The thing that always kept me from getting serious with X-Plane (I owned one of the older versions) was the lack of any kind of time acceleration. Basically anything you fly has to be done in real-time. I just don't have the free time to fly every flight in real time. Also the airport and navaid database was not very accurate (at least for the older version I had). With FS, I can download real-world charts and pretty much fly them accurately. I'm not sure how much X-Plane has improved in this regard with the newer versions. Still I give the author tons of credit for the sim he has produced.

FS doesn't have sloped runways but has plenty of sloped roads. Sloped runways (or roads) present their own challenges, such as getting the right glide slope and speed; and doing a proper flare becomes a lot more interesting. It's a great learning experience.David

>For smoothness and framerates X-plane CANNOT be beaten.>>But I personally just feel to is to weak in alot of areas to>draw me away from FS at the moment>Dan.The reason that the frame rates are higher on some PC's in X-Plane is that there isn't a whole lot going on in X-Plane. You would get the same frame rates in FS if you turned all the sliders down to minimum. I have tried X-Plane, and I find that some aircraft models are OK ( not great) and some are not good at all, and I am a realitively High time pilot and feel that I can judge a good flight model from a mediocre one.Comparing X-Plane to MSFS is like comparing an Ultra Light manufacturer to Boeing, in my opinion.

X-Plane is a wonderful thing, especially if you're an airplane designer.It's superior to FS especially in terms of fluidity, flight modelling in general (e.g. it has this ground effect FS is completely lacking) and gauge animation (there are tons of gauges I can only dream having them available to place in my FS panels). And, there are some other goodies where X-Plane is ahead of FS.That's where X-Plane absolutely rules. But that's also where X-Plane ends.No complex systems simulation, no state-of-the-art cockpit displays, not a single plane one can say that it 'flies like a real one', no support from 3rd party, almost no add-ons.I own X-Plane since v5, but won't go for v8 anymore. I'm happy with my FS, my detailed scenery and landclass (from which X-Plane can only dream of), my airports, my complex aircraft (PMDG/Ariane 737NG, F1 ATR, 747 RFP, SSW A310,...), my vintage planes (DC3, DC4,..., Albatross, B314, Shorts Empire Class,....) and my Reality-XP add-on gauges.Nothing in X-Plane could beat this, and there's so much more coming for FS.Sorry, X-Plane is for some enthusiasts, I stick with FS. No chance X-Plane will ever get this far...Andreas

Forgot to say I'd wish X-Plane and FS could merge somehow (and run under FreeBSD)...Andreas

FS has both a very bland and a very strange flight model. All aircraft just behave like different versions of each other albeit with different roll rates, etc, etc. Heavies invariably feel like the CofG is in the tail. I haven't seen a light aircraft that flies realistically to book numbers yet, not even the DF Archer (no idea about the heavies). Textures appearing sometimes several seconds after changing views. Bitty problems are omni-directional runway lights, airfields visible from seemingly several hundred miles away, simply horrible landing lights that are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Not to mention jerky guages. Instruments are too simplistic (VSIs without lag, ADFs without dip, AIs and DGs that don't topple. Just loads of stuff that suggest MS aren't all that interested in getting you to think like a pilot. Also, I have never been happy with the cockpit perspective. It just never looks right (too high, too low, too zoomer in...). Oh yes...no windsocks. Getting decent FPS is a serious problem.X-plane is utterly dependant on a good model. A/c in X-plane are either brilliant or a joke. The scenery is bland the autogen awful. Very strange glitches when on the ground. Super squeally tires/brakes. Quite a few ILS seem to suddenly change their angle or the angles are just wrong with crazy descent rates. No ADF dip even though it says so on the box and again not lag in the VSI. A DG that precesses as fast as my electricity meter with 14 kettles on. Ugly a/c models. Strange engine characteristics (pistons seem to take an age to spool up...but only sometimes). It also seems to be tough for designers to come up with panels and models that look as realistic as FS'. Doesn't support my Elite throttle.Other than the runway slope thing, the biggest problems with both are TRIMMING (why is this so hard to get right? FS seems to be a little better) and the rediculous radio, alty, etc controls. It literally takes 10 times more effort to select a frequency, course, whatever than it should. Another problem totally unrealistic GA avionics. FS seems obsessed with GNS530 uber GPS systems and X-plane misses the point. Why oh why can't we have the stuff that 90% of GA pilots work with...the Bendix King Silver Crown suite with all the knobs and buttons working. Good cockpit management does a good pilot make and niether of these products even so much as attempt to deal with these things. A true simulator wants you to think like a pilot.IMHO, to be pukka VFR AND IFR sims, both have a heap of things to work on. My personal opinion is that X-plane has less to do as most of its ugliness seems to be scenery and instrument related whereas I think MS seriously has to replace the aging flight model in FS which just does not cut it for me anymore. There are many features that don't help and frankly, should be ditched.

