I agree with Froogle, X-Plane for realistic flight characteristics or P3D v3.3/Orbx/ASN for scenery.
It all depends on where your passion is.  
 
Me, I fly low and slow  so I can see the detail in all of that great scenery that I have spent so much money on
I can't help it, I am such a scenery ######
 

 

I did make it a point to own and fly real airplanes because of the scenery. Never got a thrill about flying hours in grayness, just to see the runway come into view at the end of the flight.  I agree about Orbx, and own a lot of them.  As to realistic flight dynamics, X-Plane finally got it, after years of marketing as if it was so. I actually enjoy X-Plane GA these days. In the past, it really could irritate me sometimes. Too much trimming, for what seemed too much instability. Sometimes, I couldn't hack it for five minutes.  Keep in mind, that I owned a semi high performance single, but it was a third party airplane for FSX, that always seemed a near duplicate flight dynamic wise. In other words, I never went with the hyped marketing of X-Plane flight dynamics. But these days it's changed. I now own quite a number of X-Plane payware aircraft, in addition to those for FSX. I haven't got into P3D yet, if ever.

 

In the meantime, enjoy the scenery. As far as I'm concerned, it's what GA flight is all about. I live in the mountain west, and all of those years of scenic flight were well worth it!

Aerofly FS 2 for everything :-))))))

 

An A380 is comming along for the next weeks....

 

i dont mean this in a bad way:

 

it is fun watching you over the years getting hyped about a product, loving it to bits, then starting to realize its shortcommings, then getting frustrated again, then uninstalling it and repeating the cycle

I agree with Froogle, X-Plane for realistic flight characteristics or P3D v3.3/Orbx/ASN for scenery.

It all depends on where your passion is.  

 

Me, I fly low and slow  so I can see the detail in all of that great scenery that I have spent so much money on

I can't help it, I am such a scenery ######

 

My first Orbx download was PNW and it opened my eyes to what a flight sim could look like.  That was a few years ago and things have just gotten better with each release.  

 

Well OrbX is amazingly beautiful, no point in denying that. But for a lot of people, me included, its simply to expensive for a good coverage. Its easy to spent  few hundred bucks on scenery from them. That is the beauty of x-plane. You can get 80% of OrbX quality for free, in some places even the same, but it does require effort and its understandable that people dont wan't to bother with that task

i dont mean this in a bad way:

 

it is fun watching you over the years getting hyped about a product, loving it to bits, then starting to realize its shortcommings, then getting frustrated again, then uninstalling it and repeating the cycle

 

Ehehe, but I am really enjoying this one, and will be patient with it :-)   But it'll take it's time to get to the level of fsx, or even x-plane, in terms of modeled features of course.... 

I'm a big Boeing fan and only fly the 737 and 777 on P3Dv3.  Once in a while I use XP to fly the FF 757 and 767, which are commendable and enjoyable efforts that are still not even close to PMDG.  What I love about XP is the 64-bit (for example I can circle DD NYC scenery and never get an OOM error) and its stability (never had a CTD).

 

Once PMDG makes makes XP versions of the  737 and 777, I might fully switch to XP, but I also look forward to see how P3D does with 64-bit and if CTDs become a thinkg of the past.  I also plan on trying DTG's offering later this year.

 

I think the competition is great and keeps our hobby more interesting.

I'm a big Boeing fan and only fly the 737 and 777 on P3Dv3.  Once in a while I use XP to fly the FF 757 and 767, which are commendable and enjoyable efforts that are still not even close to PMDG.  What I love about XP is the 64-bit (for example I can circle DD NYC scenery and never get an OOM error) and its stability (never had a CTD).

 

Once PMDG makes makes XP versions of the  737 and 777, I might fully switch to XP, but I also look forward to see how P3D does with 64-bit and if CTDs become a thinkg of the past.  I also plan on trying DTG's offering later this year.

 

I think the competition is great and keeps our hobby more interesting.

 

If you like 737's then you should take a look at the IXEG 737-300. In many respects it surpasses PDMG's 737. particularly when it comes to sheer immersion and enjoyment

I agree with Froogle, X-Plane for realistic flight characteristics or P3D v3.3/Orbx/ASN for scenery.

But with the ability to develop flight dynamics for individual aircraft outside of the fligthsim engine in P3D, (A2A and Majestic as an example) the first part of that statement doesn't really stack up anymore?

But with the ability to develop flight dynamics for individual aircraft outside of the fligthsim engine in P3D, (A2A and Majestic as an example) the first part of that statement doesn't really stack up anymore?

