I'm switching to X-Plane 10!

[FIVE-BY-FIVE 453]

I love both Sims but my PC and probably everyone else in here has over 4gb of memory in their system.  It's 2013 and FSX/P3D only uses 4gb and XP10 uses all my 16 or 32 plus all the memory on my GPU. :drinks:  FTXG is awesome......for now!  but the future is 64bit XP10 like PMDG said at their conference.

[LAdamson 240]

I'm pulling this statement from Jcomms reply"

 

 

"X-Plane10 when it comes to the sensation of flying when the weather is not calm ( IMO much better simulated in X-Plane 10"

 

I can go along with that. It's what I hear. On the other hand, I joined other pilots & their spouses for breakfast this morning, as we usually do on Sundays.

I brought up the age old "sim" question again, in regards to smooth calm flight. Keep in mind, that it's rugged mountain country out here. Like I said previously, we plan out cross countries for the cooler earlier hours, before the sun baked earth contributes to thermals, annoying turbulence, etc.

 

I then asked for a percentage of calm versus the bouncing from turbulence. The first pilot to respond said "usually"......as in usually calmer conditions. And this guy has flown for nearly 50 years. It's also a fact, that when we flew our once a month "brunch" cross countries of 140 miles each way, that it would usually be almost dead calm in flight to get there, while the return trip would get it's share of bouncing. It was also said, that these smooth flights are smoother than a vehicle on a road, or even smooth welded railroad tracks. The pilot with nearly 50 years, is retired railroad.

 

Here's the point. Flight is not always like a continual moving airmass, in which the pilot is constantly correcting for roll or pitch. It's not like a hand that reaches out and picks you up either. And it's certainly not a feeling of getting light, as I've seen described. If anything, the ground just seems to drop away. Since my personal airplane had a good power to weight ratio (three times that of a Cessna or Piper), it could climb to pattern height, halfway down our 5200' runway. At an angled climb such as that, you feel a force of acceleration behind the seat, and perhaps getting a bit heavier with positive G-forces....if anything. It's not getting lighter!

 

Since I'm not a fanatic of turbulence, even though I've been in plenty, and the fact that I always avoided thunderstorms in which a real aircraft can come down over miles in different pieces.....then perhaps I just prefer that more pleasant sense of smooth flight, over the mountain regions, simulated on our monitors. If XP gives a better sensation of airframe ripping turbulence, then I'll conceede it does. (p.s. where did my spell checker go?)

 

One last thought. Since I did own a good cross country airplane with a two axis auto-pilot, and uplinked satellite weather.....I did have better options for planning trips with good weather, instead of being at the mercy of renting.

 

 

[captain420 3,099]

To be fair to XPX, have you tried the "must haves" tweaks? please scroll down to the section on the "stuffs you must have" to tweak the "dull" XPX from this page:

 

http://forums.x-pilot.com/topic/5180-dsf-scenery-packages-cytz-toronto-island-airport/

 

Yup, I've done all those add ons and more, including simheaven's osm+autogen, all of chrisk's airport and scenery, chrisk's replacement light mod, photo scenery, and all that. Sabach's sky mod, enhanced runways, I've invested a lot of time equally into both FSX and X-Plane, been back on forth on both sims to know the ins and outs. And honestly to tell you the truth the only reason why I seemed to have liked XPX over FSX before is because I was getting impatient with CTD and OOM problems. But now since I have everything working just right, it's the total opposite. Now I have a 1 to 1 comparison, and I much prefer FSX overall. I have learned quite a lot from the past 6 months of being on this forum from the great community and I appreciate that. Like I said I respect everyone's opinion on the matter. It really is a matter of preference. But in my own opinion of X-Plane, I just don't like the overall look and feel of it. I am very big on visual presentation and graphics, and X-Plane just doesn't really do it for me. I've mentioned numerous times, even with add-ons, it doesn't seem to be on the same level as FSX. Only thing I like on X-Plane is the night time lighting. I've spent quite a sum of money on add ons for X-Plane as well. The ramzzess 777, JAR's A320 Neo, thinking I would get something like the equivalent of PMDG's 737 and the Airbus X Extended. Boy was I wrong, it looks terrible, I don't know about the rest of you guys but I can't stand flying in those planes, especially ramzzess's 777, the quality just isn't there. Again, I'm all about visuals, and small details. I'm a graphics guy. After using many high quality aircrafts on FSX, I just can't come to terms with the same or equivalent models on X-Plane. the level of polish just isn't there. I would expect much better since it's a new sim built on new technology vs FSX, a very old sim. Only decent planes in terms of visual quality that comes close are the ones from Carenado, but for commercial airliners, I haven't seen anything remotely close. There's just too many flaws I find in X-Plane in order for me to truly "like" it.

