Worth it?

[mikea76 184]

X-plane 10 blows FSX out of the water.. Only thing FSX is better for in my opinion is traffic spotting and I don't even use traffic since all my flying is online. If it was not for the NGX FSX would be gone from my system.

[MdMax 233]

Downloading the demo now to see how it runs for my first test, will report back.. thanks.

 

Very good decision. Just compare the FSX demo and the X-Plane demo. Take your time to ajust all the settings and understand the commands. Discover and learning to use a new flight simulator should be part of the fun.

 

You can also install add-ons on a demo. The demo is time limited but you can launch it as often you want.

 

"Worth it ?" Yes. X-Plane is my favorite sim.

 

Happy flying ! B)

 

[rdb 44]

Just a quick comparison between FSX default textures/low settings and X-Plane at near max settings.

 

Come on, Goran

I've never seen FSX looking as ugly as on your screenshot

[JasonHarris 96]

Come on, Goran

I've never seen FSX looking as ugly as on your screenshot

 

True but to be fair the other guy did say that fsx on it's lowest looked better than xplane on it's max.

[rdb 44]

True but to be fair the other guy did say that fsx on it's lowest looked better than xplane on it's max.

 

My bad :blush:

[Jkuzzie 5]

Neither are ideal. In fact, far from ideal. In a perfect world we would get the lighting, environmental "effects", and flight dynamics and whatnot from X-Plane while attaining the community, addons and layout from FSX. And textures from Orbx

[jcomm 5,961]

With good add-ons (mostly those produced by X-Aviation affiliates when it comes to payware, but there are e few others too) and even freeware from x-plane.org and other sites, X-Plane10 is a very nice looking simulator.

 

Nice looking, unfortunately doesn't allways fulfill one's expectations... I am still waiting for a miracle because, being announced as an "ultra-realistic" flight simulator I thought the ultra-realism was based on the quaity of:

 

- the flight dynamics model

- the systems model

- the overall physics / earth model

 

but... while the Earth model has features that, in some aspects, go far beyond what you can find in FSX even pushed to the limits, including orbital flight (and the airships required to do it), there are many aspects of the flight dynamics model which, IMHP, fall short of what the best add-ons for FSX can offer (A2A's and Real Air's when it comes to prop aircraft, for instance...).

 

X-Plane not being ultra-realistic (IMO), is ultra-complex in the miryad of configuration/design options available to create an aircraft. This is very entertaining if you're looking for that kind of experience (designing and then trying to keep the closest to reality that is possible a given aircraft model), but I believe that without the proper, in time, attention from the core designer, Austin Meyer, the dedicated crew that is feeding X-Plane users with all the updates that are released on an almost monthly basis, X-Plane10 will not be able to seriously compete with FSX.

 

There is an area where X-Plane10 by far outperforms FSX - rotary wing. Good add-on helicopters / auto-gyros, etc..., can provide an incredably entertaining experience, suposedly a lot closer to the real (a friend who has an ATPL-H confirmed and uses X-plane at home...) than anything you can use with FSX regarding helicopters...

 

Weather modelling was tunned up after 10.10 was released and is now a lot better, but still lacks some important aspects that 3pd weather injections add-ons can give FSX to turn weather modelling very realistic. I'd say that, for instance, AS2012 with FSX provides a much more complete/complex/accurate weather environment than what you get with X-Plane10.

 

P.S.: I quited using FSX and X-Plane10 and am now totally dedicated to another flight simulation platform because I believe I have finally found the best flight dynamics available for a PC sim, both in the rotary and fixed wing arenas (yes, it's more Arena since it's a combat sim :-)), but I still have some (even if faint), hope that something can change in X-Plane10's flight dynamics model and justify a re-install... As a glider pilot IRL I also still use Silent Wings which I consider the best soaring simulator available for the PC.

[JasonHarris 96]

Be careful with DCS jcomm or you will soon find yourself, like so many at the ED forums building a replica pit

[jcomm 5,961]

Be careful with DCS jcomm or you will soon find yourself, like so many at the ED forums building a replica pit

 

Oh... I know :-( but European/World (particularly in Portugal) crisis, prevent me from even upgrading my motherboard to something that allows for more than 8GB RAM and a PCI-E 3 graphics card (I am still on a 450 GTS ....), so, while I find the need for what you describe, I have to "get real" and keep the machine I bought in the beginning of this year to play MS FLIGHT, when I thought the future was MS FLIGHT... duh.....

 

The future may well reside in a Chinese Flight Simulator!!!!

 

[steve310002 1,198]

While the lighting is slightly more realistic in X-Plane, I feel there is a constant shadow over everything, and flying gets a little dreary even.

 

If you dislike the default lighting then download Sky Colors Maxx to change the sky which also changes the lighting.In my opinion, this makes the lighting look better and more vivid than fsx.I can only imagine what the REX team could do if they started working on Xplane 10. You can also adjust the gamma in the settings menu .

[LAdamson 240]

You don't need to commit to any particular sim. If I had too, at this point in time,I'd give it up. X-Plane is an advancing platform, yet FSX certainly hasn't been sitting dormant for the last two years either. It just gets better & better all the time. If the day comes, when X-Plane truly blows FSX out of the water...........at least in my mind, then I could easily just switch. As far as my thinking goes, the sim would have to be a mental replacement for real flight, which I've had the opportunity to participate in for many years. In the meantime, I'll just try to get the best from numerous desktop simulations. No need to jump ships, commit, or anything like that. If you do, you'll certainly miss out!

 

L.Adamson

 

P.S. an old default FSX landclass pic, with moderate settings. Addon aircraft. I just don't think I ever saw it look like Goran's pic either

[LHookins 3,104]

The future may well reside in a Chinese Flight Simulator!!!!

 

That video is Korean.

 

The Russians don't seem to mind making niche games. It wouldn't surprise me if the next really good civilian flight sim came out of Russia.

 

Hook

[GoranM 3,772]

You don't need to commit to any particular sim. If I had too, at this point in time,I'd give it up. X-Plane is an advancing platform, yet FSX certainly hasn't been sitting dormant for the last two years either. It just gets better & better all the time. If the day comes, when X-Plane truly blows FSX out of the water...........at least in my mind, then I could easily just switch. As far as my thinking goes, the sim would have to be a mental replacement for real flight, which I've had the opportunity to participate in for many years. In the meantime, I'll just try to get the best from numerous desktop simulations. No need to jump ships, commit, or anything like that. If you do, you'll certainly miss out!

 

L.Adamson

 

P.S. an old default FSX landclass pic, with moderate settings. Addon aircraft. I just don't think I ever saw it look like Goran's pic either

 

I was genuinely curious how, as Javier said, FSX on low settings/default textures stacked up against X-Plane on max settings. I've also never seen FSX look that bad, but I just set everything to "low" and had a look. Feel free to try it yourself. Just set everything to "low". Nothing sinister going on here.

Larry, I am actually intrigued by that screenshot. Where is that in FSX? I would very much like to see that scenery quality in default FSX. Also, what are your settings? I know you say they are moderate, but can you post a screenshot of them so I can see for myself on my system?

[JasonHarris 96]

I think a little bit of photoreal texture may have slipped in to Larry's pic

[meshman 109]

I think a little bit of photoreal texture may have slipped in to Larry's pic

 

No, otherwise the road in the bottom, left corner wouldn't be showing. Photo would take priority over vector based work, such as roads.