FSX to Xplane 10 Convert

[Robert McDonald 167]

Hi Robert,

 

In your triple screen setup, did you have to purchase two additional Xplane copies, is there a how to guide somewhere for this?  Also the plane (AA) you used was that the new FF 757?

 

Thanks

 

Hello there!

 

No, I didn't have to purchase 2 additional copies of XPlane, though you would either need 2 extra Disc 1's of the XPlane install set, or else you would purchase 2 USB keys from Laminar.  Obviously, the USB keys are more elegant solution.  I have heard some folks create 'virtual DVD drives' with software that can fulfill this requirement.  Since you're running just ONE simulation (but splitting it up amongst 3 pcs), afaik, you would NOT need to buy 2 extra copies of XPlane.  Personally, the USB keys are the hot setup.

 

Setup is pretty simple.  All PC's need to be on the same network, it's best to hard-code their IP addresses so they are always the same.

 

I use the IXDG 737 that is freeware for XPlane, but remove the 2D/3D cockpit plugin.

 

Sim-Avionics replaces the avionics from the XPlane models (this would be if you want to use a glass cockpit that sits outside of the 3 monitors as I do in my videos.

 

If you're happy with 'the old standard way' I imagine you could use the XPlane built in cockpit models, though I don't know what THAT would look like with 3 monitors (?) maybe someone out there could comment.

 

If you decide to go this route, I would be happy to share what knowledge I have.  The software (Sim-Avionics) is available from FlightDeckSolutions, it's pricey, designed for full-cockpit builders, but works well.

 

Cheers and best of luck.

 

Keys for success:

 

At least i5 Intel CPUs, my main (center) PC is i7 2600k at 4.73 GHZ, the two Wing PCs are DELL XPS 8500 (recently replaced by XPS 8700 in stores).

 

REMOVED stock Power Supply (460 watt) from XPS PCs  REMOVED stock nVidia GTX620 Video Cards (politely, "not great")

Installed Corsair CX750M 750-watt semi-modular Power supplies in each XPS, plus

Installed Msi Gamer OC GTX770 4GB option DDR5 Vram video cards in each XPS.

 

Main system is GTX Titan 6GB DDR5 Vram.

 

Note, the 770 cards are available with _2_ or _4_ GB Vram.  You want the 4GB.  Very important long term.

Hope this helps.

 

Ciao!

[jcomm 5,890]

In as far as flight dynamics go, as pointed out on other threads, XP10.30 can make quite a difference if LR really manages to include the fixes / updates they're up to.

 

Anyway, just like in other simulators, a well designed aircraft will provide a necessarily much better experience flying than a vanilla one where most probably the author didn't even bother editing most of the ACF or airfoils.

 

Having access to RW test data, and knowing how to use it for instance by editing airfoils in Airfoil-Maker, can make quite a difference and provide us with "flight behavior" much closer to the real thing.

 

An area where X-plane (by default) already does a better job than MSFS / ESP is for instance in the simplest side/fwd-slipping maneuver, but some of the updates considered for 10.30 can provide an even better experience. Of course I used the "( by default)" note above because there are in fact aircraft in MSFS capable of performing sideslips as convincingly as X-plane models! The RealAirs are a good example, but are not isolated!

 

There is nonetheless something about the aircraft fly in XP10 that I prefer, when I compare it to MSFS / ESP, and I can't really nail it down to a few words... I would be tempted to write that the flight experience in XP10 feels overall "smoother" than in MSFS in as far as the flight model goes...  I usually set the # of flight models per frame to 3, or even up to 4 when using for instance an aerobatic aircraft.

