I'm an ex X-Plane 10 convert

[captain420 3,099]

Hello everyone. I have been playing X-Plane 10 for awhile now. Since I am on a Mac I can't really try out FSX. I've recently watched a lot of FSX videos on youtube to see the differences and I really admit that FSX looks a lot better. I am fully aware that this is because of 3rd party add ons. But even when I am using X-Plane 10 with add ons, it still doesn't compare to FSX. I have purchased parts to build a new computer for FSX because of this and am curious to know how is it that a 6-7 year old flight sim (FSX) can compete or even look better than X-Plane 10 which was released at the end of 2011?

 

I am sad to find out that FSX is no longer being developed, such a shame since it is such an amazing looking flight sim. I've given X-Plane 10 a chance, but everytime I see videos of FSX on youtube, it makes me not want to even look back to X-Plane 10. I know the die hard fans will say that X-Plane 10 isn't about the graphics but the physics is priority. Well that's partyly true, but there's absolutely no eye-candy, if so it's very limited. Main reason I like playing flight simulators is for the graphics. I love nature, outdoors, and beautiful scenery. Which is why I love flying in the 1st place. X-Plane just doesn't really satisfy me in that sense.

 

Another thing is, the payware planes have an absolute amazing level of detail to them that lacks in X-Plane. PMDG 747-400X, PMDG 737 NGX, Aerosoft Airbus X Extended, Captain Sim's 777. Truly stunning! However on the X-Plane side of things I don't feel the same way. The planes just aren't on the same level and that's also another negative for me. The only positive thing I can really say about X-Plane is that the physics are good. But not much else. I am hoping that there will be more addon developers making stuff for X-Plane soon, since FSX is no longer being developed. I would love to see OrbX, UK2000, REX, FS2Crew, PMDG making stuff for X-Plane.

 

I would like to hear how the rest of the community feels about this as well. For those of you who have tried both, what are your thoughts and opinions.

[xplanery 250]

Well in my opinion without loads of addons FSX looks just as dull as X plane, but yeah of course there are more addons available for FSX and also in higher quality.

 

I think X Plane could look just as good if it got same amount of addon development that FSX has got.

[grajay 2]

As a Mac user (I took the step in 2011) one of the first things I did was to install Bootcamp and Windows 7 so that FSX would run on it. I did look at X Plane but just couldn't bring myself to abandon FSX.

[pao 55]

.... and I don't even agree that physics are better in XP10... when you fly PMDG aircrafts in FSX, it feels more real that any other plane in XP10... Even the acclaimed JRollon CRJ : even with joystick sensitivity set at 20% (100% being the most realistic according to Xplane) the plane is rolling way to fast and that feel absolutely not real flying....

[SierraHotel 976]

Hello everyone. I have been playing X-Plane 10 for awhile now. Since I am on a Mac I can't really try out FSX. I've recently watched a lot of FSX videos on youtube to see the differences and I really admit that FSX looks a lot better. I am fully aware that this is because of 3rd party add ons. But even when I am using X-Plane 10 with add ons, it still doesn't compare to FSX. I have purchased parts to build a new computer for FSX because of this and am curious to know how is it that a 6-7 year old flight sim (FSX) can compete or even look better than X-Plane 10 which was released at the end of 2011?

 

I am sad to find out that FSX is no longer being developed, such a shame since it is such an amazing looking flight sim. I've given X-Plane 10 a chance, but everytime I see videos of FSX on youtube, it makes me not want to even look back to X-Plane 10. I know the die hard fans will say that X-Plane 10 isn't about the graphics but the physics is priority. Well that's partyly true, but there's absolutely no eye-candy, if so it's very limited. Main reason I like playing flight simulators is for the graphics. I love nature, outdoors, and beautiful scenery. Which is why I love flying in the 1st place. X-Plane just doesn't really satisfy me in that sense.

 

Another thing is, the payware planes have an absolute amazing level of detail to them that lacks in X-Plane. PMDG 747-400X, PMDG 737 NGX, Aerosoft Airbus X Extended, Captain Sim's 777. Truly stunning! However on the X-Plane side of things I don't feel the same way. The planes just aren't on the same level and that's also another negative for me. The only positive thing I can really say about X-Plane is that the physics are good. But not much else. I am hoping that there will be more addon developers making stuff for X-Plane soon, since FSX is no longer being developed. I would love to see OrbX, UK2000, REX, FS2Crew, PMDG making stuff for X-Plane.

 

I would like to hear how the rest of the community feels about this as well. For those of you who have tried both, what are your thoughts and opinions.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth, exactly how I feel.

[tonywob 4,768]

One word, "Addons". There is a far bigger market for FSX, and so more developers are working on FSX, and creating high quality addons which probably push FSX far further than it was ever intended.