 

 

 

[Robert McDonald 167]

Yup, I've done all those add ons and more, including simheaven's osm+autogen, photo scenery, and all that. Sabach's sky mod, enhanced runways, I've invested a lot of time equally into both FSX and X-Plane, been back on forth on both sims to know the ins and outs. And honestly to tell you the truth the only reason why I seemed to have liked XPX over FSX before is because I was getting impatient with CTD and OOM problems. But now since I have everything working just right, it's the total opposite. Now I have a 1 to 1 comparison, and I much prefer FSX overall. I have learned quite a lot from the past 6 months of being on this forum from the great community and I appreciate that. Like I said I respect everyone's opinion on the matter. It really is a matter of preference. But in my own opinion of X-Plane, I just don't like the overall look and feel of it. I am very big on visual presentation and graphics, and X-Plane just doesn't really do it for me. I've mentioned numerous times, even with add-ons, it doesn't seem to be on the same level as FSX. Only thing I like on X-Plane is the night time lighting. 

 

 

And let's not forget the freeways and overpasses... and the vehicles.  When you're on final  for KLAS at night or in the day, you see the cars and trucks, motorcycles and police cars down on the freeway - it's a LOT closer to RW than FSX - watch the X-Plane demo on YouTube (the official one).   You'll throw rocks at the other sims... but... that is in enhanced Seattle scenery, which is not endemic across the entire XPlane world (yet).  It is something that grabs your attention though!

[captain420 3,099]

Robert, seen all that already. I love those small details in X-Plane, the cars, etc. Roads, night lighting, but to me, that's about all it has going for it. I spent a lot of money on ramzzess's 777 and JAR's A320 and was extremely disappointed. I blame myself for that in a way. After flying PMDG 737 NGX on FSX, you tend to hold your expectations up so high. For the kind of price they set the prices of those planes, especially ramzzess's 777, I would expect much better quality than that. Been using it since version 1.2 I believe, and now they're up to 1.5.1 and still the vc cockpit looks dreadful to me, those textures and just very poor detail. I don't see how anyone think that looks good compared to the aircraft models for FSX. JAR's A320 is another thing that extremely upsets me, I can't even fly the thing without it already started and ready up to go. But at least I appreciate the effort that slavs put's into making the textures look better. I can't say the same for the crew at ramzzess though. I don't expect much from them. They may have decent flight systems and avionics but they certainly don't have the visuals to go along with it.

[Robert McDonald 167]

Robert, seen all that already. I love those small details in X-Plane, the cars, etc. Roads, night lighting, but to me, that's about all it has going for it. I spent a lot of money on ramzzess's 777 and JAR's A320 and was extremely disappointed. I blame myself for that in a way. After flying PMDG 737 NGX on FSX, you tend to hold your expectations up so high. For the kind of price they set the prices of those planes, especially ramzzess's 777, I would expect much better quality than that. Been using it since version 1.2 I believe, and now they're up to 1.5.1 and still the vc cockpit looks dreadful to me, those textures and just very poor detail. I don't see how anyone think that looks good compared to the aircraft models for FSX. JAR's A320 is another thing that extremely upsets me, I can't even fly the thing without it already started and ready up to go. But at least I appreciate the effort that slavs put's into making the textures look better. I can't say the same for the crew at ramzzess though. I don't expect much from them. They may have decent flight systems and avionics but they certainly don't have the visuals to go along with it.

 

They have been handcuffed by 32 bits I think.  They've already announced that moving forward, the 777 will be 64-bit ONLY.  That may be causing a limitation to the textures in the plane.  I'm only speculating.  I can't imagine what is holding PMDG back from the x-Plane party.  If PMDG brings a product to X-Plane, watch out!  Same deal with ORBX.  If they brought their global scenery over from FSX (they just released it), it might be a very good thing as well.

[jcomm 5,923]

 

 

For the kind of price they set the prices of those planes, especially ramzzess's 777, I would expect much better quality than that.

 

I couldn't agree more with you!

[captain420 3,099]

I think that's when I will probably make the switch to X-Plane, is if and when PMDG and OrbX enters the X-Plane market.

[nimsu1987 6]

Awesome! I did the same a week ago and haven't looked back. I have been a FS customer since FS95-FSX and owned Xplane 4, although I wasn't a fan back then. XP10 is fantastic. I bought the 777 addon which is brilliant. I just hope devs like PMDG and A2A come on board eventually. However, the past few years some excellent quality payware addons have been released for XP. 