 

This smoothness can well account for the different sensation I get from flying, for instance the NEO A320 in XP10, vs the Aerosoft AXE in MSFS. I do prefer the feel of the NEO. I believe it is closer to what I feel in RL when had the chance to jumpseat in the cockpits of airbuses or from the 1 hr experience in a Level d a320/21/19 simulator. Presently I am trying to build a comparison between the two airbuses, and even using a RL pilot experience to comment on it :-)

 

IMO AI traffic, native or injected ( the native version looks interesting, but the approach looks to heavy to be useful in attaining the same level of complexity we have with some MSFS add-ons), ATC ( very basic native implementation, a lot worse IMO than what we get by default in MSFS ), and weather are still areas lacking attention in X-Plane 10

 

I have been using and beta testing some of the best weather injection applications available for FSX. I have participated in the now about to be released ASN and can say that while we already have nice rendered clouds in X-Plane 10, thanks to SkY MAXX Pro, weather injection at the level provided by ASN is still not possible. And... it wouldn't be as difficult to achieve as in MSFS / ESP because XP10, contrarily to MSFS, has a method of cloud / precipitation generation that makes it a lot easier to "see" in the radar the weather you have around you! We just need consistent injection of much more data ( RL observations, forecasts, significative weather...) in order to get in XP10 what we will soon be able to have in MSFS / ESP with the new ASN...

 

Default ridge lift in XP10 is very well done though, and I do prefer to simulate ridge flying in XP10 than in MSFS / ESP!

 

Overall weather effects including rw contamination, turbulence, etc... in ASN are up to what we have in XP10.

So, in MSFS we have the visuals, but also the effects, if we use the right sources. This excludes an important area though, where XP10 clearly outperforms any of the competitors ( by far ) - the effects of the various types of precipitation, specialy if flying near / in convective clouds!!!

 

None of the two does such a good work as either MS FLIGHT or even Aerofly FS in simulating turbulence though :-/. I ca't forget the turbulence model introduced in the latest version of weather themes released for MS FLIGHT and how much I miss it!!! Aerofly also does a remarkable job. Both MS FLIGH and Aerofly FS do, IMO, a much better job than either MSFS or XP10 in as far as some wind and turbulence effects go.

 

To be totally honest, presently I am in the mood to use them all. I have FSX ( always had, at least for some beta working...), XP10.25 with tiles from Europe and parts of Aisa and Africa plus SimHeaven Europe OSM + Autogen and ZL17 for Lisbon, v2 mesh for Europe only, and Sky MAXX Pro. I also have installed P3Dv2, and really liked the experience but I have decided to wait for their first service release because it comes with a few problems in this first version, already identified and about to be fixed for an upcoming update. I bought the monthly subscription because that's the one that better combines with my jump from sim to sim :-).  If someone tells me - should I take the plunge? I'll answer - take them all!!! Use them all!!! They're not exclusive and certainly none of them covers all of what the others can offer - no way! Even on addons like the NEO A320 and the Aerosoft AXE, I can't say I prefer one over the other. I tend to fly both the same amount of time, because each one provides features and and experience that the other still lacks...

[Anxu00 176]

 

 

If you decide to go this route, I would be happy to share what knowledge I have.  

Thanks Robert.  I will take me a while to build up the equipments but I will definitely take you up on the offer when that time comes.

 

Vu

[Robert McDonald 167]

 

 

To be totally honest, presently I am in the mood to use them all. I have FSX ( always had, at least for some beta working...), XP10.25 with tiles from Europe and parts of Aisa and Africa plus SimHeaven Europe OSM + Autogen and ZL17 for Lisbon, v2 mesh for Europe only, and Sky MAXX Pro. I also have installed P3Dv2, and really liked the experience but I have decided to wait for their first service release because it comes with a few problems in this first version, already identified and about to be fixed for an upcoming update. I bought the monthly subscription because that's the one that better combines with my jump from sim to sim :-).  If someone tells me - should I take the plunge? I'll answer - take them all!!! Use them all!!! They're not exclusive and certainly none of them covers all of what the others can offer - no way! Even on addons like the NEO A320 and the Aerosoft AXE, I can't say I prefer one over the other. I tend to fly both the same amount of time, because each one provides features and and experience that the other still lacks...

