I also feel the same way as Grunt. I use to like X-Plane, but that was only because I couldn't get FSX to remain stable. I've managed to tweak FSX and it's unbelievably stable now that I can actually fly and enjoy it. Visually I cannot get myself to really enjoy it. The only thing I enjoy most about it, is it's night lighting, it definitely is beautiful. But in general, FSX is an all around better sim to me. Especially with so many add-ons for it, you can get it looking extremely nice. I just can't go back to X-Plane after seeing FTX Global in action with my other add-ons. It's just breathtaking. In X-Plane, I really dislike how flying during the day looks, the horizon is barely noticeable and blends in too much with the sky, there's hardly any separation. The colors are too bland for me. But flying at night/dusk/dawn is fantastic. 

 

For now I will be spending most of my time with FSX/P3D. There's just so much going on for it that is currently missing from X-Plane. Hopefully X-Plane will get to that level sooner than later. 

@captain420:  I had promised you my P3D Nvidia settings - here they are :-)

 

BTW: Installed P3D last night, just uninstalled it - JCOMM at it's best - record of install duration for a sim

( less than 24 hrs !!! ) 

I was mainly testing that new, very good btw, weather injector, which may indeed become available for X-plane 10 as well - FSGRW.

 

Tested it, flew around for a while, even re-installed the DR400 to compare with the XPFR version, then started X-Plane 10 and ... well, you can't go back, if you like what it has to offer :-)

 

Ah!  Those P3D Nvidia settings - here they go:

Okay, I give....

 

Why are we trying to fly around in extreme weather conditions? I always thought that was something to be avoided in real life. I do read those NTSB reports. The type, where wings & fusalages come down a mile or two apart, or airliners being forced into the ground with micro-burst wind shear. I prefered to keep away from those "red" areas on my XM weather/GPS function.

Hmmm sometimes we glider nuts get into trouble - it's controlled, but nonetheless shaky to say the least :-)

 

I like the closer to real sensation of being rocked in X-Plane 10 than any thing FSX or P3D can provide, and it's not the flight dynamics model - it's the weather engine and how wind shear / turbulence, etc... are modeled...

 

Anyway, I sometimes also find X-Plane's turbulence a bit overdone...

I also feel the same way as Grunt. I use to like X-Plane, but that was only because I couldn't get FSX to remain stable. I've managed to tweak FSX and it's unbelievably stable now that I can actually fly and enjoy it. Visually I cannot get myself to really enjoy it. The only thing I enjoy most about it, is it's night lighting, it definitely is beautiful. But in general, FSX is an all around better sim to me. Especially with so many add-ons for it, you can get it looking extremely nice. I just can't go back to X-Plane after seeing FTX Global in action with my other add-ons. It's just breathtaking. In X-Plane, I really dislike how flying during the day looks, the horizon is barely noticeable and blends in too much with the sky, there's hardly any separation. The colors are too bland for me. But flying at night/dusk/dawn is fantastic. 

 

For now I will be spending most of my time with FSX/P3D. There's just so much going on for it that is currently missing from X-Plane. Hopefully X-Plane will get to that level sooner than later. 

So you're comparing a $100 Payware addon for 7yr old fsx/p3d 32bit to Vanilla XP10 64bit :blink:  :wacko:   In time XP10 will get more addons and LR already mentioned that they will fix the horizon/visibility bug. FTXG does look good but Airplane Payware including the soon to be released 777 will not be 64bit or have HDR Lighting/Shadows in cockpit....now that's realism for me when I use a Payware Plane.  I'm simulating flying a plane, not a texture :lol:    It's a FlightSim not Texture Simulator 2013.

@captain420:  I had promised you my P3D Nvidia settings - here they are :-)

 

BTW: Installed P3D last night, just uninstalled it - JCOMM at it's best - record of install duration for a sim

( less than 24 hrs !!! ) 

I was mainly testing that new, very good btw, weather injector, which may indeed become available for X-plane 10 as well - FSGRW.

 

Tested it, flew around for a while, even re-installed the DR400 to compare with the XPFR version, then started X-Plane 10 and ... well, you can't go back, if you like what it has to offer :-)

 

Ah!  Those P3D Nvidia settings - here they go:

jc,  what NV settings do you have for XPX/64?  I presume you use NV Inspector to XPX too?