Flight characteristics of XP are brilliant. In FSX you feel like you're flying on rails in a cessna, it's not the case in x-plane. Even with all calm weather, you still know you're flying which is how the cessna 150/172/PA28 (the planes I fly) are like in real life.

[LAdamson 240]

 

Flight characteristics of XP are brilliant. In FSX you feel like you're flying on rails in a cessna, it's not the case in x-plane. Even with all calm weather, you still know you're flying which is how the cessna 150/172/PA28 (the planes I fly) are like in real life.

 

 

Yes, even im calm weather you're still fiddling with a roll sensation on the yoke, or feeling the need to trim against roll, if aileron trim is available. My RL planes trimmed for a heavy wing due to passenger load, fuel, or just being old & not straight anymore. But, you're not countering roll due to "torque" thoughout the flight. I've flown all of those Cessnas, Pipers, the Marchetti SF260, the Pitt's, the Diamonds, the Stearman, Maules, numerous high performance experimentals, and so on. I get tired of this "on rails" description. It does not apply. On rails means staying on a prescribed path, which includes altitude and heading. FSX will do neither.

[nimsu1987 6]

Ladamson, it's strange, I didn't even see the comment above about 'flying on rails' nor have I ever heard anybody comment or mention this. Although I don't follow flight sim forums much. This is just my personal impression of microsoft flight simulator, and the fact that other people have mentioned this too, despite never hearing it until now must have some truth in it. 

You're being too pedantic about what 'on rails' means. I know exactly what it means as you do, but as you know, compared to how a real light aircraft flies and how one in fsx tends to (probably excluding those made by A2A) the term on rails seems valid.

Of course, since you've heard this said so much, I can imagine your frustration too, but I have honestly never heard anybody else say this about FSX, and didn't notice the person above until I scrolled down to see replies.

[Macpah 46]

In X-Plane 10 we have that irritating roll torque bug, but heck, I'll buzz around Austin so many times that I am sure he will eventually get tired of it and decide to do something about it :-)

 

 

LOL, thanks!

That could actually motivate me to do the same.

[jad own u 0]

I have had XPX for a little while now( around 4months) and I used FSX a couple times in that duration and lately I have actually uninstalled my fsx, XPX is whole alot better and you will say the same soon, some planes you may want to look at are the 777, CRJ and the A320neo, they are fabulous. And i basiclly have a FX 8350 and a HD 7870 and i play XPX max out @ 1920x1080, even when taking off and landing at some more of the advanced airports I still have a fluent experience..

[strider1 575]

   

 

Yes, even im calm weather you're still fiddling with a roll sensation on the yoke, or feeling the need to trim against roll, if aileron trim is available. My RL planes trimmed for a heavy wing due to passenger load, fuel, or just being old & not straight anymore. But, you're not countering roll due to "torque" thoughout the flight. I've flown all of those Cessnas, Pipers, the Marchetti SF260, the Pitt's, the Diamonds, the Stearman, Maules, numerous high performance experimentals, and so on. I get tired of this "on rails" description. It does not apply. On rails means staying on a prescribed path, which includes altitude and heading. FSX will do neither.

 

 

I haven't been flying in a long time but I remember my instructor constantly saying "watch your altitude, watch your altitude". The C-172 would constantly drift up or down. I don't remember if the plane would roll to the right or left.

 

I remember getting into a discussion with GEOFF(I think that's his name) about the real C-172. I was swearing up a storm that real C-172 would not roll to the right when you drop the power to idle. I went flying a few months later and when I dropped the power to idle and let go of yolk, to my amazement the plane rolled to the right ! I've never noticed this because my hand was always controlling the yolk.

 

I can't really pinpoint it but the sensation of flight in XPX just feels more fluid. Especially when you are landing, it feels like you're really in ground effect, unlike FSX.

 

What bothers me about XPX besides the autogen is the lack of yaw turning tendencies. Correct me if I am wrong but XPX doesn't model P-Factor or Spiraling Slip Stream ? I know the torque seems overdone but maybe it is because of a lack of the other two left turning tendencies.

[jcomm 5,923]

Correct me if I am wrong but XPX doesn't model P-Factor or Spiraling Slip Stream ? I know the torque seems overdone but maybe it is because of a lack of the other two left turning tendencies.

 

You're probably very right !!!! ;-)  although I believe it does model p-factor and the gyroscopic effects of the turning prop(s). Absence of slipstream effects might well account for the lack of yaw and the overdone roll due to torque.