Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
voodoo101

Looking to jump from the FSX ship

Recommended Posts

That's irrelevant though, as it doesn't change the fact that there are still a lot more quality add ons available for MSFS.

More doesn't necessarily mean better, but I can't argue with the fact the there are a lot more to choose from. However at the end of the day, there are only a few that are really worth it, probably no more than the number of fingers on my hand.

Windows 11 | Asus Z690-P D4 | i7 12700KF 5.2GHz | 32GB G.Skill (XMP II) | EVGA 3060Ti FTW Ultra | TrackIr v5 | Honeycomb Alfa + Bravo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I haven't tried it. But I have tried JRollon's CRJ 200 and like how it flies a lot. That's irrelevant though, as it doesn't change the fact that there are still a lot more quality add ons available for MSFS. I think XP is getting there slowly, but there is still the issue with pop up panels on external monitors and manipulation of cockpit controls (this hold and drag thing is not always sufficient).

 

Can you please name some of the more quality add ons with comparison to Rollon's CRJ200 or JS32 (you can skip the obvious and only NGX)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please name some of the more quality add ons with comparison to Rollon's CRJ200 or JS32 (you can skip the obvious and only NGX)?

Like I said, I haven't tried the JS32, so I cannot comment on that one. And I'm not saying the CRJ isn't up to pair with many if not most MSFS add ons. (Though I think manipulations of knobs could have been implemented better in the CRJ, and I miss being able to drag pop up windows to a separate screen -- an XP restraint.)

 

What I'm saying is that in MSFS, for any given plane, the chances of finding a high quality add on is much bigger. High qualityXP add ons are coming, but there is still a long way to go before we have the selection currently available for FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I'm saying is that in MSFS, for any given plane, the chances of finding a high quality add on is much bigger. High qualityXP add ons are coming, but there is still a long way to go before we have the selection currently available for FSX.

Can't argue with you there. We also need to note, FSX had a 6 year head start lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, X-Plane is catching up pretty well:

 

B777 / Ramzess

B727 / FlyJSim

CRJ200 / JRollon

JS32 / JRollon

Dash Q400 / FlyJSim

A320 / JARDesign

DC-3 / LeadingEdge

ATR72 / McPhat

 

All these planes are currently better than their counterparts in FSX. There is, of course, the B737 NGX from PMDG. However I am really looking forward to the B737 classic from IXEG, which is supposed to be at least on par.

A320 from JARdesign is better than Aerosoft Airbus Extended, not to mention Airbuses from Peter Hager.

B777 from Ramzzess is much better than anything available for FSX (let us wait for the PMDG's one).

Planes from Javier Rollon are simply top notch (both CRJ200 and JS32).

FlyJSim made his 727, which is much better than the CS one.

And there is Carenado. And there are other quality add ons coming (Saab 340, B757, etc.)

 

I really do not see that many better aircraft add ons in FSX anymore... Other add ons (weather, traffic, ATC, ..) - well that is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Try harder ;) I can't run PMDG anything without making changes to my FSX.CFG (reduce visual quality a lot) and DLL.XML in order to avoid OOM ... and PMDG want to add even more into their 777 ... it's going to get to the point where my outside cockpit view will either be tiny or flat and void of any features just so I can fly the PMDG 777. OOM is a big problem with FSX and it's getting worse as more and more add-ons compete for that precious 32bit address space that is FSX's prison.

But again, back to OP ... no need to jump ship, there is no barrier preventing one or the other scenario -- P3D, XP10, FSX all run just fine together on a single computer.

 

I just looked at your specs on your PC - mine are similar, but the Ivy Bridge should be handling the single core load much better than my Sandy Bridge 2700K at 4.6GHz.  Something's gotta be wrong, because I run PMDG maxed out, QW maxed out, and the DC9 Classic maxed out without framerate issues (locked at 30).  You've moved FSX off of core 0 on the CPU, right?  I run my system at core 0, FSX at core 1, and everything else at the last two cores.  I had a lot of problems several weeks ago, but my affinity mask settings were wrong. 

 

And now back to the OP...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B777 / Ramzess

B727 / FlyJSim

CRJ200 / JRollon

JS32 / JRollon

Dash Q400 / FlyJSim

A320 / JARDesign

DC-3 / LeadingEdge

ATR72 / McPhat

 

All these planes are currently better than their counterparts in FSX.

That's a bold statement. The XP ATR72 better than Flight 1's? I'm not talking just about eye candy here, but depth of system simulation. FlyJSim's dash better than Majestic for MSFS? Here's what a real pilot has to say about that (from here):

 

"FlyJSim do a Q400 Package for X Plane. I have it. From a professional pilots perspective and someone looking for a plane where I can fly the correct power setting and attitudes, it is rubbish. The PFD does not have half of the available information displayed.

 

Majestic, at the time of writing, only do the 300 series. Haven't flown it. However they supposedly supply Dash operators so it should be pretty good.

 

It is a shame PMDG don't do one as I have their B737NGX and the flight model is very accurate."

 

A quality add on has to do more than just look good; it needs to implement the systems of the real aircraft and it has to fly close to the real world numbers.

 

I'm not out to bash XP add ons. I enjoy many of them, like the CRJ, Carenado's Caravan and the MU-2. And like you I have really high hopes for the coming B737 from IXEG. I enjoy both MSFS and XP, and critique/wish for XP, since that is the only sim still being developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Something's gotta be wrong, because I run PMDG maxed out, QW maxed out, and the DC9 Classic maxed out without framerate issues (locked at 30).  You've moved FSX off of core 0 on the CPU, right?

 

I don't have any issues with frame rate when running the PMDG 737NGX, the problem is hitting OOM.  I can assure you, nothing "wrong" with my system.

