Plus look at the economics... FSX will be getting a better uptake as its been available for less than $20 for a while now.

 

 

I think there's really only so much you can learn from default FSX. At the same time though it's not everyone's cup of tea and many people probably still prefer to treat as a casual 'game' without getting too involved.

 

There's no problem with treating it as a casual game. 

 

Also, there's more than one way to be serious.  While I wasn't into extreme systems depth, I was flying through real world weather with all the scheduling problems that involves, and tracking real world fuel prices while flying a simulated air charter service.  This included making payments on the aircraft and keeping a maintenance allowance and paying copilot salaries and overnight expenses.  You oughtta see my spreadsheets on all this.

 

More lately I've been flying pure dead reckoning.  Instead of pushing buttons on an FMC then letting the autopilot fly the plane on time compression, I've been watching the compass and a stopwatch and correcting for wind drift by eye.  Interestingly enough, I consider this the most serious flying I've ever done.  I quit using the GPS long ago, and most of the time I fly without autopilot, even on aircraft that have them equipped.  I even set up AS2012 to have a minimum level of turbulence so I'm never flying on rails (sometimes this even works well).  And yes, there are no problems at all doing dead reckoning with the default terrain.

 

There's a misconception that the ONLY way to do "serious simming" is to fly an aircraft like one of the PMDG airliners with lots and lots of systems depth.  That's not flight simming, that's systems simming.  Heck, I was even doing serious *flight* simming in MS Flight.  I really feel no need to do overly complex systems simming;  I was a computer programmer for over 35 years.  Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  Now, I'd rather do the same thing I could do in real life:  head off to the local airport and jump into a C-172 and spend an hour sightseeing.

 

There's a place for PMDG-style aircraft, but that's not what I'm into. 

 

Hook

There's a misconception that the ONLY way to do "serious simming" is to fly an aircraft like one of the PMDG airliners with lots and lots of systems depth.  That's not flight simming, that's systems simming.

 

You're right. It does seem that way sometimes. In my case being a systems admin could very well be my 'techie' nature as I seem to always gravitate more towards that type of flying with a lot of systems involved. I still like other types of flying like the kinds you've described, I just don't do it anywhere near as often. Big jets (and complexity that goes with them) have always fascinated me I guess.

 

There's a particularly nice 727 available on XPX which is very basic and 'raw' on systems (common in 1960's). I like to fly it occasionally just using basic radio navigation, never tried dead reckoning though. It's a real handful especially once you get used to FMS and automated systems doing a lot of the legwork for you.

 

Ultimately you can still do this type of flying in the 777, just turn off FD's, AP, AT's and do raw data stuff. Guess a lot of people, myself included like to try simulate airline ops and play the captain role.

 

 

With P3d2, you can add a variety of weather engines, new ground, water and sky textures, dynamic weather, complex aircraft,  AI traffic etc. and bring P3d2 to its knees. But damn, it sure looks good! I'm not saying that there aren't some add-ons that are equivalent for XP10. It's just that there is far less diversity and hence XP10 users tend to not be as "cutting edge" as FSX and P3d2 users seem to be.

 

I'm getting fabulous (subjective, I know!) performance in P3D V2, however I am only using the RA T Duke & QW757, both of which are only moderately complex aircraft.  I really am happy w/ dense or very high autogen, and vegetation at normal.  The visual difference in vegetation from dense to normal is hardly perceivable.  High GTR at either 2048 or 4096; 2048 clouds, and all the terrain sliders & tessellation maxed.  All shadow receive boxes checked, and 2 cast are checked.   I'm guessing a PMDG NGX would be quite the strain though, especially in larger terminals.

What I don't understand is why can't the two platforms coexist. There is no one platform. It is whichever platform is best for the user. PMDG currently is developing for both platforms, so why not be happy. Instead it looks like a regular avsim slug fest that has long since run its course. This can be argued all day without a clear winner, so why even participate.

Here we go again...another thread in which you have the "######" of a particular product that will argue to their death whether they are right or wrong or whether it's the truth or not without regard to any logic.

Hey, enough of the "f.a.n.b.o.y" stuff (my email notification didn't censor that out). I'm speaking up for the staying with FSX, not as a fan but because it's still the best overall package available. I think you'll find it's the X-Plane enthusiasts who are calling for everyone to come and join them.

 

The bottom line is, Yes, you can run FSX 32-bit and a lot of add ons to make it look nice and the NGX. But, you CANNOT run everything you would really want in FSX without an OOM due to 32-bit. PERIOD!

 

My point was that with a 64 bit system you have the whole of the 4 GB VAS limit for FSX. If you only run 32 bit windows, then yes you have to be more careful what you load in FSX. But for me that means not leaving all the scenery addons checked, just the ones I'm going to need. I can use the NGX and the 777X without any difficulty or noticeable loss of quality.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I love FSX and it is very hard to think of leaving it with all the money I have invested in it. But, the time will come. X-Plane or something else will eventually raise the bar above FSX to a level where you can have it all(at least until 64-bit becomes too small). When that happens, that platform will become THE sim. That is what it is. X-Plane isn't quite there yet but it is really good and from what I can gather here on Avsim, is definitely gaining in popularity because it has a chance. A future. One with potentially less or maybe even no comprimises like we have to make nearly every single flight in FSX now.

