Curious...when did YOU buy into the XP franchise?

[mdavis 10]

Yes, there is a transition learning curve going from FSX to XP, but once you learn it, it's also tricky to go back.  I like the XP interface much better than FSX for the ability to assign views to the numeric keypad keys and the quick look-around available in 3D cockpit move with the right mouse button.  I find I really don't like messing with necessary windows in FSX to achieve the same results.

 

But I use both.  My new computer hasn't been updated with all the hundreds of dollars worth of FSX enhancements to bring it up to current standards - may never spend the time to do that.  But I can say that FSX screams at unbelievable framerates with default aircraft and scenery before loading it down with add-ons, and aside from some rather smooth default mesh, it doesn't look all that bad when you can push the sliders.  But it's an old, 32-bit sim that is being slowly abandoned by commercial vendors as it ages, and the XP community is alive and well and growing.

[Paraffin 2,197]

WRT "riding on rails," I'm not a real-life pilot but I've spent hundreds of hours in light overhead-wing GA planes and helicopters as a commercial aerial photographer. No hands-on-stick, but I think I know how they "ride.' 

 

What sold me on X-Plane the first time I tried it, was the subjective impression of "buoyancy" or floating, during mild flight maneuvers... the way it feels like moving through air pressure on the flight surfaces, not just steering the camera view around. 

 

I don't know if it's the actual flight model engine, or just the way it's easier to get fast frame rates in X-Plane. Everything that involves subjective feeling of "flying a plane" gets better once you're up into the 40+ fps, liquid frame rate zone. So maybe that's all it is. But I like that impression of buoyancy in the air when flying in X-Plane. And there are few other sims that do this. Maybe Rise of Flight, for one.

 

 

[alulekk 3]

WRT "riding on rails," I'm not a real-life pilot but I've spent hundreds of hours in light overhead-wing GA planes and helicopters as a commercial aerial photographer. No hands-on-stick, but I think I know how they "ride.' 

 

What sold me on X-Plane the first time I tried it, was the subjective impression of "buoyancy" or floating, during mild flight maneuvers... the way it feels like moving through air pressure on the flight surfaces, not just steering the camera view around. 

 

I don't know if it's the actual flight model engine, or just the way it's easier to get fast frame rates in X-Plane. Everything that involves subjective feeling of "flying a plane" gets better once you're up into the 40+ fps, liquid frame rate zone. So maybe that's all it is. But I like that impression of buoyancy in the air when flying in X-Plane. And there are few other sims that do this. Maybe Rise of Flight, for one.

 

Absolutely.

This is instantly noticeable if you compare the Carenado T210 in both P3D and then in XPX (I have the plane for both sims).

The way it feels at rotation speed and right after lift off the runway is sensational and very lifelike (I've flown a T210 a lot in real life)

[flyerkg 62]

My first purchase of X-Plane must have been 4 or 5. I still remember a friend of mine was convinced that I was wasting my time with FS98.

[LAdamson 240]

WRT "riding on rails," I'm not a real-life pilot but I've spent hundreds of hours in light overhead-wing GA planes and helicopters as a commercial aerial photographer. No hands-on-stick, but I think I know how they "ride.' 

 

What sold me on X-Plane the first time I tried it, was the subjective impression of "buoyancy" or floating, during mild flight maneuvers... the way it feels like moving through air pressure on the flight surfaces, not just steering the camera view around. 

 

I don't know if it's the actual flight model engine, or just the way it's easier to get fast frame rates in X-Plane. Everything that involves subjective feeling of "flying a plane" gets better once you're up into the 40+ fps, liquid frame rate zone. So maybe that's all it is. But I like that impression of buoyancy in the air when flying in X-Plane. And there are few other sims that do this. Maybe Rise of Flight, for one.

 

 

 

Absolutely.

This is instantly noticeable if you compare the Carenado T210 in both P3D and then in XPX (I have the plane for both sims).

The way it feels at rotation speed and right after lift off the runway is sensational and very lifelike (I've flown a T210 a lot in real life)

 

At the present, I'm using mostly the Carenado's  (Cessna 206, F33 Bonanza) for X-Plane, and Real Air (Lancair Legacy, Turbo Duke) for FSX.  These models have the flight impressions I want. Right rudder on the takeoff roll (unless counter rotating props), with a slight decrease as airspeed picks up, and then continue with some right rudder after takeoff to maintain the runway center line, until airspeed farther increases.  I've always been super impressed with Real Air's slips. The feel of the control surfaces, and actual control are perfect. Just like the real thing.  Which ever sim I'm using, the flight dynamics have to feel and act authentic. Nothing is perfect, but they need to be close.

