Considering X-Plane 10... A Few Questions

[makdrive 9]

 

 

As for other parts being "far far superior" I think that is provocative on your part as most people who hang out in this particular subforum are obviously going think the exact opposite for most aspects of X-Plane (except for stuff like ATC and AI which admittedly does need improving).

 

Hi Dave,

Sorry but that was purely my opinion to the topic starter. I am not debating Xp10 vs FSX here. Ofcourse you guys have a different and better experience with Xplane 10 and you are free to share it with the topic starter.

 

Regards,

[marty2756 65]

I come from FS9 / FSX too.... and altough some things will take time to be completed, like ATC..... when you get used to the 'sensation' of being actually flying that gives you x-plane, there is no turning back

After being a couple of months only using x-plane,I wanted to make some flights on FSX, and then I could really understand why they say 'its like flying on rails'.

And by 'senstation', I mean physics.... just an example, take a look a heavy , hard landing on one and onther sim... the suspension, how aircraft body reacts based on forces, etc etc.

[User72 28]

I eventually had to delete the other sims and move completely to XP because once I had put in the bit of time it takes to get used to XP and how to mod it to my liking ( alot less tweaking than the others took, no doubt!) the others just couldn't compete and yes I did make redundant all the many thousands worth of addons I had for FSX/P3d but it was no loss really once I had XP to my liking. There was simply no comparison for me, different strokes I suppose for different folks.

[Jim Young 2,356]

I am still trying to decide whether you are deliberately trolling for an angry response, because I am pretty sure you are going to get one

Member has been banned from making further posts in this topic and warned.

then I would go with X-Plane.

Just a friendly reminder that AVSIM has changed its signature policy and kindly asking everyone to please put their system specs and flight sim information in their respective "My Profile". More details can be found at the following link - http://forum.avsim.net/topic/436632-new-signature-rules or under the Forums tab above. Thanks for your cooperation.

 

Do not worry that the system specs and My Simulator information under the Avatar is not current available but we are working on it and it will be displayed someday soon.

 

Best regards,

[Paraffin 2,197]

Just an observation here, but there seems to be an obvious dividing line in how people rate X-Plane based on whether they do most of their flying in the airliner world, or in the low-level light GA and bush plane world. If you're into vintage planes with radial engines, bush planes, helicopters, light GA twins, then X-Plane is an amazing simulator. 

 

To deal with the "lack of airport buildings" issue, I just choose to fly in areas where users have filled in many airports in popular flying areas like New Zealand or the Pacific Northwest. Tom Curtis' scenery packages add many small as well as major airports to western Canada and Alaska. The list is growing. I don't think X-Plane will ever auto-generate random airport buildings at every airport, but if you do a little research on what's available as free downloads, it's not hard to find areas to fly with airport buildings at your destination. I just did an FSEconomy flight from the lower Florida Keys, and sure enough, there are free airport downloads for KEYW (Key West Intl) and KMTH (Florida Keys Marathon).

 

As for planes, there is excellent payware available in the light GA/bush plane category. Here's what I spend most of my time flying; all payware, but none of this is very expensive:

 

Carenado C208 Caravan

Carenado Bonanza F33

Dden Grumman Goose package (radials and turboprop conversion)

Hydroz PBY-5A Catalina

LES DC-3

STMC DHC-2 Beaver

STMC DHC-3 Otter

ND Art and Technology Kawasaki BK-117 helicopter

 

The next one on my radar is probably the Alabeo C195, which Carenado just made available. The Alabeo D17 Staggering looks pretty sweet too.

 

So that's roughly $250 in payware planes, plus $75 in the three Tom Curtis scenery packs for western Canada and Alaska. I could be spending a lot more in payware planes and a few utilities, but for just $325 in addition to the base price of the sim, I have a world of bush flying fun available. I fly (occasionally) in the FSEconomy game as a way to steer me to interesting new areas, and it supports X-Plane as well as FS9 and FSX, so I get to mingle with the "other side of the fence" in that environment. It's all fun.

 

I know this is irrelevant to someone only interested in flying modern airliners in the flight levels. That's a different world and I understand the attraction of mastering that environment and those systems. Down here in the dirt and grass though, X-Plane works for me. At this point, the only thing I'm missing is better weather modeling, and I think we'll eventually get that.

[airlinejets 709]

I'll chime in to counter Greg's analysis. I can tell you life will go on if you buy X-Plane. The simulation can stand on it's own merits and I have zero regrets of dumping my copy of FSX and it's bloatware. You can certainly use both, no one ever said it was not allowed. I have a suspicion you'll use one, more than the other.

 

On the bright side of things, I'm saving a sizable amount of money using X-Plane. Money I can allocate to other, more important things. FSX was always about spending (for me). X-Plane is what the MS franchise was many, many years ago. A community of dedicated flight enthusiasts who share their time and work, so others can benefit.

