Should I change to X plane?

[belongedtoair 1]

Hi all. I'm using Prepar3D now. But it still has problems like fsx, especially not 64 bit. So I'm thinking about change from p3d to xplane10. I'm getting around 20 fps on my current rig in p3d

 

My specs are:

AMD FX X6 3.5 Ghz ( I will overclock it )

8 GB 1600 mhz ram

GTX 660 Ti 2GB

 

With this system, will I get an acceptable fps? Or same as P3D?

 

And I have two other questions, is installing the xplane to a drive different from windows make any difference? And what about xplane's add ons?

Thanks and regards.

[SouthPawPaul 11]

My advice. Don't change. Use both. Heck use as many sims as your HDD allows. X-Plane is far from perfect either (in case you're wondering, I love X-Plane!).

 

I'd also advise downloading the demo and flying the heck out of it.

[flyerkg 62]

You should give X-Plane a try. Everyone will find different likes/dislikes for the simulation. However, don't base your choice on frame rates alone. In XP10 just might watch setting your display levels to "Insane" and observe to find suitable performance.

 

User interface has a different feel that some users do not adapt to in the beginning. I have had versions of XP since late 1999. I like it more with each major release, but still have not abandoned FS9, FSX, P3Dv2.4 

[PWJT8D 446]

Use em all! I have X-Plane 10, FSX, P3D and DCS. First things first, download the demo and tweak it around to your liking. Being that it uses CPU and GPU like P3D I think you'll find that the FPS will be similar. It does take a bit to get used to. It is a completely different interface. You can't turn away from it from first impressions, give it some time.

 

As for add-ons, it all depends on what you like, if you care to expand on that I'm sure plenty will be able to point you in the right direction. Aside from aircraft and airports, if you wanted to make the simulator look better and perform better, have a look at http://maxx-xp.hiking-pa.com/. Their SkyMaxx Pro and Maxx FX can do some wonders.

[Bush lover 0]

I use FSX and I'm not leaving. I tried X-Plane 9 and 10 There too buggy and glitchy. 9 runs about as smooth as a Bo-105 In translational lift [Not Smooth]. and 10 It just dose not work. There bad with helicopters. good physics but thats about it.

 

But if your a airplane guy there not bad. 10's frames suck'd no matter what I flu airplane or helicopter.

But thats probably because my computer was having problems at the time. Probably someone else will have better luck.

[SkyCaptainA320 0]

Hi all. I'm using Prepar3D now. But it still has problems like fsx, especially not 64 bit. So I'm thinking about change from p3d to xplane10. I'm getting around 20 fps on my current rig in p3d

 

My specs are:

AMD FX X6 3.5 Ghz ( I will overclock it )

8 GB 1600 mhz ram

GTX 660 Ti 2GB

 

With this system, will I get an acceptable fps? Or same as P3D?

 

And I have two other questions, is installing the xplane to a drive different from windows make any difference? And what about xplane's add ons?

Thanks and regards.

Dude I wish I had a machine like yours. Yes X-plane will run very smooth with your specs. Any serious flight simmer will eventually go to X-plane. 

[Comanche 417]

I have FSX, P3d and XP10. I use them all and they all peacfully co-exist on my computer.  They each have their good and bad points, but overall, I like XP10 best.  It just gives me the best feeling of flight for me.

 

However, FSX and P3d are also awesome in there own way.  I would give XP a shot and try it, you may like it, you may not.  Just make sure you give it a good try. Pick up at least one good payware plane and download a few good free scenery packages and give her a spin for at least a month before you pass judgment.

 

X-plane takes a bit of getting use to. Its very different from FSX and it takes a while to get use to the differences. take your time gettting the graphic setting tuned right for your system and take your time setting up your joysticks.

 

Good luck,

 

Rob

[ryanbatc 12,854]

Why do people have to change anything? I run all three FSX p3d XP10

 

Maybe you'll pick one eventually to keep the cost of addons down but for now try the demo then if you like it get the retail version. Heads up not all airports look like Seattle. Most are vacant in regards to structures on the field.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Maybe you'll pick one eventually to keep the cost of addons down

 

 

I have all three sims, but at some point, I had to decide where I was going to put my cash, with regard to add ons. It's too difficult to maintain all three sims each with its own host of add ons, when there isn't really all that big a difference among them. The only advantage of FSX over P3d is that you can fly either PMDG planes or VRS TacPack aircraft. Once that difference disappears, there will be no reason to maintain FSX at all. I keep XP10 installed, because there is always the possibility that it will catch up to P3d and FSX with regard to the quality and quantity of 3rd party products.

[Desaix 235]

As far as investment is a concern, XP10 is the least demanding with lot of good freeware (mesh, photoreal above all) to completely enhace the default experience.

Move ahead with 3 sims is not a deal for me, not all that time and money to invest into all of them.

I moved to XP because of the more realistic flying feeling but of course I sometimes miss the better jet/liners immersion of PR3D with decent AI and ATC and overall better airport sceneries.