[Luis Cortez 0]

About a year ago, but uninstalled it due to the lack of even default scenery. The FSX interface is perfect, but I think that mainly because its what I've been used to since FS9. XP is hard to learn, I tried to make all necessary key commands to that of FSX with some success. A much better looking simulator in my opinion. 

 

I'm also aware of the ability to convert FSX scenery to XP10, but its not the same. I've come across so many texture errors, elevation errors, and honestly spending the hours trying to get it to what I want it to be isn't worth it until more addons are released.

 

Which means I'm going to spend a ton of money when that happens lol. 

[mdavis 10]

I find it interesting that some prefer XP scenery and some prefer FSX.  In order for FSX to match XP, it takes a lot of expensive add-ons like mesh, landclass, ORBX and lots of money.  You can get the same or better level of scenery display in XP for free - HD and UHD mesh and landclass, hundreds of more accurate airport facilities (and, yes, a lot of bare airports) - and arguably better overall flight dynamics with notable exceptions.  And some prefer the random autogen airports in FSX.  I prefer accurate airport facilities and seek custom scenery packs for those into which I fly.  Couldn't care less about airports I don't visit.

 

When I built my latest simming rig, I reinstalled both FSX and X-Plane 10.  In testing, I ran both at bare, no add-on level.  Both run great, but X-Plane became my sim of choice because I can drag and drop scenery, aircraft and plug-ins and quickly bring X-Plane to it former level of detail from my old computer.

 

FSX is a completely different problem, with lost installers, registration codes, deactivation and reactivation problems, proof of purchase or order numbers - the list goes on - and files scattered all over several directories and buried deep in folders having no apparent relation to FSX itself.  So reinstalling FSX became such a pain that I haven't done much with it and I'm not eager to spend the time when XP is running so beautifully. 

 

Additionally, FSX is static.  It is what it is, an old 32-bit program.  Yes, commercial vendors continue to offer an occasional program for it, usually on the dual platform FSX/P3D path.  But commercial vendors are also seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and we're getting some great vendors like Carenado, PMDG, etc. stepping up for XP, and a very active European user base providing tons of airports and scenery.  The custom tools are easier to use, and it's a 64-bit program that should stick around.

 

So for me, on a new fire-breathing computer, XP became the sim of choice because it is more easily customizable, has a growing user base, and is easily maintained and ported from my old computer.

 

Like many, I bought XP9, flew it a bit and liked it, but found it tricky to switch from FSX.  Now that I've learned the ropes with XP, I prefer it on nearly every level for my type of simming.

 

And I may have an old XP7 disc lying around somewhere that I never got around to installing.  I don't count that.

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

I find it interesting that some prefer XP scenery and some prefer FSX.  In order for FSX to match XP, it takes a lot of expensive add-ons like mesh, landclass, ORBX and lots of money.  You can get the same or better level of scenery display in XP for free - HD and UHD mesh and landclass, hundreds of more accurate airport facilities (and, yes, a lot of bare airports) - and arguably better overall flight dynamics with notable exceptions.  And some prefer the random autogen airports in FSX.  I prefer accurate airport facilities and seek custom scenery packs for those into which I fly.  Couldn't care less about airports I don't visit.
 

 

It seems that we spend lots of money, just doing these computer upgrades, so what's a few more bucks, for addons? I'm using both sims, and either way, we'll invest a lot of time, searching and downloading aircraft and scenery to make the sims we want.  At the moment, yes, I prefer the autogen airports in FSX, over the barren runways of X-Plane. Contrary to reports that these airports are haphazard and nothing like the real ones (read at the org)...................they were based on real life Jeppeson airport layouts, at the time the sim was published. At least hangar, administrative areas & fueling locations were in the right spot. Even those angled buildings to the runway, at your home airport. 

 

I'll also argue the flight dynamics issue. I never joined the long time X-Plane hype of superior flight dynamics, except for helicopters. I was a long time GA pilot, that got into high performance and aerobatics, and have been highly aware of what works for both simulations.  And yes, I immensely enjoy these Orbx products which I started using for the first time, when I started using my new rig. I know there is plenty of free downloads for X-Plane, but just haven't got to it yet. Unlike some, I have no real desire to design my own airport areas.

