All I said was the truth, that's it. If Xplane people don't like it, not my problem. (And yes, X plane runs very very poorly on computers in this country, we simply not have budget). (some have problems even with FSX but at least microsoft isn't claiming this simulator runs at the same frames as a previous version). the system requierements for modern game is too high and it's a fact. only benefits rich people.

 

 

And, it all comes to preference over which simulator is the "best". So there's no point in arguing over this further...

Edited February 24, 201412 yr by Tushka

Tushka, X-Plane 10 is a modern simulator, first out in 2011 and still in active development.

 

Of course it run worse than a five-year-older software (on older PCs, that is - modern PCs will run it better, due to SW being able to make use of modern technology).

 

If you want to compare comparable, compare XPL9 with FSX (y. 2007 vs. 2006) or XPL8 vs. FS9 (y. 2003 vs 2004)

That's like saying comparing prepar3d new version to xplane 10. but both simulators different, it make no sence

Why, yes, it does make sense.

 

Incidentally, on my recently built PC, P3D v2 runs just as well as FSX, if not better.

 

 

Of course it run worse than a five-year-older software (on older PCs, that is - modern PCs will run it better, due to SW being able to make use of modern technology).

I don't think it's because modern software can use modern technology on newer PCs. You can put a more modern 64-bit OS on an old PC and get the same improvement. My modest AMD Phenom II CPU has always had the technology to run 64-bit software, but only since I installed Win 7 64bit has it done so. Similarly with Windows XP I was stuck on DirectX 9c. Now I can run DirectX 11. Same old PC technology, but different OS.

[...] Of course it run worse than a five-year-older software (on older PCs, that is - modern PCs will run it better, due to SW being able to make use of modern technology). [...]

 

I don't think it's because modern software can use modern technology on newer PCs [...]

 

I can't find a discrepance here.

The main thing outlined in post #17 is the fact that a better "interaction"/"performance" is often achieved/gained when all components (hard- and software) are - at least somewhat - up-to-date overall, as this may help to avoid potential "bottlenecks" for instance.

And - very simplified saying:

Flightsimming - no matter which platform - is always demanding in regards to hard- and software.

The question though may be:

How will any flightsim perform on a wide range of various soft- and hardware in use?

 

Anyways:

It sure ain't correct considering FSX to be a dying platform (at least not yet), as it was done here in this thread ...

but it sure ain't correct considering X-Plane to be a badly performing platform as it also happened here in this thread.

On the contrary - and in all due respect to all the many various flightsimming platforms available at the moment - X-Plane may in fact even have one of the most advanced engines "under the hood" currently available for flightsimming-purposes.

This does not make any other flightsimming platform better or worse now - or vice versa - for what flightsimmers may personally (!) demand or want/expect - but - pragmatically speaking, and also getting back a bit on topic now again:

When keeping the potential of X-Plane's engine in mind and remembering the fact that X-Plane on the contrary to FSX (and any other MS flightsim) is still continuously developed, it is just natural that people interested in flightsimming will also ask for potential future plans of PMDG for X-Plane (At least when enjoying to fly PMDG planes which i assume to be the case here).

Sure: Everything to everyones personal choices - so no missunderstandings here please.

 

Overall though - but also true in regards to flightsimming - my two cents here now:

I think it is great to at least have many choices and therefore not being dependend on only one platform.

No more, but also no less.

Edited February 25, 201412 yr by wolke85

X plane is extremely resource heavy, a drain on most computers in my country. And its apperance is personally too far from fsx and even fs9. most of its airplanes are not very simulated and it's terrain is just... crap. 

 

they got their companies developing x plane only addons, so as for the fs, they should keep to this platform as it's much better and far more realistic apart from the flight dynamics.

 

and here, most real life pilots recommend fs9/fsx instead of x-plane. and i believe their opinion is right.

 

X-plane runs far better than FSX on my system. And the terrain is far better. Sloped runways, water that looks amazing, the roads are accurate and not going through farmland and lakes, realistic transitions from different types of landclass, lots of variety, night lighting looks incredible, trains!, beautiful cities, the list goes on.

 

Not to mention, it runs after you install it. No need to tweak, no need for HIGHMEM fixes, or uiautomationcore.dll, no VC rain bug, no registry fix (x-plane doesn't use it). Not too many people can fly into an FS dreamteam, or flytampa airport with Active Sky and Rex textures and not get a slide show. There is absolutely no reason that developers shouldn't move to X-plane.

 

For anyone that thinks 64bit isn't important, well, I'm biting my tongue right now. I'll assume you're joking since that's the only logical explanation. Haha..good one!

 

I still use FSX, and love some of the addons, but X-plane is growing and there are some nice addons for it now. And I can still use a lot of my FS addons with it by using XPUIPC.

X plane 9 runs good, but if your X plane 10 works better, are you sure your settings aren't lower and maybe antialiasing or something is turned off?

 

 

I don't use X plane for it's lack of AI traffic, non complex airliners, lack of addons (will change), performance issues, and just the general "feel" to it. It lacks a lot that FSX has... even though it's mainly addons.

 

Personally I just stick to FS9, but I use FSX in special occasions.