[Humpty 751]

Ah try the demo.

 

Don't expect all places to look great, many are lousy looking.

 

But if you do go for x plane then get hd mesh / Trees / RTH and w2xp and fly anywhere in Switzerland / Austria / Norway / Berlin / Vancouver / Banff / Seattle. These just look crazily fantastic.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Use all like I use my guitars at home. Don't see a point limiting yourself as lots of items in Xplane are free and planes some are very good. I love OSM setup it means scenery in the long term will be very and start to resemble realty.

[decker89 110]

I have both, I will say that your issues with p3d most likely lies with your video card. P3D relies heavily on the GPU rather than your CPU. My cpu is much older than yours however I have a GTX760 series card and P3d is pretty smooth for me with multiple add-ons and sliders set fairly high. It doesn't hurt to have both sims though. I invest most my time in P3D and it's also the only sim I buy add-ons for, but it's still fun to jump into Xplane every now and then.

[Humpty 751]

Hmm is that a FX 6300 ?  well it will not cut it for X plane 10. I had this CPU.  Even OC'ing it would make no difference. That 660Ti is it better than the HD 7750 ? 

[Airline2Sim 489]

As a company we've very recently started to look at X-Plane and the more I use it, the more it grows on me. I can probably give you an objective opinion from an FSX->X-Plane point of view. 

 

You can actually get up and running with X-Plane pretty fast and assigning keys, views, throttle and other assignments is simplicity itself compared to the hassle of getting FSX and FSUIPC to play together nicely. In fact to make things simple I have all the keys assigned to do the same things as far as possible in both sims so there's no huge brain fade when switching from one to another.

 

FWIW as a long time FSX user, there are a few things I desperately miss - one is Ezdok-style damping on the VC camera view and the mouse look. Ezdok has that wonderful cinematic sweep to its mouse view and you can pan around the flight deck on rails but X-Plane only looks around as smoothly as your hand moves the mouse. Additionally I'm not convinced by X-Plane's sky and cloud sets and certain weather conditions lead to flying through what looks like pink nuclear fallout. Weather is well depicted in some ways but currently lacks the precision you see from Active Sky Next and the visual drama of REX. A lot has been said about the very workmanlike user interface and indeed it is very grey and uninspiring but it does the job. In fact, P3D dispensed with the nicely designed FSX menu and user interface so in that respect X-Plane is no worse IMHO.

 

That all said, you can tell once you get into X-Plane that the platform under the hood is light years ahead of the competition. The HDR night lighting is absolutely stunning and the view out the window approaching Aerosoft Amsterdam at night with those magnificent ground lights stretching out into the distance, the cars on the the surrounding roads and the twinkling of the many miles of taxiways with their dips and crests (X-Plane's world not being flat!) will quite literally take your breath away. 

 

X-Plane will still cripple your GPU and CPU if you get carried away with the settings, but on our highly specced system (Titan 6GB GPU, i7-3970x @ 4.7GHz) it routinely runs up to 60 or 80fps and barely dips below 35, even with most of the settings at the max. I'm still getting to grips with it so I only have the A320Neo and the 757 Professional (probably regarded as the best 'heavy metal' payware currently around) and although they aren't quite PMDG/Majestic level in execution, they are both a lot of fun and even a hardcore simmer won't find much to beef about, both dynamically and texturally.

 

Do bear in mind however If you're used to GSX or AES then you'll find some quirks in X-Plane - the 757 you push back yourself by controlling the turns with the rudder pedal and the pushback speed with the throttle! It's a bit weird at first but once you get used doing it from the spot view it actually becomes rather fun. AI traffic is a bit of a work in progress in X-Plane and sadly there isn't a plug and play option like Ultimate Traffic to simply install and forget about.

 

The biggest issue for swappers IMHO is if you're a payware airport snob who has become addicted to the kind of stuff served up by FlyTampa, Orbx and FlightBeam then you'll find a lot of X-Plane scenery a bit, well, variable. Some of the freeware offerings are superb labours of love (as they are with FSX) but in general if you want cutting edge quality at loads of airports then you're going to struggle. A lot of the stuff around reminds me of FS2004-era freeware. However, this is changing fairly rapidly and Aerosoft in particular are leading the charge, with an excellent rendition of Amsterdam and most recently Dublin. From Aerosoft alone, I've now got Dublin, Amsterdam, Toulouse, Dusseldorf, Weeze, Zurich and Frankfurt-Hahn. This is enough to cobble together a few realistic line flights with some variety.

 

It seems to me very sad that developers are having to come up with new and increasingly wacky ways to work around FSX's shortcomings (32bit, can't use modern hardware, outdated DX compatibility etc) when the X-Plane platform can do all this and more. I suspect in time that the biggest brains in FSX will turn their attention to X-Plane and it will then become a truly cutting edge simulation platform. PMDG of course is already out of the blocks on this one and I'm fairly sure they will bring with them a big bunch of frustrated FSX users who are willing to try something new.