 

This is my position.  Using both sims is fantastic. They're is just still too much missing from either sim, that you'll loose out on, if you just go to one. FSX is far from dead. It could easily be another five or ten years before it runs out of "steam".  It may be running in 32 bit, but on my computer, I'm finally seeing frame rates and fluidness, that are right up there with X-Plane. I can still load either program to the hilt, and bring the fps down.  However, running Orbx and third party aircraft in the 60's for fps isn't bad. I've seen over 200 fps with both sims, clouds included.

 

Just a quick synopsis of a flight, I already mentioned. It was from Salt Lake City to Jackson Hole, Wyoming in X-Plane. Great looking mountain scenery all the way. The looks of the mountain lakes with reflections are incredible!  As the Teton mountain range next to the Jackson Hole airport, comes into a distant view, it outdoes FSX.  As I tend to do, I switch sims, for what appears best at the moment. I have Orbx Jackson Hole, so naturally I'll switch to FSX for some comparisons.  IMO, the mountains of X-Plane still win, and I was a real life mountain flyer, for a good part of my life.  But, once over the Tetons, and into the Idaho side, Orbx completely takes over. It's just a beautiful rendition of farm lands, trees, and buildings, combined with the Orbx style of autogen. X-Plane is just a very repetitious style of generic farm lands. There is a real difference here. I noticed the same thing, with a dusk flight in the greener pastures of Oregon. I love the Orbx airports! What can I say.....   While some will go to the trouble of downloading, or making freeware airports for X-Plane, I'll just buy a bunch of Orbx, when they are on sale, as I did around Christmas. In the meantime, I'll just continue to use both sims. I think more of us, ought to do the same.  We can argue all we want, as to what's best. I know what's BEST, and it isn't just using one sim.!  

[alulekk 3]

Haven't even seen a mention of the dawn, dusk and night HDR lighting - where XPX is simply head & tails the best out there.

 

I was in the habit of using Prepar3D here and there but I get so frustrated that an upgrade seems to break everything and it's usually best to completely reinstall everything from scratch every time they do an update. Wears me out

[mdavis 10]

I agree with much of what @LAdamson says.  It's not an argument, just preferences.  I still use FSX, I'm just "worn out" trying to reinstall everything that I had collected over the years on the old 2.88GHz quad core, or trying to move it all over to the new Devil's Canyon rig.  It's not a simple drag and drop as it is in X-Plane.

 

And I, too, switch depending on the flight.  Winter in Alaska over the mountains is FSX, summer is X-Plane, nights are X-Plane everywhere.  And if you fly in Australia, you'll find virtually every airstrip in the country is modeled and available as freeware with the Aussie Paks.  Chile is also becoming filled and there is a group working on all of Germany.

 

X-Plane moves ahead while FSX is either stagnant or expensive.

[JimmiG 244]

I started with X-Plane 7 but skipped X-Plane 8 and 9, the sim hasn't really grabbed my interest until fairly recently, probably some time in early 2014.

[Scramjet333 39]

I started with X-Plane 9 back in late 2010, about three-quarters of the way through its run. I immediately bought XP10 upon release, and despite teething issues (does anyone remember? Laminar hadn't released the 64-bit executable and it only came with *I think* 10.10), I found it to be a massive upgrade over X-Plane 9. Unfortunately, my sister's laptop with a puny GT 525M could barely run it at the settings I expected, so I stuck to X-Plane 9 mostly until early last year, when I jumped back onto it and discovered VATSIM at the same time. I fine-tuned my settings and managed to compromise on some graphical details, but I still managed to get an excellent view out of the window.

 

I now have a laptop of my own that's four times more powerful (GTX 860M), and X-Plane runs liquid-smooth. AlpilotX's HD Mesh v3 combined with ISDG, tdg and other entirely free scenery packs make XP10 a joy to fly in.

 

It's wonderful that PMDG stepped in our direction. Here's hoping that other FSX vendors will follow in its footsteps.

 

Here's also hoping that X-Plane's active freeware community isn't drowned by the influx of payware developers.

 

Note that I've never tried FSX, save for the free trial back in 2010. I instantly found it to be a turn-off even with respect to X-Plane 9, and hence I've never considered FSX or P3D as an option at all.

[UKflyer 630]

When i saw screenshots like these!! 

 

 

 

[whitetimer 0]

3 Months ago due to Flightfactor 757 .... Once IXEG 737 arrives will be main flightsim

[pilot83 387]

I started @ XP 10.25 since 9 months, after using FSX for 2 years...these images are amazing!