Keep in mind, that I don't agree with Froogle, if that's what he said. I'm quoting someone else.  I've always been a fan of 3rd party flight dynamics, that went far beyond the core of FSX.  I never believed that X-Plane had the edge in flight dynamics. It was just always marketed as if it was so. In fact, until the last year or so, there problems with X-Planes FD, that really annoyed me for years. Items such as constant torque roll, that drove me nearly crazy. Afterall, I did fly numerous real airplanes, to work out bugs. I know what torque & yaw is suppose to be. But never the less, there are some fine X-Planes these days. I still don't consider them better than some for FSX, though. I'll assume they're about the same for P3D. 

Keep in mind, that I don't agree with Froogle, if that's what he said. I'm quoting someone else. I've always been a fan of 3rd party flight dynamics, that went far beyond the core of FSX. I never believed that X-Plane had the edge in flight dynamics. It was just always marketed as if it was so. In fact, until the last year or so, there problems with X-Planes FD, that really annoyed me for years. Items such as constant torque roll, that drove me nearly crazy. Afterall, I did fly numerous real airplanes, to work out bugs. I know what torque & yaw is suppose to be. But never the less, there are some fine X-Planes these days. I still don't consider them better than some for FSX, though. I'll assume they're about the same for P3D.

Yeah, I get what you're saying and I respect your view.

 

In my opinion there are VERY few people who truly know what they're yapping on about when it come to flight dynamics - either from the benefit of flight experience or the science. So when I see forum debates or Youtube videos about XP being better because of flight dynamics, my eye starts to twitch. However, with all due respect to Froogle though, he is a journalist and software developer. So I'm not knocking him - I think his views are quite fair and balanced - and at the end of the day, it's just his opinion which he is willing to share with the rest of us.

 

From my own flightsim experience however, I have been more convinced by the aircraft I have flown in P3D than in Xplane10. But to be fair, I have never truly given Xplane a fair chance. I disliked it too much in the very early stages. Bad interface, clunky setups and very poor handling when it came to the default aircraft - and that's where it started and ended for me - I found it a frustrating experience initially, so decided to spend more time in an established P3D setup flying high-end aircraft - so it really would be unfair of me to make any real comparisons myself.

 

XPlane 10 seems to have converted many - maybe XP11 will do it for me.

I used the AirfoilLabs C172 in XP10.45. I believe it was v 1.6.1 ...  I'd say that, flight dynamics wise, it compares well with A2A's C172. When it comes to even avionics modeling, A2A go deeper.... I believe they also go deeper in engine modeling, although I am aware that AirfoilLabs is still under development...

 

Regarding flight dynamics, and although I agree that the simulator is still at it's early stages, Aerofly FS 2 is positively surprising me with it's default aircraft, even if some of them may behave unplausibly under extreme situations of control input, but overall I'd say it'll probably be very easy to get a model performing very close to it's rw counterpart provided good data is available, and of course, as usual, with some / lots of trial & error...

 

The Extra 300, the C172, the Baron 58, and the ASW29 are great! The airliners have a feel of inertia I can not "feel" in the same way in either MSFS or X-Plane 10.

 

I easily put it ahead of either MSFS and derivates and X-Plane 10, at least flight dynamics wise...

I easily put it ahead of either MSFS and derivates and X-Plane 10.

But at this stage Aerofly2 is not a mainstream flightsim contender. It is not really the go-to choice for a serious flightsimmer. It's experimental and at best, of novelty value.

If I wanted to be a bus driver flying from major airport to major airport at FL35 where high detail scenery isn't important I would go with X-Plane, but I love great scenery so I am investing in P3D for flight, Orbx for scenery, and ASN for weather.

 

That is where my passion ls.

 

That's where mine is too, and this is just an indication of how different sim platforms can scratch the same itch.  :smile:

 

I fly only bush planes (vintage and modern) and helicopters, and X-Plane does it for me. It may lack the wide selection of "jewel box" GA airports from Orbx, but there are a few of equivalent quality, and the gaps are filling in all the time with new (and free) user-created scenery that is now distributed along with the base sim package. 

 

As a bush pilot, there are two things that keep me in the X-Plane camp. First, the free high-def and (in a few areas) ultra high-def terrain mesh for mountain flying. No more big patches of blurry texture. The remaining flaw is only having a single seasonal texture, but that will eventually arrive. Mountain flying through the passes and valleys is a blast in X-Plane.

 

And second, helicopters. I don't think there is much disagreement that, outside of maybe DCS, X-Plane is the preferred platform these days for helicopter dynamics. There are a few outstanding payware models (my current favorite is the X-Trident Bell 412), and more in development.

 

Regarding Aerofly FS 2 as an option, I just can't get past the flat and blurry orthophotos on the ground. It seems to be the default terrain wherever they haven't placed 3D buildings. I know there are fans of orthophotos, but for me as a low-flying sim pilot, that's an ugly last-generation technology now that we have faster computers. Especially once you factor in change of lighting through the day/night cycle, weather effects, etc. X-Plane's method of landclass tiles with an overlay of auto-gen 3D buildings may not be perfect, but it looks much better to me when flying low, at dusk or dawn, or at night.