 

A well-reasoned approach to the flight sim hobby.  On the other hand, flying a multitude of simulators and alternating between them may not be practical for every pilot.  What I see is the incessant tug back-and-forth between what you like about sim A, versus sim B, and then sim C.  Put in simpler terms, to me it means you're never completely satisfied regardless of which sim you presently are flying.

 

I prefer to choose one, and build my flight deck around it, and attempt as much as is reasonably possible to set it up to maximum effect.  I also believe that as the sims evolve, they will improve.  Laminar has shown they are capable of greatness, although their team size and budget means it's a work in progress and the development time may be a shade longer than we would wish for.  Many have said that when PMDG brings their XPlane product(s) to the marketplace, there will be a marked uptick in xplane enthusiasts, and I have no doubt of that.

 

People who have shaped some kind of home-built cockpit experience, be it the full-on Level-D sim or some variant are less able to ping-pong back and forth from one sim to another.  This can be a hardware-driven problem (hardware panel A is supported in XPlane but does not function in FSX would be one example), and also can be reflected in calibration issues for the different control surfaces.

 

 

Thanks Robert.  I will take me a while to build up the equipments but I will definitely take you up on the offer when that time comes.

 

Vu

 

Best of luck to you, my friend.

[klamal 282]

 

 

I prefer to choose one, and build my flight deck around it, and attempt as much as is reasonably possible to set it up to maximum effect. I also believe that as the sims evolve, they will improve. Laminar has shown they are capable of greatness, although their team size and budget means it's a work in progress and the development time may be a shade longer than we would wish for. Many have said that when PMDG brings their XPlane product(s) to the marketplace, there will be a marked uptick in xplane enthusiasts, and I have no doubt of that.



People who have shaped some kind of home-built cockpit experience, be it the full-on Level-D sim or some variant are less able to ping-pong back and forth from one sim to another. This can be a hardware-driven problem (hardware panel A is supported in XPlane but does not function in FSX would be one example), and also can be reflected in calibration issues for the different control surfaces.

 

These are my sentiments exactly.  If I try something other than FSX, it will be a complete switch for me.  No going back.  I will build things around that platform like I have for FSX now.

 

The hardware issue and calibration stuff is part of the reason why I haven't jumped yet.  I have everything set up and working in FSX so just trying things out somewhere else isn't so easy.  It means leaving hardware out and not getting the full effect of what the new sim would be like with that hardware.

 

Heck, I have this problem just switching planes in FSX.  I love the NGX.  That is by far my favorite plane to date for a sim.  But, I have really been enjoying the AAX lately too.  I sort of started to build a cockpit for the 737(have the Boeing MCP/EFIS from Opencockpits and the CDU app for the iPad).  So, I feel "bad" when I switch to the AAX and can't utilize that hardware for it.  I'm almost thinking of selling the hardware to relinquish me from being locked to a single plane(let alone platform).  This would make things much easier to try other things.  In a way, I'd be "free". 

 

Anyway, sorry to go off topic a little there.  I have been watching X-Plane more than ever since the release of P3D v2.  I know at some point there's going to be something that comes next after FSX.  I just don't know what it will be yet.

[Robert McDonald 167]

The hardware issue and calibration stuff is part of the reason why I haven't jumped yet.  I have everything set up and working in FSX so just trying things out somewhere else isn't so easy.  It means leaving hardware out and not getting the full effect of what the new sim would be like with that hardware.

 

Yes, the hardware issue 'tied me' to FSX for the longest time.  I owned the VRinsight CDU-II, the MCP Combo II (Boeing) and the 737 Overhead by VRinsight.  I sold all but the MCP piece.  Ultimately, since switching to XPlane, I have upped the ante considerably, by moving to triple screens off triple PCs. That was not an inexpensive move.  Everything is relative.  180 degrees all-the-time field of view is a huge game-changer for me.  TrackIr never worked for me, I got 'seasick' or 'queasy' every time I tried it, plus the stiff neck cause by trying to avoid those feelings.  I know some people swear by TrackIr and my hat is off to them!  Me?  Not so much.  FWIW, Sim-Avionics supports some of the 3rd party cockpit hardware by a variety of vendors.  The older MCP Combo (1st gen) by VRinsight being just one example, and some of the competitive products as well.  FlightDeckSolutions' website has more info on Sim-Avionics.