 

As others have suggested, try the demo and see if it's for you.

[scotchegg 4,240]

"As others have suggested, try the demo and see if it's for you."

 

I found the demo partially useful (mainly as a performance indicator) but XP without the addons / tweaks lacks the 'wow' factor you get from screenshots that're likely to have piqued your interest in the first place.

 

My advice would be take a punt, buy the sim, download the HD Mesh, put in the atmosphere tweaks and get one Carenado. If you're still not satisfied then you'll only be about the price of a night out down.

[ryanbatc 13,016]

Agree with that!

 

Pick a simple but decent Carenado like their C206 - it's more demanding from a GPU perspective too.

 

Heck I run all three major sims! All have strengths and weaknesses. If you dismiss any one sim you're not opening your mind up to the possibilities.

[FlyBoyMike 38]

I still use FSX and XPX. I find myself alternating between the 2 and there are times when I spend a few months on one sim over the other depending on what I feel like flying at the time.

 

As I'm mostly a high altitude IFR flyer I find that FSX (with appropriate add-ons of course) is still superior although I find XPX has definitely been gaining ground over the past couple of years. Some of the classic heavy jets like FlyJSim 727 and 737 are very, very nice and I find GA type flying in XP to be more enjoyable than in FSX. I find Carendo aircraft such as B58 and C152 fly very nicely in XP.

 

As for study-level airliners on the level of PMDG the closest you can probably get at the moment would be the Flight Factor 757.

[Spartan0536 49]

XPlane 10 is superior in terms of stability and coding to FSX, anyone who flies a lot in FSX knows this to be true. However FSX has the market hands down when it comes to both Freeware and Payware content, there is just so much more of it, some of its bleh but some of it is awesome, same goes for XP10.

 

However if you fly in FSX and have lots of freeware and payware for it, I STRONGLY suggest P3D v2+ (I use + as well its a live development product), the main reasons for this are....
1. Product familiarity

2. Portable content from FSX to P3D

3. Better performance and stability in P3D over FSX

4. P3D is a live development product, albeit so is XP10, but FSX is not.

 

The only arguments P3D has over XP10 are....
1. 1000% better user interface, 1000 might be a bit much of an exaggeration, but XP10's UI pales in comparison to P3D's and this much is true.

2. More content available either natively or through porting from FSX.

3. If coming from an MSFS environment P3D has much better familiarity over XP10.

[ohsirus 241]

I'll never understand why people say XPX's ui is bad. Its different from FSX, but Its not bad. FSX's real advantage in setup is fsuipc.

[User72 28]

I'll never understand why people say XPX's ui is bad. Its different from FSX, but Its not bad. FSX's real advantage in setup is fsuipc.

 

Agreed, the UI is not rocket science in fairness and it's very good at what it needs to do. One wonders about the amount of handholding that some people seem to need.

[SpoonerFLIGHT 10]

I have Xplane 10 and I would urge you to reconsider your decision before spending 100 bucks.

FSX is far far superior.

 

Don't be fooled by pics from Europe and North America.

check Asia, South Asia, Middle east in Xplane 10. ZERO !

. Who the Hell flys in the Middle East lol

[Paraffin 2,197]

Complaints about X-Plane's user interface usually boil down to one or both of these:

 

1) It doesn't work exactly like Microsoft Flight Simulator. Every complex flight sim has its own conventions, and they're all quirky in their own way. If you've been flying MSFS as your only simulator for 20 years, then sure, anything different is going to seem weird. I fly combat flight sims as well as civilian ones, so maybe I'm a little more tolerant of a "unique" interface. Many of those combat sims don't have the friendliest interfaces either.

 

2) It doesn't follow Windows UI conventions. This is a valid complaint. Ideally, any Windows software should follow the UI conventions for menu interaction, and X-Plane fails at this, in several areas. The file browser is weird, among other things. However, it's a cross-platform sim that runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux, and that's basically why it looks the way it does. The indifference to Windows UI conventions might also be because -- to quote from the Hardware page on the x-plane.com site -- "Austin Meyer, the author of X-Plane, does all of his development work for X-Plane on Macs, and he recommends them." So there 'ya go. FSX/Prepar3D doesn't have this issue to deal with, because it only runs on Windows.

 

If you like flying X-Plane, you'll get used to the UI. It's a little like using Adobe Photoshop or Premiere on a PC, where the Mac heritage is obvious in much of the design, but you get used to it.

 

 

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Use both Xplane and fsx and it depends on my mood lol. Xplane setup yoke and rubber pedals and fly, but when scenery wise I see it has far more potential create to a world closer to realty than fsx does. UI like Xplane better because its simpler to understand. Feel I like get up and fly with xplane. With fsx gotta play with sliders and config files because font want low fps issues or bugs occuring. Xplane your video card actually works unlike fsx.