 

These addons do come at a cost for me. Constant crashes to the desktop, jidders, etc. I really hate how FSX crashes saying I've ran out of memory when I have 16GB of it. The worst part is, I know this is NEVER going to get fixed because FSX development is dead. No amount of addons is going to prevent CTDs, and this is sad. I've had to remove some of my larger airports and cityscapes because with OpusFSX, Accufeel, my system simply can't cope. It wouldn't matter if I went out and bought a faster computer, FSX won't use my memory and CPU correctly, and NEVER WILL.

 

X-Plane on the other hand in 64-bit mode never crashes for me, and is slowly moving forward with new builds being pushed out regularly. It doesn't look too pretty outside of the US (I think the default US scenery is actually really good), night scenery looks stunning, however there is nothing that comes even close to PMDG 737NGX, and it's seriously lacking some quality scenery addons like ORBX or FranceVFR.

 

I do think however that the Carenado planes look far superior in X-Plane, with proper lighting and smooth gauges. I love doing evening/twilight flights in X-Plane, because the lighting in X-Plane is far superior to anything FSX can do. I also like the fact that changing the time doesn't require a full reload.

 

I wish we could get the best of both worlds, but alas that's just the way it is. I'm not holding my breath for P3D, after 2 years or more of development, little has changed for the PC simmer (And LM don't intend ever to release an entertainment product). Also what's to say that P3D 2 won't break compatibility with FSX and we will be back to X-Plane territory, i.e. A superior product but no quality addons.

 

 

 

 

[BimmerCop 332]

when you fly PMDG aircrafts in FSX, it feels more real that any other plane in XP10...

 

Just curious... Have you flown a real 737NG, MD11 or 747?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[pao 55]

Just curious... Have you flown a real 737NG, MD11 or 747?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Well, not a 737 but I fly GA... and a CRJ200 should definitely not be banking and rolling faster than a roller coaster when my Piper 28 doesn't...

[ryanbatc 12,832]

 

These addons do come at a cost for me. Constant crashes to the desktop, jidders, etc. I really hate how FSX crashes saying I've ran out of memory when I have 16GB of it.

 

I'm not sure if you posted this sarcastically but in case you didn't know physical memory has nothing to do with OOM's in FSX. It has to do with the 4GB virtual address space limit within FSX's programming limits.

[JonRD463 146]

I'm not sure if you posted this sarcastically but in case you didn't know physical memory has nothing to do with OOM's in FSX. It has to do with the 4GB virtual address space limit within FSX's programming limits.

 

Which is still a limitation of FSX, wouldn't you agree?

[tonywob 4,768]

 

I'm not sure if you posted this sarcastically but in case you didn't know physical memory has nothing to do with OOM's in FSX. It has to do with the 4GB virtual address space limit within FSX's programming limits.

 

Yep I did know, hence my point that it will never be fixed no matter how much I invest in memory

[PingPong 60]

You have to put in a little work to make XPX look really good. Look at Commanche or MDMax.s screen shots, they are XPX and they look very good.

[tkyler 88]

curious to know how is it that a 6-7 year old flight sim (FSX).....

 

As many have pointed out, it's because there are 10x+ the addons for FSX and these add ons are not 6-7 years old and this helps props up FSX. I wouldn't say that x-plane is or should be all things to all people. People are diverse as are the sims and folks can get out of each what they need to for whatever stimulation it is they are after. FSX has a huge and longstanding legacy that, like a large ship, does not turn easily, if at all. It is a natural progression and time will steer it where it will. There are a whole lot of good years left in FSX I am reasonably confident, but as has been pointed out, it's not being developed anymore. So someone has to keep going and that's simply what we're going to do as it's all we know to do and if and when x-plane fits the bill for them, it will be there. Being somewhat of an insider, I know that the kinds of things being discussed bodes a bright future for x-plane for beyond the tech in the FSX core. Now If add-on developers can extend that functionality, then it remains to be seen how far FSX can go.

 

The add-on market is growing for x-plane, but IMO, the "serious" add-on market has only been around since 2005 or so when Ben Supnik stabilized the file formats for the future, so x-plane add-ons are still in their infancy relative to FSX developers. But someone has to do it and it has to be done one at a time. So until x-plane meets one's needs or it simply does not, I'd say enjoy FSX.

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar / IXEG

[simmerhead 885]

For me the scenery is the most important thing about the whole simulator, so X-Plane isn't even installed on my computer... For a new sim like X-Plane 10 I would at least expect the default scenery to be as accurate and good lookin' as FSX with UTX + FSGenesis Mesh + ORBX textures.

[BimmerCop 332]

For me the scenery is the most important thing about the whole simulator, so X-Plane isn't even installed on my computer... For a new sim like X-Plane 10 I would at least expect the default scenery to be as accurate and good lookin' as FSX with UTX + FSGenesis Mesh + ORBX textures.

 

For $70?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2