Dear Tom,I just wanted to thank you for that vital information. I've often wondered about those sloped runways, if was me and the 3-4 rum and coke's I've had or just the way MS created some runways.Now I know, although I still don't have to worry about a ramp check!. That is, unless MS adds a patch for that!BestClayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

Not to start a whole big thing or anything but I have to comment on a few of your points...>FS has both a very bland and a very strange flight model. All>aircraft just behave like different versions of each otherIsn't that what aircraft are?>albeit with different roll rates, etc, etc. Heavies invariably>feel like the CofG is in the tail. I haven't seen a light>aircraft that flies realistically to book numbers yet, not>even the DF Archer (no idea about the heavies). Textures>appearing sometimes several seconds after changing views.I have a system that is very much not state of the art and I rarely have this problem. Only with some of the very heaviest of VCs do the textures take a long time to load. >Bitty problems are omni-directional runway lights, airfields>visible from seemingly several hundred miles away,I've got FSUIPC set to limit my visibility to 30 miles and I still have trouble spotting airfields on a fairly regular basis...>simply horrible landing lights that are about as useful as a>chocolate teapot. Not to mention jerky guages. Instruments are>too simplistic (VSIs without lag, ADFs without dip, AIs and>DGs that don't topple. Just loads of stuff that suggest MS>aren't all that interested in getting you to think like a>pilot. Also, I have never been happy with the cockpit>perspective. this would of course only apply to the VC I assume. It seems to me that while it's fine for you to be unhappy with the perspective (which is almost infinitely configurable btw), you are ignoring the fact that simply the existance of the VC is something FS has that XP hasn't yet offered. >It just never looks right (too high, too low, too>zoomer in...). Oh yes...no windsocks. Getting decent FPS is a>serious problem.Again, very little fps problem on my mediocre system. I'm not getting 60fps of course, but I'm usually in the very smooth and flyable 20-30fps range with decent visual settings...None of this is to indicate that FS9 is perfect becuase it's certainly not. But I think the issue at hand isn't so much "what's wrong with FS9?" as it is "in what areas has X-Plane kicked FS9s butt?" which is what the original post stated...

I also get good framerates in FS9 as long as I'm senesible with the quality options, AI and weather.Just for fun, try turning settings down until you get 60 FPS then try the sim. I promies you the sim will feel completely different. Framerate and flight modelling is what MS needs to work on for their next FS.BTW the X-Plane 8 scenery is pretty darn slow too. At full detail it turns into a slideshow for a few seconds then you get so much fog that you can't see anything. The X-Plane graphics engine is a pretty basic OpenGL affair with no bells or whistles. Sure the FS9 engine has some problems like low framerate and slow texture loading but it's far, far more advanced and capable than X-Plane it seems.

frame rates or smoothness is not the same thing. X-plane is as smooth as it gets really. I can have 60 fps in FS 2004 it

Not that I really give a darn one way or the other- but I am quite surprised this thread lasted in the:>Microsoft Flight Simulators > MS Flight Simulator General Discussion ForumAnd wasn't moved to the:>Waste Basket

as usual someone has to come up with a negative comment.. always one steve

Thanks for your input guys. I have to say that I have had FS since it was Sublogic. I simply hate spending hours setting my system up. I have tried turning the options down, but then it looks no better than X-plane. Generally, I find both products brilliant and hugely frustrating. As only instrument flight can be practiced to any practical extent with a sim I do all my serious practice in Elite now. However, doing carrier landings in X-plane or a weather adventure in FS is still BIG fun. I just wanted to counter the FS kicks all #### statement.Just a little thing: Yes all a/c are variations on a theme, but the handling characteristics can be hugely different from a/c to a/c. I am by no means an experienced pilot but I can say that two aircraft with the same roll rates, take-off distances, drag values, power can fly quite differently in a number of respects and this will never be possible to represent (as I understand it). I think I am asking for too much tho so I'lll shut up now.Just one more parting shot. Why oh why is the balance ball so horribly wrong in FS? Such a basic thing.Listing the good things will take longer, hence why nobody does it so readily (just a little theory).:)

I really want to see X-Plane catch up MS in certain areas like systems modelling, addons, etc but I think Austin needs to hire more developers to help him out. It seems some of the most glaring weak spots in the program still exist because Austin is still ironing out bugs and other issues. As long as this product has been marketed to Windows, Mac, and now Linux users it should have some of these holes fixed by now. Don't get me wrong I am rooting for him because I have purchased X-Plane in the past and I would love to run it on Linux.

>The FS team is like 30 people