 

What compromises do you have to make every flight in FSX? I don't feel I'm making any.

All your answers can be found in the following video:

 

 

I can't believe this post has been voted "Best Answer". It sums up the "Buy X-Plane" nature of some of the posts, but it was not an answer to the opening post. I thought the "Best Answer" vote was only available to the OP, in which case he voted for his own answer.

 

 

Hey, enough of the "f.a.n.b.o.y" stuff

 

No better logical fallacy than red herring...specifically that of ad hominem. :rolleyes:

 

 

No better logical fallacy than red herring...specifically that of ad hominem.

 

That's what Kevin's saying too.  It was the guy he was quoting who used the term.  I'm going to pretend here that you knew this and were talking about the other guy, not Kevin.

 

Hook

 

 

That's what Kevin's saying too. It was the guy he was quoting who used the term. I'm going to pretend here that you knew this and were talking about the other guy, not Kevin.

 

No need to pretend, because I did know that, and I was siding with him...

 

 

What compromises do you have to make every flight in FSX? I don't feel I'm making any.

 

I guess it depends on the sort of scenery and flights you do. For me, it was autogen and HD planes together that would kill it. For example, I spent 29.99 euros on FranceVFR scenery, which is designed to be ran with max autogen. It bombs out with max autogen, even when using a GA aircraft such as Carenado's Cessna 172. To make matters worse, if I turned down the autogen, the textures would still be blurry when going around 130knots and it looked really ugly, so I simply can't use the product I paid for, and do have to make compromises by either turning down the settings and making it look subpar or not using it at all/or in combination with other products. I have the same problem in Seattle and Melbourne with Orbx's scenery.

 

What attracts me to X-Plane is that I've loaded it with tonnes of photo scenery, HD Mesh, OSM autogen, and it has never ever crashed on me or showed blurries. It also performs far better than the equivelant area in FSX and P3D. I still have FSX installed, but I won't purchase any more addons for it (Drzwiecki Design's New York was the last, which also bombed out).

I guess it depends on the sort of scenery and flights you do. For me, it was autogen and HD planes together that would kill it. For example, I spent 29.99 euros on FranceVFR scenery, which is designed to be ran with max autogen. It bombs out with max autogen, even when using a GA aircraft such as Carenado's Cessna 172. To make matters worse, if I turned down the autogen, the textures would still be blurry when going around 130knots and it looked really ugly, so I simply can't use the product I paid for, and do have to make compromises by either turning down the settings and making it look subpar or not using it at all/or in combination with other products. I have the same problem in Seattle and Melbourne with Orbx's scenery.

 

What attracts me to X-Plane is that I've loaded it with tonnes of photo scenery, HD Mesh, OSM autogen, and it has never ever crashed on me or showed blurries. It also performs far better than the equivelant area in FSX and P3D. I still have FSX installed, but I won't purchase any more addons for it (Drzwiecki Design's New York was the last, which also bombed out).

Fair enough. If I flew a lot of VFR in GA aircraft I'd probably use X-Plane too. But IFR in PMDG airliners is a different kettle of fish and this is a PMDG forum.

Fair enough. If I flew a lot of VFR in GA aircraft I'd probably use X-Plane too. But IFR in PMDG airliners is a different kettle of fish and this is a PMDG forum.

Imagine flying a PMDG over this scenery, I can't wait

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/432268-x-plane-no-words-required/#entry2906514

Imagine flying a PMDG over this scenery, I can't wait

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/432268-x-plane-no-words-required/#entry2906514

I'm sure the extra detail is nice, but I'm often in cloud or at night and never that close to the ground for long enough to make it worthwhile. Hi res VFR scenery is a waste of resources above ~5,000 ft AGL. Most of the flight in a PMDG airliner will be in cruise at high flight levels

It's quite funny in a sense, because X-Plane looks really bad at high altitudes, and I actually much prefer FSX for flying jets or at high altitude. FSX copes and looks good at high-altitude, and X-Plane looks great at low altitudes, below 10,000 feet, and can't be beaten IMO.

 

I think for a PMDG product to work in X-Plane, they'd need to sort this out urgently, as well as the tuning of dials in the cockpit (Please get rid of those awful click and drag dials).

I'm sure the extra detail is nice, but I'm often in cloud or at night and never that close to the ground for long enough to make it worthwhile. Hi res VFR scenery is a waste of resources above ~5,000 ft AGL. Most of the flight in a PMDG airliner will be in cruise at high flight levels

This is not hi res VFR. Its a freeware mesh addition, the rest of the ground scenery is stock standard