Began using xplane with version 8. In fact the box is still under my computer desk.

 

Pete

50/50 for XP10 & FSX. Would feel like a major loss if either one ,was to just disappear .

 

Slowly typed from phone.

And used all XP DEMOS since available. Owned 8,9,10

Way back with XP version 6 in 2001 or 2002 if memory serves.

X-plane 8 here (I bought it in late 2006)

XP9 years ago but didn't get on with it.

XP10 last year but didn't get on with it.

Bought the MU-2 and made some progress then gave up.

Bought the Jetstream in the XMAS sales, so planning to try again soon.

Cheers

Keith

XP9 as it was the only one I could run on a Mac. Before then I had a Windows computer and ran FSX and FS9

Interesting that there were only two of us...that bought in at the v6 level, so far posting.

 

Most it seems, that have responded, came in at v9 and v10.

 

I remember how excited I was, to see better roads and cars between v 6 and v7.  The airports of v6.0 looked like the airports of FS98 (ouch....).

 

Man...have we come a long way, baby...from the neolithic and caveman days of v6.0...to what I fire up today, in XPX.35!!!

 

I will most likely say the same thing going from v10(x), to v14.0!!!  v10..will probably at that time, look as though a brontosaurus should be strolling past the airport feeding amongst the hills....and watching the planes take off between mouthfuls......(very LARGE smile)  :rolleyes:

I was there for version six maybe even earlier.

I honestly can't remember at this point.

It was early in the v9 run.

 

I have a long history with early FS, and was once a SysOp helping to run the old Compuserve FS forums in the pre-Web days. But I took a long break away from flight sims for 15 years or so, doing other things, occasionally dipping into air combat sims. I think the only civvie sim I flew during that period was "Fly!." It fun but limited, and didn't stick with me. I think I was burned out on the whole FS scene, and the very slow progress it was making during that time.

 

Around the time v9 came out, I decided on a whim to get back into a little civilian flying. The way I ended up with X-Plane instead of the current FS version was pure chance. I walked into a software store at the mall, intending to buy FSX, but they didn't have it in stock. They had X-Plane instead, and I decided to try it.

 

Because I hadn't been flying civilian sims for years, it was a clean slate and I wasn't bringing big expectations into it. I have no interest in airliners, just vintage GA, bush flying, and helicopters. X-Plane was certainly good enough for that, especially after finding things like the Tom Curtis scenery packages for the PNW. So I never felt the pull of FSX/P3D since committing to X-Plane v9.

 

 

 

After FSX was terribly slow even on high end machines at release, I decided to give X-Plane 8 a try ... and wow ... that was fluid and somehow felt like flying, compared to (sorry for the term ) flying on rails. I still had FS9 and used it a while, but after release of XP 9 - bye, bye MSFS B).

Came in at v9 but it looked like c**p so I stuck with FSX. V10 is much better and still has great potential.

 

Still running P3D alongside but I can see myself ditching it completely once IXEG put us out of our misery, LR sort out the visibility and we get a decent Vatsim client.

The "Flying on rails" concept.  It's well known, that I don't believe in the term, as it's often applied by some flight simmers.  For starters, my wife and I, have often ridden the rails. These tracks are mostly welded, which eliminates the constant clickity-clak.  Yet, we do feel movement.  It's just not entirely smooth.  So lets go flying on a smooth air day. There are lot's of those smooth air days. Especially in the mornings, as well as late afternoons.  What we'll find, is that the sense of flight is actually smoother than riding on rails.  It's nearly motionless, with the ground just slowly passing by, underneath.  In so many cases, where my wife and I would comment on this phenomenon, we were doing close to 200 mph.  I'd bring up the subject many times, during our cross country flights..................just because of flight simulation forum comments, on the subject.  Smooth flights were FSX flights, and turbulence was an X-Plane flight.  We could always expect turbulence for the return leg of our cross country's.  Unless it was winter, where there's often smoother air in the earlier afternoons.  

 

These days, I have a computer setup that runs both X-Plane and FSX with amazing fluid smoothness. They've become much more alike.  Neither sim maintains a constant heading or altitude, without the use of an auto-pilot.  Both sims are capable of smooth air or turbulence.  Real flight isn't a case of the nose always bobbing around, or constant attention to trimming of rolling forces, or pitch.  I do use worthwhile flight models for both simulations, and as I said, they're much more alike, than not.  

 

So no, I've never believed in the concept of "riding on rails", to describe the flight dynamics, of one sim, over another.  There is simulated turbulence, or there is not.  A perfectly smooth simulated airplane, is certainly not a poor flight model. It's the flight model that I prefer. I've flown too many real airplanes, to believe that simulated flight should be a constant challenge  After all, my wife and friends could fly my semi-high performance plane, for hours......on a long cross country. None had formal training.  And................my plane was a whole lot more touchier (and faster), than a typical Cessna or Piper single.

Ride on rails exists, but it is more connected to the way weather effects are modeled than to the flight dynamics model...

 

In FSX, because the wind and turbulence effects are usually too soft ( although there are users reporting exactly the opposite :-) ) some authors create effects on their aircraft to make them more bouncy, and give a more realistic feel of flying through turbulent air, while others tell their users to disable turbulence :-/

 

A good example is probably the most advanced PC-based ( non-airliner ) flightsim - DCS World - where we can have some "on-raills" feel because of the tame modeling of winds and turbulence, even at high wind and turbulence settings. Apparently it was better in the past, but users ( mostly air combat simmers ) kept complaining about the effects :-/

 

Il2-BoS, yet another SUPERB flightsim, from the flight dynamics PoV ( not inferior to DCS IMHO ), has these effects very well implemented, specially turbulence and variable winds! It's a true thrill to land a ww2 fighter under adverse weather in BoS :-) 

 

Finally, in Aerowinx PSX, Hardy Heinlin created a standalone weather ( World Weather ) model, which can blend with METAR data from RW observations, and has yet another SUPERB set of weather effects. Landing a 744 under Moderate to Severe turbulence and variable winds / shear... can really make you sweat ...

Use both fsx and Xplane for ga flying. Good to have both, but Xplane is the future sim for me. Small general aviation flyer now like cessna 152 and 172 doing vfr scud runs in rural Minnesota and Iowa in spring and summer conditions. At least 970 gtx gpu is far bigger benefit in XPX than fsx.

Coincidentally I tried BOS for the first time last night (on-line with my sons ) (and saw you on the server Jcomm)...but I was mostly crashing not fighting.

Definitely NOT on rails, unless you dive too fast then it railroads you straight into the ground. :(

 

Re FSX, my concern is that everything flies smoothly, then suddenly there's a bunch of turbulence for no apparent reason then its smooth again, like a token attempt. Whereas Xplane is fighting all the time. From my limited R/L experience of flying (gliders and small planes) I don't think either is really 'right'.

 

But its not that which is my reason for not progressing with Xplane, its more that the mechanics of doing things (joystick, keyboard, display, cockpit etc) are so perverse, as though its being deliberately awkward. The small time I have available gets frittered away and little actual flying is achieved.

Cheers

Keith