I don't know... does it compare favorably to what we've seen?  

 

Hook

 

 

I still haven't downloaded the PNW area in FG, but Amsterdam looks pretty nice you can check the screeny "Skies at Amsterdam" in the screen shot forum and the lighting effect is good especially the sun. 

 

FG 3.0 is being launched and the scenery looks better.

 

The best part is I can use a lot of FS9 / FSX objects and BGL's in FG with modelconverterX though I have still not tried it, still figuring out the directory structure.  or use google models with Sketchup.

 

 The Cub is excellent.

 

Hey i am not comparing paid with free. It's just that FG is turning out nice slowly.

  I see the debate continues. You have very loyal people to FSX and people who are tired of FSX and looking for something new because of the limitations of FSX. I have to agree that FSX got us going when it came out but Microsoft left us hanging by not developing a new version to go along with 64 bit OS. I think we all can agree we feel a little short changed when it comes to that. I think if we did not get OOM messages this debate does not happen as we would demand more add-ons, more planes, more.... and more. It is nice that X-Plane is 64 bit but has enough testing been done to see if there are any bugs? It has been out for awhile and still not a lot of add-ons, pay ware anyway.

 Is it time for a new Flight sim? Yes, but what will it be?who will it be? Will it be easy for Devs to make add-ons for? I like the what X-plane has to offer as a 64 bit program and be able to use all my Ram and hardware but at closer look it does not look any better than FS2004 as far as graphics in my opinion. Also what about A.I traffic. I see it comes with traffic but a lot of old liveries. What about moving jetways? Will it be AES? How much more money are we willing to spend to buy add-ons we already have for a new platform? How long will we wait for the products to become available for the new engine? X-plane 10 has been out awhile and not a lot of add on product support for it right now.

 I think the way to go is Prepa3d. I think it has great potential but still limited to 32 bit and single core platform. It would be nice would give the Entertaining license to Lockheed and Lockheed wanted to recode the FSX engine. I do not know or have the answer so I guess will we have to wait and see what happens. As far me if anything I would love to see the new planes being develop. I would love to see 787.A350 and A380. I wish enough info was out for the 737MAx and 777X.

 I know after this post the debate will continue and this is just my opinion. Whatever your loyalties lie just enjoy your product the best way you can because right now that is all we can do.

 

Vincent

You referring too OOM Maximus version 2?

I don't have OOMs w/ P3D V2.  The improvement in visuals for P3D V2 makes it very difficult to go up in FSX anymore for me, and I've tried just to use the lovely PMDG T7.  But it's quite hard to complete a flight plan I'm finding!   I took an amazing dawn flight out of Death Valley to Palm Springs and man you just don't see this stuff w/ FSX.  At least not DX9 FSX.

If you have FSX nicely set up and spent much money on many add-ons, it's logical if you hesitate to even think about Xplane. It would have to be significantly better in all aspect to make the shift, and right now it doesn't seem so much better. But what would you recommend to someone brand new in FS world trying to decide about the platform, and didn't yet spend on anything except good hardware? Would Xplane be the natural choice instead of so much tweaking, modifications, and limitations when going down the FSX/P3D route?

 

Daniel

I don't have OOMs w/ P3D V2.

 

Good for  you I don't have oom's with fsx, does that mean one sim is better than the other

This is quite an interesting discussion going on here, but why was it started at the PMDG 777 support forums?

Cheers, Christoph

A story (please bare with me :-) )

 

I originally started flight simming with FS2000, eventually upgrading to FS9 and then stopping for a few years. Back then, I thought it was the bees-knees, and I'm amazed FS9 is still being used (I've seen some incredible screenshots of it here). I have fond memories of it, watching the King videos, and practicing circuits in Meigs field in Chicago. FS inspired me to go and get real flying lessons, and at one point I had it looking quite realistic with photoscenery and some payware airports.

 

After a long break from simming and purchasing a Mac, I came across X-Plane 9, knowing FSX was dead. I instantly loved it, and started learning about IFR, practicing instrument approaches (very badly). It never bothered me that the default airports were empty, and I thought the default scenery looked good. That was until I started watching the training videos from Angle Of Attack, and saw how bright, colourful and realistic the scenery looked for FSX, I was jealous and I went out and bought FSX, PNW, and then I thought that X-Plane in comparison looked like garbage, too dark and was a dying platform. When X-Plane 10 came out, I tried it, but not only did it perform badly, it looked nowhere near as good as my FSX install with Orbx/Rex etc..

 

I continued to use FSX, I purchased the 737NGX, which blew me away, and X-Plane was deleted from my Mac and the discs placed on a shelf somewhere. However, I would occasionally install it again to try out new updates, but it would always be pushed to one side. FSX was offering me the wow moments, and X-Plane looked bad in comparision. 

 

This all changed though. FSX started to really frustrate me as I added more addons. Photoscenery was just blurry, I received out-of-memory errors, and it started to feel dated.  I started to notice that the textures in my install of X-Plane actually didn't look so bad, I fired it up and gave it chance, and there was my first wow moment in X-Plane, in the default Seattle area. I thought the roads, traffic looked incredible and thought it's worth a try and started purchasing some addons for it (mostly Carenado planes).

