No, it's not about money. Give me the scenery add ons and I buy them. I'm a member of a bush VA. Their is not one route I can fly from one quality add on airport to another. And we have 7000+ routes.

I too am just starting and am looking for some good scenery & aircraft.

I have to agree when it comes to the scenery critsism's. I enjoy both sim's, have spent a small fortune over the years on both. One thing that has really improved my sense of speed, motion, inertia and immersion with both sims has been investing in a PM RJ glass cockpit.

If you don't like default sceneries, you can install add-on sceneries. Could you imagine using default sceneries in FSX ? ^_^

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/392306-the-duchess-in-hyvinkaa/

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/387521-flight-above-jarny/

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/382432-c208b-grand-caravan-in-lorraine/

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/396233-with-the-blackshape-prime-to-trier/

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/395687-my-very-last-virtual-flight/

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/392958-landing-in-pointe-a-pitre-tffr/

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/390785-saarland-flight-germany/

When FSX was released in 2006 I used the default because that was all there was. Perhaps a more relevant question is why a 7 year old sim ( consider computer years = dog years) is still being compared/ mentioned at all to a 1.5 year old one? Is that too obvious a question? :;

The screenshots look very nice. But I still think that default scenery of FSX did a better job. NYC, LA, San Fran, London, Paris... Everything looked different and had landmarks.

Flight Unlimited had nice regions, but XPX is a global flighsim. The missing landmarks and the odd autogen make the plausible world look funny. In 2013 it should be possible to give us the plausibility of a product of 2006.

There are great airport sceneries, nice photosceneries but what we need is a real plausible world that makes me believe sitting in a plane ane being "somewhere".

After watching a lot of XP videos last days I start to think that the world of XP9 looked better.

 

When FSX was released in 2006 I used the default because that was all there was. Perhaps a more relevant question is why a 7 year old sim ( consider computer years = dog years) is still being compared/ mentioned at all to a 1.5 year old one? Is that too obvious a question? :;

 

 

I think FSX is like Windows 95/98 - not very stable or polished. But everyone used it because all the software you wanted (including loads of freeware!) to play around with was on it. And once you had all your custom utilities installed - you liked it despite the occasional BSOD. Linux (Like X Plane) was more stable etc but it was pretty boring experience - cause all the cool stuff you wanted wasn't really available on it (yes yes I know there were alternative open source versions). Disclosure - I am an FSX user despite the re-installations, tweaking etc cause once you get it running - its great!

After using Ubuntu for a while I give you one "like".

Well ... for some people, in a flight simulator it seems to be more important to watch scenery from a train in the air than actually doing a well simulated flight (within the limitations of a desktop PC). I can only speak for myself, but I enjoy "flying" even on a desktop PC in a fluid and not on rails.

 

If you want to do sightseeing, go out, breathe some fresh air and watch the scenery - it is almost like the real world :lol:.

 

Regarding landmarks: I can assure you that even landmarks you are recognizing from the ground, because they are high - from the air, they are barely invisible in the sea of houses.

 

 

Lol, what train in the air? Have you ever used a nice add on plane by Real Air? And did you enjoy a city below you that gave you memories of real flights? I remember many landmarks I have noticed on real flights. You say that you don't need what you can't have. And, as many others, you turn bugs into features. Eye candy and scenery does make a sim bad. Maybe you could agree on this. ;-)

X Plane is missing many things. If you don't want them, fine. Many of us want them and that does not make us "train on rails sightseeing drivers".

 

X Plane is missing many things. If you don't want them, fine. Many of us want them

 

Stick with FSX then, simple solution. If you can't like X-Plane on it's own merits, not much any of us can do to change your mind.

X-Plane vs. MSFS is not about flight model vs. eye candy for sure. Even default XP 9 beats default FSX scenery and weather/clouds in many areas. At the same time, one of the things that annoys me most about XP now is a flaw in the flight model — the overdone torque and the left turning tendencies on single engine props and many twins.

 

There is no choosing between flight model or graphics. You want both to be great, of course.

 

Stick with FSX then, simple solution. If you can't like X-Plane on it's own merits, not much any of us can do to change your mind.

Is that the attitude that prevents another XP version becoming the number one simulator? I'm a flightsimmer since the early 90's. Whenever something new came out, we were running to the shops with our wallets in our hands. I have seen all of MS Fs, ATP, FLY!, Pro Pilot, Flight Unlimited and PS1. I own XPX and I use it. I admit that it has it's strenghts. But we all have to admit what it is missing. Give the average flightsimmer what I'm talking about and see them running. Well, not really, we have online stores and credit cards today. With that, Lamimar has more sales and more sales only bring the big boys in. You might laugh about the ORBX CEO, but in the end, the XP community is loosing, and that includes me. Lamimar, Austin and all of the XP community, stop that elitism. XP is not better than FSX, it's more recent and technically advanced. If it can learn from the advantages of good old FSX, XP will be the best sim soon, and that is what I want.

DCS DCS DCS DCS ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... Like in... Don't Compare Simulators ...   

 

:-)

 

P.S.: Use at least two... I do ;-)  One for the airliner and leisure flights, around a credible World, the other for the sensation of flying even knowing it's in a PC...  I use P3D and DCS World but others may prefer X-Plane and FSX or any other combination...

 

Above all, it's useless to say - it feels on-rails in this one and not on that one... - specially because we all know it depends on the quality of the add-ons most of the time.

This morning I smiled and remembered those "accusations" of MSFS being on rails while flying my A2A p51d out of LPPT, using RWW provided by AS2012 SP2. This was on P3D which has some advantages over FSX Gold in terms of weather effects and other aspects... The wind was not strong or gusting, but was variable, and there were many convective clouds around, just like I was able to see through my home windows... There were up and down drafts here and there, plus mountain effects from nearby mountainous system... Guys, on-rails is the last thing I could write to describe that morning experience...

 

P.S.: C'mon, don't start having 2nd thoughts about morning experiences on guys 48+ yo....

Regarding X-Plane10, all I wish is that it grows even better and shines among all of the products we should be happy to have available... I didn't like it enough, but I like brunettes too and the guy next to me prefers the blondes... 

 

Is that the attitude that prevents another XP version becoming the number one simulator?

 

No attitude at all. You said it best yourself and I quote;

 

 

Thank you so far. And it looks as if XP is the wrong product for me indeed.