Yeah I think FSX looks like the go, but I love the look of the 727 in Xplane, the 72 is one of my favourite aircraft.

How has the weather features in FS progressed? I remember one thing about FS9 was the lack of fluid transition between weather patterns. For example, if I set my departure airport as CAVOK and my arrival aerodrome as broken cloud and rain down to the minimus, you would not be able to see the poor weather ahead, it would simply be blue skies then in an instant change to the desired weather settings.

 

Tristan

How has the weather features in FS progressed? I remember one thing about FS9 was the lack of fluid transition between weather patterns. For example, if I set my departure airport as CAVOK and my arrival aerodrome as broken cloud and rain down to the minimus, you would not be able to see the poor weather ahead, it would simply be blue skies then in an instant change to the desired weather settings.

I only use default real-world weather, so I do experience sudden weather changes (e.g., in precipitation, QNH, etc.) and wind shifts (both constant wind shifts that resemble the ticking of a clock and severely unrealistic wind shear). I know the latter can be remedied by the wind smoothing functions of programs such as FSUIPC. I believe the default, pre-loaded weather themes work fine, though, and the issues primarily effect default real-world weather.

 

Recently, a weather program called OPUS has been receiving lots of attention for its alleged accuracy and simplicity. I believe it is supposed to use METARs to simulate weather very accurately and reliably. More than one user has reported experiencing real-world weather at his or her home airport in FSX almost identical to the weather outside his or her residence. OPUS also features a camera views function to which a few frustrated EZCA users have converted.

FSX 7 years on get a couple more fps every couple years from incremental computer upgrades. X-plane has a ways to go but it has night flying is awesome better than fsx, and the feel is more what I like in terms of plane handing, but visually FSX is it still King. Use both actually because helps balances out ideas on how a basic plane handles with control surfaces etc. FSX will still be king 2017 unless a something comes out to overtake it that I doubt will happen. Read somewhere to create a new flight engine from strach alone would cost between $30 to $100 million to build one. I will be flying fsx 2018 or 2044 as that good to use.

FSX will still be king 2017 unless a something comes out to overtake it that I doubt will happen.

 

I very much doubt it. If XP doesn't fold due to the current litigation battle being fought, I see XP taking over FSX. Or who knows, maybe P3D does release a x64 version and takes the scene by storm, but FSX's potential has been reached. You can milk a cow only so much. BTW, this is IMHO.

I do hope X-plane be around in 5 years those greedy troll lawyers ruin people software, business fun, and virtual flying. FSX limits are reached its like fender telecaster that never goes out of date may be old but very usable. I do not think FSX will be obsolete for a long time as it cost millions to build a flight simulator engine. X-plane has it advantages do not get desk top crashes as often, its more flexible with different computer setups, no blurries. X-plane 10 is way better in appearance than X-plane 9.

Well, if we're talking years ahead, then yes... X-plane will become the standard. "Renting" the core like PD3 is silly in my opinion. I want my money going to new add-ons.