 

I would still go back to FSX all the time, especially as I was using the amazing Majestic Dash Q8, but same problems, blurry scenery, and frustrating things such as changing the time would require a reload. Meanwhile, X-Plane was upgraded to 64-bit, and I discovered how amazing it can look with scenery available for free (e.g. Simheaven). At this point it was 50/50 between X-Plane and FSX, FSX feeling more like the toy at this point, even with its amazing addons.

 

I was super excited for P3D v2, and gave it a try. Unfortunately, it was a massive disappointment, it was just FSX, but actually performed worse and still looked blurry and had the same issues. Not to mention, my favourite payware products didn't work inside it, or required a "professional fee" to upgrade. In the X-Plane world, more amazing addons started appearing, the Saab 340, and news of the 737 classic. The only thing I liked more in FSX at this point was the weather and camera views provided via opus, but after the release of Skymaxx Pro and discovering that configurable camera views were built into X-Plane all along, my time switched from 50/50 to 5/95. 

 

Today, I still open up FSX (P3D was removed) as I enjoy the FranceVFR scenery, but it looks and feels old compared to my X-Plane install. Not only is nearly all the scenery I use free, it's being updated and there is actually something to look forward to in it. I'd urge anyone to give it a go. It's frustrating at first, but after some investment in time and a few cheap payware addons, you'll notice just how good it really is. 

 

Maybe something will come along in FSX/P3D v2, that will change all this again, so I'm not dedicated to any one sim, and I still have both installed. In fact, I also have AeroflyFS and that blows both X-Plane and FSX out of the window in terms of visuals and the sensation of flying, and this is one I'll be watching eagerly.

I feel those who are firmly against X-plane haven't actually tried the sim at all:

 

When was the last time you saw such dynamic lighting effects in FSX? 

A few years ago I tried Xplane 9, struggled so much with the (horrible) interface that I gave it up after two tries.

 

The scenery looked horribly empty as well (I was comparing to FS9 with addons).

 

 

So you are right, I did not really give it a chance.

It seems one needs to invest the same amount of time (and money) in Xplane as in FSX to get it setup and working right.

And time is my problem.

 

FSX alone is so time consuming that today I have addon airports laying around and addon aircraft laying around (ConcordeX and the Catalina for example) that I just dont have the time for to even install !

I would have to quit FSX completely to have time for Xplane.

And Xplane9 did not seem worth quitting FSX for.

 

 

Xplane10 being 64bit and with that airport editor plus all the (high quality) airplane addons that have been created for it seems to be a whole different story though.

 

By the way, what is the name of the 737 developer in your video? (looks great!)

 

Ultimately, for me.....I think I will not switch and invest all my spare time in Xplane unless developers keep creating addons that are so silly and demanding that it keeps causing OOM problems.

All those scenery products with HD textures and not carefully designed (mip mapped, I think it is called) products are going to cause the end of FSX for me someday.

(and the end seems to be nearing quickly now that the combination of 777 and GEX/UTX plus an addon airport have me sitting quite close to the VAS limit of 4Gb)

 

 

Untill then, thanks for your videos, they are beautifull, but I am FSX-ing for now.

 

 

By the way, what is the name of the 737 developer in your video? (looks great!)

Ultimately, for me.....I think I will not switch and invest all my spare time in Xplane unless developers keep creating addons that are so silly and demanding that it keeps causing OOM problems.

 

The 737 I'm watching is this one http://www.ixeg.net/. Should be great when it comes out. 

 

If you're happy with FSX and your addons, then there really is no need to switch. I only switched because accurate, high definition scenery is a must for me, and although it could be achieved in FSX, the blurries defeated the purpose of it. If I could take the aircraft from FSX into X-Plane, then that would be amazing :-).

 

Also I like to tinker, and I find I can create my own X-Plane scenery very easily.

When I have some time I'm going to reinstall X Plane

 

 

I've done that three times now. With v's 7, 8 and 9. It's the definition of madness :smile:

 

No more. Every time I did it I couldn't get my head round it. For me, it's like suddenly starting to use (and learn) Ableton Live (which is very good but a whole new paradigm for me) instead of Apple Logic to make music. It's a whole new sim to learn. I have tried exactly that, and spent two days getting my head around the interface alone (a bit like X-P LOL) Never mind the new way of arranging tracks and phrases,

 

It's a different base flight modelling tech. I know flying is (nearly) the same but if my experience to get to my chosen flight is vastly different, and I can't have all my eye-candy and fave planes (yes, I'm shallow) then I CBA.

 

If I was new to simming, now that's a better "what if" scenario...I don't know..I'd probably just go for P3d as it has the weight of the largest defence contractor around behind it..In one iteration it has already brought more to its table than the last goodness knows how many of X-P.

 

X-P has been around since 1993. Laminar has had all that time to get it sorted. It should be a whole different product. I rest my case. (yes, I know he was on his own for a long while - but 21 years is a loooong time)

 

Damn. I just contributed a dribble to the digital noise. I couldn't help myself...

