Bit the bullet..

[mdavis 10]

Using both FSX and XP allows you to avoid the objections you have when comparing one to the other.  A corollary to that is that it is not fair to expect one to contain everything the other one has.

[Chris Crawford 49]

It's definitely a pretty difficult transition lol. It's not really as user friendly as FSX is, but, I'm sure ill get the hang of it over time! I can't wait to get it modded up to its full potential!

[ryanbatc 12,820]

Using both FSX and XP allows you to avoid the objections you have when comparing one to the other.  A corollary to that is that it is not fair to expect one to contain everything the other one has.

 

This

 

I also use P3D - three sims give me plenty to do!  (and plenty to spend moola on haha)

[mdavis 10]

I like to fly, not get ready to fly.  So there are not really any good, simple airliners for XP - they all tend to be more complex and fussy and time-consuming to get running.  Consequently, I'll fly the simple 737 in FSX.  Also, FSX has Squawkbox which is an easier and better way to interact with VATSIM than XPSquawkbox, so I'll use FSX on VATSIM which seems to be better set up for FSX.

 

But I do a lot of single engine and twin flying and for virtually all of that I use XP.  I'm working my way through the list that Michael Dougherty made way back for FS2004 in his "Dougherty's Dangerous," and a few of those airstrips are not in XP which forces me back into FSX once in a while.

[LAdamson 240]

I'm using both FSX and X-Plane10 for GA flight.  I also tend to check out the same airports with both sims, just to see what looks better for the area. X-Plane mountains and deserts of the southwest look really great at sunset. By default, XP terrain mesh is better than FSX.  I haven't been using addon mesh, such as I had with FS Genesis on this new computer.  I also highly enjoy ORBX airports and scenery for FSX.  I'd never switch to just one sim, and planned from the beginning, on using both FSX and XP10 with the new system. 

 

In some ways, I'm even now preferring the XP10 system of setting everything up. That includes controls, aircraft, and scenery. Guess I just got use to it.  As far as simulated airplanes go.....................no overwhelming  winners (on one sim fence, or the other) in my mind. I use what I consider good flight models for both sims. I flew real aircraft long enough to know what I'm looking for. At least in the GA categories from simple Cessna's & Pipers, to higher performance.  Can't say I've flown a commercial passenger jet for comparisons.

[pilot83 387]

I recommend the below you tube channel for XPX freeware addons/tips:

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD_KVVtpxSbrOwZL0m6pj0g

[deetee 164]

I like to fly, not get ready to fly. So there are not really any good, simple airliners for XP - they all tend to be more complex and fussy and time-consuming to get running. Consequently, I'll fly the simple 737 in FSX. Also, FSX has Squawkbox which is an easier and better way to interact with VATSIM than XPSquawkbox, so I'll use FSX on VATSIM which seems to be better set up for FSX.

 

But I do a lot of single engine and twin flying and for virtually all of that I use XP. I'm working my way through the list that Michael Dougherty made way back for FS2004 in his "Dougherty's Dangerous," and a few of those airstrips are not in XP which forces me back into FSX once in a while.

Try the 787 on the org store, it's simple to operate and uses the default fms.

You're absolutely right about XSquawkbox, it's interface is very poor.

There is a new multi-platform Vatsim client called Swift which is under development:

http://swift-project.org/

[mdavis 10]

In some ways, I'm even now preferring the XP10 system of setting everything up. That includes controls, aircraft, and scenery. Guess I just got use to it.

 

Yes, I agree.  I just built a new high-performance simming rig and one of the main reasons I've not flown FSX as much is because I had so many add-ons in FSX and because the installation of many of them were not just "drag and drop" installations, or because they required me to go back and look up all my old registration numbers or proof-of-purchase dates and sources to get another copy of the installer - if possible.  So far the FSX installation on the new rig is "bare bones" because of the time and complexity of setting it back up like I had it on the old machine. X-Plane is so much easier to set up and maintain.  (But, wow! my framerates on the default FSX are unbelievable!)

[mdavis 10]

Try the 787 on the org store, it's simple to operate and uses the default fms.

 

I'll grab that one, thanks!  However, one of my simming "projects" is working my way through the Dougherty's list which involves all of the default FS2004 aircraft.  Those arrivals listed for the 737 are often short and tricky places where a 787 would be in big trouble.  But thanks for the advice!

[deetee 164]

I'll grab that one, thanks!  However, one of my simming "projects" is working my way through the Dougherty's list which involves all of the default FS2004 aircraft.  Those arrivals listed for the 737 are often short and tricky places where a 787 would be in big trouble.  But thanks for the advice!

You're welcome.

The FlyJsim Q400 is also relatively simple to operate and has a default FMS, perhaps more suited to your STOL needs?

It does require some throttle management but is quite rewarding.

[mdavis 10]

I'll look at that one as well.  I have the x737 but I haven't taken the time to learn the checklist and procedures for getting it rolling.  I used it back in XP9 but haven't recently or since setting up the new rig.  I'm surprised there aren't any "simple" 737's out there.