Excuse me while I say this,

 

People are going insane over Prepar3d like it has been the greatest gift to flight sim, which is fine everyone has a right to be excited. However I have been following the forums closely for the past couple of days to see what people are saying and there is one thing I need clarification on. Simmers have been trying to find a way to get past the OOM's, Stutters, low FPS, and the horrible night flying in FSX forever, and to me it seems like they have missed what has always been right infront of their faces. I fly both FSX and Xplane and also have Prepar3d and people refuse to see the potential (much more potential if you ask me) Xplane offers for reasons I simply just don't understand. It seems to me X-Plane has never recieved the open arms this verson of Prepar3d has, and if people were half as excited about the future of x-plane as they are about Prepar3d we would be lightyears ahead of where we currently are. I love FSX don't get me wrong, but we need to realize that X-plane is a simulation that with a little more backing would surpass all of its competitors.

 

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

 

 

Very interesting observations! My explanation why Prepar3d is received with open arms by us FSXers, whereas X-Plane doesn't really catch our attention in general, is most likely the promised backwards compatibility. I myself have never really considered X-Plane an option, even though I own XP9, simply beacuse out of the box it can not compete with what I am used to from FSX with all the addons installed. I know that this is really comparing apples to oranges, but it all comes down to the expenses that I would need to take to have X-Plane (now I would even have to buy XP10, because it does look like it has serious potential) with the same level of detail I can currently run FSX and at the same time facing hunderts of dollars worth of FSX addons becoming useless at the same time. This is where X-Plane loses me!

P3D on the other hand has all it takes to be a worthy successor of FSX, because most addons can (and are allowed to) run in P3D just the same as they did in FSX with no problems, and still seems to improve quite some issues FSX had. The only show-stopper (and hence the reason to still use FSX) is the dreaded "E-word". But to be honest, rigth now I am more than satisfied with my FSX, so I don't really see the need to consider any other simulator as a platform.

Very interesting observations! My explanation why Prepar3d is received with open arms by us FSXers, whereas X-Plane doesn't really catch our attention in general, is most likely the promised backwards compatibility. I myself have never really considered X-Plane an option, even though I own XP9, simply beacuse out of the box it can not compete with what I am used to from FSX with all the addons installed. I know that this is really comparing apples to oranges, but it all comes down to the expenses that I would need to take to have X-Plane (now I would even have to buy XP10, because it does look like it has serious potential) with the same level of detail I can currently run FSX and at the same time facing hunderts of dollars worth of FSX addons becoming useless at the same time. This is where X-Plane loses me!

P3D on the other hand has all it takes to be a worthy successor of FSX, because most addons can (and are allowed to) run in P3D just the same as they did in FSX with no problems, and still seems to improve quite some issues FSX had. The only show-stopper (and hence the reason to still use FSX) is the dreaded "E-word". But to be honest, rigth now I am more than satisfied with my FSX, so I don't really see the need to consider any other simulator as a platform.

 

That is a very good point I understand that a lot of people including myself have spent an incredible amount of money on fsx add ons that they simply don't want to give up. I just feel like xplane has gotten so much ridicule, and if simmers could focus their energy on positives like this new version of prepar and xplane we could move in a good direction fast

One of the main reasons I haven't stuck with XP is because the UI is really, really bad. The sim itself is great (for the most part) but they really need to straighten out the interface and make it more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing.

One of the main reasons I haven't stuck with XP is because the UI is really, really bad. The sim itself is great (for the most part) but they really need to straighten out the interface and make it more intuitive and aesthetically pleasing.

Ya thats definitely understandable, While the UI isn't the greatest once you are able to understand it, you have more options than you can imagine. I read that the interface is a big problem for people. But it can be figured out just like anything with a given amount of time. It's definitely not as hard as figuring out how to tweak fsx to run smoothly that's for sure.

Biggest complaints I always hear is Xplane lacks good ATC and seasons.

 

If Xplane was smart they'd hurry up and fix these 2 issues and it would surely take off, no pun intended.

I owned X-Plane versions 8 and 9. Only tried the demo of 10, with one payware aicraft, as well as some of the included defaults. I'm not actively using a sim at the moment, because I want an all out, best of the best CPU....which might never happen.

 

 

Thing is, since I flew real airplanes quite regularly, and had a somewhat high performace two-place aircraft, at the next door airport............I just prefered my "RealAirs" for FSX. The Marchetti SF260 and Lancair Legacy. They just reminded me more of my Van's RV6, than the X-Planes do. Perhaps it's changed greatly with XP-10, but I doubt it.

 

 

When coming home after a RV flight, and wanting to re-create it, it was the RealAir that felt most right. I'm sure some will disagree, but that's the way it "was". Haven't simmed since March. BTW-- also flew the real life Marchetti, for a bit of comparison.

I also mainly fly FSX, but more and more, I'm finding myself really enjoying XPX64. 

I love the fact that it is 64bit, optimized for use with multi-core CPUs, and OOMs are not an issue. 

You can fly for hours with everything turned up, and know your memory will still be there for you at your destination airport.

I am much more excited about XPX64 improvements than I am about P3D.

Like it was said, whenever P3D does take the leap to 64bit, it will mean shelfing a lot of existing payware addons, until they upgrade or make new versions. This will cause a lot of dissatisfaction at the beginning.

