Can't agree with you more Greg.

 

My point is: Why do people keep comparing apples and oranges? In my point of view FSX and XPX are in many ways different. I see FSX more like a game type of simulation with lots of eye candy, it does the job very well. XPX is more on the tech side, it also does the job very well. Both have strenghts and also flows, so why keep comparing.

 

I find it hard to believe that we will ever get a sim with all the goodies "The perfect sim", no way. The decision of which one to keep will come down to what ever flaws you are willing to accept. Some may decide to have them both.

I have and enjoy,FSX,DCS and X-Plane,I don't think any of them are "The Perfect Flight Simulation" but I do love all of them for different Characteristics.I will say I'm not investing much $$ in FSX as years past.These days X-Plane and DCS are competing for my $Dollar$

A few comments, addressing various postings...

 

IMO, X-Plane doesn't feel anymore like flying than FSX.

 

FSX doesn't land any easier than X-Plane, and isn't the feel of being on rails. For comparison, I've made many real life succesful landings, and one crash landing...

 

The terms "game" & "technical" have me confused, when it comes to these sims. Actually, I'm not confused. I just don't think that either one is specifically technical, while the other is more game like.

 

I certainly DO care about simulated aerodynamics, as well as out the window (windscreeen) "eye candy". I especially like graphics, such as those from Carenado too. I will use the best of either sim, when it comes to flight models, and eye candy.

 

The comment....."They don't have realism wrong... they have realism different.".....isn't to far off.

 

To Jcomm...........Thanks to IE8, which I think my daughter loaded while I was on vacation, these forums are screwed up. And I can't reply to PMs.

 

L.Adamson

The terms "game" & "technical" have me confused, when it comes to these sims. Actually, I'm not confused. I just don't think that either one is specifically technical, while the other is more game like.

 

Really? Show me plane maker in FSX and I will agree to that.

 

 

Really? Show me plane maker in FSX and I will agree to that.

 

Knowing what I know about building real aircraft, I don't care too much about Plane Maker. I'm sure it

beats the old method of pencil drawings on a restaurant napkin, and can crank out some ball park figures.

As to calculating flutter, stall speeds, actual performance, structures, etc.......I do believe that it

needs some (actually a lot of) additional help, from someone who's gained experience. In other words, just inputting the proper dimensions, doesn't spit out the true to life flying qualities of the real airplane.

I'm sure it

beats the old method of pencil drawings on a restaurant napkin, and can crank out some ball park figures

 

Then we can both agree that at least one of them does provide some tech tools for:

 

calculating flutter, stall speeds, actual performance, structures, etc