Larry, always a pleasure to talk to you Sir.

 

Gene

Having purchased a few of the same Carenado and Alabeo planes for both FSX/X-Plane, I can say that they do feel and fly differently. In fact, after using one sim for a while, it can get confusing going to the other and flying the same aircraft.

 

However, in my opinion, neither sim seems better than the other in giving the sensation of flight. The X-Plane versions model weather effects and turbulence better, and also unlike in FSX, require constant adjustments to keep on course. In FSX, without external applications such as Opus, it seems possible to trim a GA aircraft and then just leave it flying by itself without any ill consequences.

 

X-Plane:

• The VC look sharper and have better lighting and shadows.
• The GPS is rubbish (Which is the default X-Plane one), and really ruin some of the planes. In fact, in most, I never bother switching it on and don't bother with IFR flights.
• Weather and icing seem better modelled.
• Some effects seem exaggerated, such as torque and turbulence. Going into a cloud feels dangerous.
• They seem to perform better graphically, i.e. Better FPS.
• Really difficult to manipulate radios etc, because of the really lousy manipulators.

FSX:

• They seem easier to fly, there are less continual adjustments to do in order to stay straight-and-level
• The default GPS is better than X-Plane's, but it's possible to plug-in RealityXP's GNS. This makes IFR flights much more realistic. My favourite being the Bonanza.
• I like being able to tune radios etc using the mouse wheel. 

Overall, I prefer FSX for IFR, and X-Plane for VFR. But, both seem to fly and behave differently.

More flight adjustments required in xplane but I mainly fly Carendo cessna c-152, c-172, PA-28 in xplane at night fps is far better more smooth. I Can do VFR in XPX, but the eye candy lacking but mesh improvements are slowly narrowing gap with FSX. Like using both FSX and XPX and XPX is improvement over XP9. Think Xplane will improve, but it's gonna take time.

However, in my opinion, neither sim seems better than the other in giving the sensation of flight. The X-Plane versions model weather effects and turbulence better, and also unlike in FSX, require constant adjustments to keep on course. In FSX, without external applications such as Opus, it seems possible to trim a GA aircraft and then just leave it flying by itself without any ill consequences.

 

Unlike FS98, which I truely compared to "flying on rails", and switched to Pro-Pilot.....FSX won't maintain heading and altitude when trimmed. It will always drift, especially altitude, which is harder to trim than the real thing. The real thing will always drift too. Point is, you're not constantly having to make small imputs to remain fairly level and on course, with a properly rigged and trimmed airplane. Planes are like the marble sitting on a dinner plate upright, and helicopters in hover, are like the dinner plate upside down. In cruise, helicopters are more like airplanes. If a sim plane does feel like it's going to take constant control imputs to remain stable (while cruising along), then it's incorrect. And in my thoughts, irratating. You should sense the airflow across the flight surfaces on the stick, which when trimmed, will stay fairly centered by itself.