 

You can build the triple monitor setup off ONE PC, but I submit that the path that works so well for me is the call if your sim budget permits it.  Without sounding like a broken record, the video card and how much VRam is built onto the card is very important in Xplane.  And IMHO, that importance will only magnify over time, as Xplane continues to grow and refine, and more complex scenery is released.

 

The add-ons are always somewhat risky, as sometimes they can bring frames hits, which sometimes DO get resolved by the developers in a timely way.  Until those issues shake out, though, you can become frustrated when something throws a wrench into your sim experience.

 

I guess we all are guilty of the same thing:  OK, I love my sim the way it looks and flies today! Now, LET'S MAKE IT BETTER!  That is where things can get dicey.

 

I saw the writing on the wall when I got to fly a big-dog 737 full-on full-scale Boeing sim a friend built over an 18 year period and a substantial 6-figure cost.  Once you see Heaven, it's hard to be happy in your own garden!  That said, what I've built today is probably the closest I'll come to that experience.  I already bought the Sim-Avionics software (a 'must' for the serious cockpit builder), plus the FlightDeckSolutions pro CDU.  That CDU is astounding.  It looks identical to the real deal, right down to the backlit buttons, the color screen, and the DZUS screws.  The tactile feel of that device is incredible.  The buttons have just the right amount of 'push back'.

 

Once I get it all dialed-in,  I will likely be in the air much more than I will be on the forums.  

[fsxkitty 62]

Don't forget to try out the FS2Xplane scenery converter. I haven't tried it myself, but it seems to work pretty well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCIDVrAhE5I

[Baylorguy 39]

Just finished my first full flight from KIAH to KSEA and snapped some pics.  I'd like to add that FSX does not have a 757 payware that even comes close to the new 757 Professional in XPX... if you do not have it, I highly recommend it.  Very immersive and very realistic.

 

 

Cruising at 35,000 feet above Colorado

 

 

 

Great salt lake

 

 

 

 

 

Mt. Rainier!

 

 

 

 

Final approach into KSEA and my first autoland with the XPX 757 professional.  Was a very cloudy approach, but of course that didn't matter

 

[saed45 38]

amazing shots

[fsxkitty 62]

Awesome shots! Do runways 16L and 16C have a very steep slope at their beginnings, or is that just in the demo?

[Baylorguy 39]

Thank you.  Yes, it does have the slopped runways, although during landing I could not spot them too much.  Takeoff, though, it is very obvious.

 

-Phil

[fsxkitty 62]

Thank you.  Yes, it does have the slopped runways, although during landing I could not spot them too much.  Takeoff, though, it is very obvious.

 

-Phil

 

I wonder why that is. I thought XPX was supposed to have very accurate scenery data? I checked on Google Earth, and KSEA's runways are actually very flat.

[Longranger 148]

I wonder why that is. I thought XPX was supposed to have very accurate scenery data? I checked on Google Earth, and KSEA's runways are actually very flat.

It has generally very good data but in the origi8nal data sets there were several issues (like steps in some runways and so on). But nowadays we have the HD Mesh 2  Which took care of these problems. Ok the runway problem would probably be solved with a simple recut of the dsf files but I don't think that KSEA is very high on Laminars update list. There are locations with much bigger issues.

[Anxu00 176]

 

 

Cruising at 35,000 feet above Colorado

Nice one.  Question: your shot does not have the visibility bug, everything seem clear at 35000 FT.  Is this because it was take in outside view?  How is the view from inside the cockpit at 35000 FT? This is just stock texture with HD Mesh v2?

 

Thanks In advance.

 

Vu