 

4096 textures

9.5 LOD

2560 x 1600

Traffic 360 (hi-res aircraft model)

FSDT

REX (4096 textures)

GoFlight controls

UTX

and more...

 

Yes, my affinity mask is set correctly.  Trust me, my system is pretty well optimized.  I've used process explorer to help manage my FSX settings and add-ons when using PMDG aircraft ... I've had to dial a few items back and turn off a few items to avoid OOM.  It's a compromise I expected given the 3GB (private bytes) address space limit of FSX 32bit executable.

 

That's just life with FSX and 32bit.  But if the PMDG 777 has even more content than the PMDG 737NGX then it'll be another round of compromises in order to get the PMDG 777 to not OOM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some other problems and got rid of the uiautomationcore.dll files in Windows and out of my fsx.cfg, and everything works great.  I know every tweaking guide says that uiautomationcore.dll is required, but my system runs great without it.  Don't know if you've done it, not trying to be offensive, just a recommendation.  It's also out there on the web as a fix for OOM issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The superior flight model of XP is a myth, but it won't die anytime soon apparently. MSFS and XP are both platforms on which it is possible to make aircrafts with realistic flight models, but then you have to tweak, on both platforms.

 

It really depends on what you mean when you talk about flight models.  Microsoft Flight Simulator is great at running through a list of precomputed numbers to give you more or less the correct output in any given situation while X-Plane crunches that same data in realtime.  The advantage is that X-Plane can model an untested design while Microsoft Flight Simulator can't.  Of course these differences probably won't be evident to the end consumer doing touch-and-go's in a third-party Cessna 152.

 

I think it would be fair to say that while X-Plane's flight modeling superiority is not a myth as such, it doesn't necessarily live up to the hype, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It already is!!!

Not from what I'm reading. It's 64 bit and that's good but it sure has a long way to go. 'Correctly implemented', I was referring to the evolution of the product and the increase in developer support for high quality add-ons. Just before coming in here I was a click away from buying XP 10 Global but didn't . The reason? I have unloaded a shipload of money on add-ons for FSX and I'm reticent to unload more on a flight simulator that suffers from many of the shortcomings mentioned in this thread. I'm also on the cusp of building my next computer based on a 6 core cpu with buckets of RAM and dual sli, so don't think my interest level isn't high in XP 10 64 bit. It's astronomical! So I will continue to fly FSX without weather, so none of my PMDG aircraft fail from a system freeze after hours of inter-continental flight, or fail because the winds aloft debacle in FSX almost stops the aircraft in mid-air. If I want all sliders to the right and weather, I go back to trusty FS9, which on my system is rock solid.

 

I wish the developers of XP 10 64 bit every success and will be following their efforts and improvements very closely. When the product is matured and tested in the marketplace and many of the idiosynchracies ironed out. I will happily pay twice the price they're asking at present. P3D? I don't think so because LM, imho are not that interested in simmers per se. I believe they think they're catering to a different market. So, yes, as you stated 'it already is' (64 bit) and isn't it great that someone has had the intestinal fortitude to go that way. I will continue to follow with great interest. BTW, another reason I did not purchase XP 10 is because I could not ascertain with any reasonable degree of accuracy, whether XP 10 Global contained the 64 bit code, as another page on their website implied that the 64 bit version was only in beta release.

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mountain Man: I agree with much of what you say. I like to think of XP as a wind tunnel where you can sketch up an aircraft and throw it in and it will behave approximately as it would in the real world. This is fascinating, and probably helpful for engineers.

 

However, the approximation is just that. To make an aircraft behave as in the real world, to make it fly by the numbers, you have to tweak it, in XP as in MSFS. Case in point: I once bought a Cessna for XP for practice purposes. The 3d cockpit was very well done, but it turned out that in many areas it didn't behave like the real aircraft (turn tendencies, rate of descent for different power settings, stability). I had to stop using the aircraft for fear of instilling bad habits/expectations in the real aircraft. My guess: The aircraft maker simply sketched it up and threw it in there. As it turned out that was not enough. Good add ons have to be tested so that they fly according to the numbers and they should also be tested by real world pilots on the type to ensure the right feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, another reason I did not purchase XP 10 is because I could not ascertain with any reasonable degree of accuracy, whether XP 10 Global contained the 64 bit code, as another page on their website implied that the 64 bit version was only in beta release.

Well, the version on the discs is (due to the development speed) always quite ancient. So the first thing X-Plane does is: load updates. Since 10.20 went final a few days ago the system will upgrade to 10.20 with two binaries:

the normal 64 bit version and a 32 bit version for older plugins or planes without a 64 bit capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, the approximation is just that. To make an aircraft behave as in the real world, to make it fly by the numbers, you have to tweak it, in XP as in MSFS. Case in point: I once bought a Cessna for XP for practice purposes. The 3d cockpit was very well done, but it turned out that in many areas it didn't behave like the real aircraft (turn tendencies, rate of descent for different power settings, stability). I had to stop using the aircraft for fear of instilling bad habits/expectations in the real aircraft. My guess: The aircraft maker simply sketched it up and threw it in there. As it turned out that was not enough. Good add ons have to be tested so that they fly according to the numbers and they should also be tested by real world pilots on the type to ensure the right feel.

 

The better the numbers entered into Plane Maker, the better (and perhaps more realistically) the aircraft will fly.  The problem, as I understand it, is that a lot of designers will fudge the numbers or leave them at Plane Maker's defaults which will give less than satisfactory results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the xplane demo and wasnt very impressed. Compared to FSX flying the PMDG 737, with AS2012 weather and UT2 traffic, xplane is very bland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...