 

Thanks,  Bruce.

jcomm, thanks for that! 

 

five-by-five, im comparing the overall look. To me, when I ran X-Plane with a ton of mods, it still doesn't look as nice as FSX. That's just my opinion.

 

 

jc,  what NV settings do you have for XPX/64?  I presume you use NV Inspector to XPX too?

 

No Bruce, I actually don't. Tried every possible combination between Nvidia Inspector and X-Plane 10 rendering options, and found that using ** only ** the rendering options within X-Plane 10 is the best option. 

 

Since NI's recent versions already come with an X-plane profile, I always make sure every item is set to App controlled.

I'm simulating flying a plane, not a texture. It's a FlightSim not Texture Simulator 2013.

I did have the means, to fly real planes over some very awsome scenery. I would not have bothered, if the "real" scenery was not worthwhile. The same applies to flight simming. Sitting at a computer, I very aware that I'm not in actual flight. It has to be a case of forming a virtual reality in my mind, that somewhat duplicates real life, as best as possible. Virtual flight dynamics are worthless to me, by themselves, no matter how good they are. The virtual world that we fly over has to be filled with good graphics on the ground, the air, and the planes themselves. Any product that adds more realism to the sensation of flight, certainly can't hurt.

jcomm, thanks for that! 

 

five-by-five, im comparing the overall look. To me, when I ran X-Plane with a ton of mods, it still doesn't look as nice as FSX. That's just my opinion.

 

FSX looks like CACA even with some hyped ORBX ADDONs. Just to be fair the clouds and scenery look nice from high up and far away. But that is just my opinion.

 

 

 

Virtual flight dynamics are worthless to me, by themselves, no matter how good they are. The virtual world that we fly over has to be filled with good graphics on the ground, the air, and the planes themselves

+100 to this. There are lots of posts where people say this isn't important, but to me, it's extremely important. Flying a plane on a computer is never going to compare and feel like flying the real thing, but it can at least "look like" the real thing. Give it a few years (I hope), and we'll all be looking back at FSX/X-Plane and thinking both sims look like FS5 does to us today.

 

I'm not too bothered about flight dynamics to be honest, both sims are hard to control using a yoke and pedals which offer no feedback. Which is why arguing about he flight dynamics between the two sims is kind of pointless. The bouncing around, turbulence effects add to the overall visual experience, but we can't feel it, and probably never will. What makes me laugh, is if I count up the amount of money I've spent on FSX/X-plane and addons, new computers, I could have easily affored to get my real PPL, which I started and stopped a few years ago :(

I have several times thought about the time lost in front of a PC pretending I am flying the real thing, but experience tells me it can positively contribute to your RL experience / proficiency, being it used to train IFR procedures, but also basic maneuvers.

 

Visuals are naturally important, but a consistent response of the simulated aircraft, flight and systems wise.

 

A simulator that irons some aspects that are not that important for it's purpose but still keeps consistent outcomes from control inputs, flight configurations, engine and other systems parameters can be very rewarding both from the hobby and the proficiency PoV, IMO.

 

ELITE is a good example of such a simulator, where the user is "protected" from many effects that would not contribute to the true purpose of that sim - IFR proficiency and training.

 

If a simulated aircraft presents to me reactions to inputs or flight situations that are not consistent with what is plausible, I couldn't care less if the outside views are great! If it gives me both things, then that's great!

 

X-Plane 10 gives me both, although I still look forward for some fixes to this and that regarding visuals and flight dynamics plausibility :-)

People keep saying that for them flight dynamics, aircraft systems, etc. are not that important.

 

Now suppose someone would model a "magic carpet" for FSX and upload it in Avsim library. No virtual cockpit, no external models, hence great FPS; no flight dynamics, just slewing around without inertia, like you were in Google Earth.

 

How many people would download it? Very, very few.

And I'm sure no one, of those saying that for them flight dynamics or aircraft systems are not important, would download it... :wink:

 

 

How many people would download it? Very, very few.
And I'm sure no one, of those saying that for them flight dynamics or aircraft systems are not important, would download it...

 

Murmur, I was just about to add that to this thread ;-)  Thx!

As in life.... everything in balance. Being a master at one thing usually means you suffer at something else.

 

(*The challenge comes in determining what that balance should be...)