 

And why is this in the PMDG forum? Aren't they already developing for a "new" sim? :wink:

 

jake

I might get down-voted for this, but the discussion of which sim has the best flight-dymanics seems pointless. It's never going to feel real sat behind a computer screen, and I find both sims don't really give me any sensation of flying. AeroflyFS visually gives the impression of flying, and is the closest so far. You can simulate every system under the sun in the 737 for example, but I fear it's next to impossible to accurately simulate real flying. Happy to be proved wrong though :-)

 

 

Gallup, Reuters, AP, Zogby...All of them sample far fewer people in their polling, in any one poll, than responded to the AVSIM polls, and they generally come within a +/- 3% margin of error.  AVSIM has more than 125,000 members from all over the world of which close to 3000 participated in our poll.  I think that's a pretty fair representation of the entire flight sim community, with the results a close approximation to what you'd find had every flight sim enthusiast participated. 

 

That is a fallacy. 

 

The sample size in professional surveys is maybe smaller, but is chosen to be representative, not random.

 

Avsim users are not representative as it is, even less so the part of users that are active and chose to partake. That is a survey of avsim users, not survey of simmers in general.

 

 

Avsim users are not representative as it is, even less so the part of users that are active and chose to partake. That is a survey of avsim users, not survey of simmers in general.

 

+1. The majority of users on this site are FSX users. I'm not sure why this is, but I'm guessing the majority of searches for FSX questions have bought users here, who have then registered and used it for FSX. Additionally the site was around in the hayday of MSFS, and lots of the users are still here. If you were to do a similar survey over at x-plane.org, you'd find most people use X-Plane, even though they have sections for discussing FSX. 

 

The same applies to computer related sites. e.g. neowin.net, which shows computer and technology based news, but has been in the past very windows-centric. Naturally, most users who voted on that site use Windows, and are happy with it. A similar survey on macrumors.com would show the majority of users have Apple computers. The survey is good in the scope of avsim and their users, but is not a representation of the simming community as a whole.

You keep marking my posts "disagree", fair enough, but I think it would be much more informative if you, as thread starter, posted why you disagree with these posts. Or perhaps explain what is so wonderful about X-Plane 10 that non-users might not be aware of. Then you might persuade more people to your point of view.

 

My personal experience of X-Plane is awful and it would take a great deal of persuasion for me to try it again. I know the flight model is better, but it's not that much better that switching to it is a no-brainer. FSX, with all the addons we now have available, is still a very immersive flight sim experience. New addons are still coming out which expand this experience, despite the fact that FSX itself has not changed. It's certainly not dead yet.

Some points on X-Plane which are worth considering when discussing THE FS of the future:

 

• X-Plane has a world covering, it is not a blank canvas outside of the US.
• It comes with complete vector coverage and you can plug OSM street data and phototerrain into it very easily, just check out the results!  http://forum.avsim.net/topic/391564-osm-orthophoto/?hl=+osm%20+x#8208plane= And this is old X-Plane!
• It has accurately modelled airflow on surfaces.
• It has a good weather engine.
• It has cloud shadows.
• It comes with a number of very good aircraft.
• There is a huge freeware developer community churning out high-quality scenery and aircraft.
• A growing number of payware developers are offering products too.
• As of a couple of weeks ago there is a stunning HD mesh available.
• The ground traffic and road systems out of the box are superior to any other sim. It even has moving trains!
• Roads are 3D, not merely textures.
• It is already 64 bit.

 

While FSX is now at a point where some of these have been achieved at last if you invest lots of dollars, X-Plane has most of these geatures out of the box.

 

So X-Plane is here to stay and will be in all fairness the definitive sim of the future IMO, provided that more developers will jump onto the band wagon. Even P3Dv2 is not as advanced technically (no 64 bit!).

The 737 I'm watching is this one http://www.ixeg.net/. Should be great when it comes out. 

 

If you're happy with FSX and your addons, then there really is no need to switch. I only switched because accurate, high definition scenery is a must for me, and although it could be achieved in FSX, the blurries defeated the purpose of it. If I could take the aircraft from FSX into X-Plane, then that would be amazing :-).

 

Also I like to tinker, and I find I can create my own X-Plane scenery very easily.

 

I was happy (well quite happy) with PR3Dv2. I had no need to switch according to you but none the less now I'm more satisfied with XPX. Sometimes it's good and productive to try new path, you can discover that what you believed to be good isn't actually that.

 

Flying in XPX is for me much more immersive and realistic even though I miss great products like PMDG or weather injectors like AS and Opus. Not easy to explain, lights, life under my plane, photoreal with real OSM, but most of all field of view. Must be something connected to pixel resolution, but in FSX I felt to be in a fake world, much less in XPX. Of course this is not relevant when you fly a 777 or a 737 at 30k simulating realistic avionics, but it does count when you fly a GA at 2000. That's what I mostly do now as I discovered the beauty of VFR which in FSX never got me right.