I see some people trying to play it down, but 64bit is a very big deal for me and has been a real game changer.

XPX64 is really gaining ground with the complexity and quality of aircraft addons and that keeps me excited. I really like the new 757.

Things may change as LM improves P3D, but as it stands now for me, XPX10 is the sim of the future.

Unless I see tons of back-flipping celebration about P3D (which I haven't yet), I will hold off on it.

I owned X-Plane versions 8 and 9. Only tried the demo of 10, with one payware aicraft, as well as some of the included defaults. I'm not actively using a sim at the moment, because I want an all out, best of the best CPU....which might never happen.

 

 

Thing is, since I flew real airplanes quite regularly, and had a somewhat high performace two-place aircraft, at the next door airport............I just prefered my "RealAirs" for FSX. The Marchetti SF260 and Lancair Legacy. They just reminded me more of my Van's RV6, than the X-Planes do. Perhaps it's changed greatly with XP-10, but I doubt it.

 

 

When coming home after a RV flight, and wanting to re-create it, it was the RealAir that felt most right. I'm sure some will disagree, but that's the way it "was". Haven't simmed since March. BTW-- also flew the real life Marchetti, for a bit of comparison.

 

 

LADamson, I understand where your coming from. However i think things have changed. I also currently fly alot in real life a Cessna 310, which is a decently powerful airplane, the problem is I think xplane was lacking in medium GA aircraft until Carenado came into the game. They just realeased the C90 which is an incredible airplane and personally it is much more fluid in Xplane than FSX, you should give it a shot you will not regret it.

 

I also mainly fly FSX, but more and more, I'm finding myself really enjoying XPX64. 

I love the fact that it is 64bit, optimized for use with multi-core CPUs, and OOMs are not an issue. 

You can fly for hours with everything turned up, and know your memory will still be there for you at your destination airport.

I am much more excited about XPX64 improvements than I am about P3D.

Like it was said, whenever P3D does take the leap to 64bit, it will mean shelfing a lot of existing payware addons, until they upgrade or make new versions. This will cause a lot of dissatisfaction at the beginning.

I see some people trying to play it down, but 64bit is a very big deal for me and has been a real game changer.

XPX64 is really gaining ground with the complexity and quality of aircraft addons and that keeps me excited. I really like the new 757.

Things may change as LM improves P3D, but as it stands now for me, XPX10 is the sim of the future.

Unless I see tons of back-flipping celebration about P3D (which I haven't yet), I will hold off on it.

 

 

FSXtreme I am also completely stoked about this 64bit system and the problems you bring up has plagued FSX forever and that was in my original post and your completely right, 64-bit is a game changer any way you cut it. FSX simmers could spend half the time they do tweaking FSX and still get more incredible results in xplane if they just gave it that much effort and could get past the menu, which quite frankly isn't that hard to use after a while. Also Xplane you know if you start a flight you will complete it and that for me says a lot about the design of the sim. Yesterday I did a flight to Jackson Hole with this new HD mesh, photoscenery (courtesy of G2xpl) and the new clouds and sky and it was incredible and I was still getting upper 40's FPS. I have yet to buy the 757 but i know when i do it will be incredible.

 

Again I love FSX it is a great Sim and I own all three I just have found when  I put just a little time into X-plane it has paid out dividends.

 

Thanks for all your replies it helps me get some insight in things i just never understood

LADamson, I understand where your coming from. However i think things have changed. I also currently fly alot in real life a Cessna 310, which is a decently powerful airplane, the problem is I think xplane was lacking in medium GA aircraft until Carenado came into the game. They just realeased the C90 which is an incredible airplane and personally it is much more fluid in Xplane than FSX, you should give it a shot you will not regret it.

 

X-Plane 10, will be planned on. I even have a payware plane, that's not downloaded yet.....in anticipation for the event. And then I'll need a few Jackson Hole areas myself. Probably at least two different sims worth. My wife and I, often traveled up that way in our plane.

 

 

 

 

Some very good, well reasoned points made. :smile:

 

The main reason that I feel nothing but contempt for X-Plane 10 however is that I purchased it at release (nice pretty tin box), and it ran absolutely abysmally on my hardware.   I mean 5 FPS abysmal.   Lowering the settings made almost no difference.   when I pushed for support on this, to find out what was going on, the answer was "X-Plane 10 currently has significant issues with ATI graphics cards, and in particular the 5XXX and 7XXX series cards" (I use a HD 7850 2GB).   That was well over a year ago and nothing significant has been done to give ATI users an experience that is anywhere close to that of nVidia card owners.

 

I pushed this with Laminar and was astounded to be told that it wasn't a high priority.

 

So as far as I am concerned, Laminar aren't interested in ATI GPU users, and thus, by default, I am not at all interested in X-Plane 10.

 

Prior to the release on XP10, I was an avid "dual simmer" and had X-Plane 9 installed alongside FSX for about 5 years.    I owned XP payware; the Dash 8, CRJ, etc, and even helped Jack with some testing on the Dash 8.... so I am not a prejudiced X-Plane hater ........ it just all changed with X-Plane 10 64bit and the strikingly poor performance with ATI GPUs

Mmm... I think the issues with ATI cards should have been resolved with the subsequent updates (although X-Plane still seems to perform a little better with nVidia cards). I use it with a Radeon 6650M 2GB and it's fine at the appropriate settings. :smile: