.

 

PMDG and P3D has the eye candy.. I fly that as much as I fly X-Plane... The flight modelling is far superior in XP and that is the undeniable fact.

 

Simply put -

 

Realism (FLYING THROUGH THE AIR) #1 = X-Plane 10

 

Nicest graphics (watching flying machines)  #1 = Prepar3d 2.5

 

I totally disagree on the flight modeling aspect.  I've disagreed with this for all of these years, and it's well known......... that I've disagreed with this for all of these years!   I've never found XP to be better at flight modeling, than some of the well known, and well done flight models for FSX.  I'm really enjoying X-Plane 10, and I still really like FSX.  At the same time, I flew and owned real planes for many years. Flew mostly in the mountain states. I just flew my RealAir Lancair Legacy in Orbx Sedona scenery yesterday with FSX, and never once thought, that X-Plane was superior. I flew my RV6 to Sedona in real life, and the FSX experience, was much the same.  Just the same, I have a lot of fun flying XP10 throughout the simulated western mountain and desert areas of the west USA. It looks great!

 

 

This is just the one topic, that has always griped me. It's marketing hype, as far as I'm concerned. FSX defaults to smooth air. Real planes will often fly in smooth air.  I get the feeling that some feel that X-Plane is better because of the fluid frame rates, and the sensation of bouncing around some.   I tend to observe the sensations & actions to controls, power to weight, etc. Overall, between better models for both sims.............there is no real winner, IMO. I only use believable flight models for both sims.  What's interesting here, is that Carenados for X-Plane, are better flight model wise, than they are for FSX.  Has to do with the fact, the Dan Klue (spell?)  has the X-Plane knowledge to make them X-Plane compatible in a better way.

With Rotate and IXEG, airline quality is right around the corner.

I haven't been able to control my flight modeling responses for the last ten or fifteen years. But, since I'm getting noticeably older these days, my brain might soon forget. 

Larry,

I wonder what percentage of sim pilots actually have experience at the controls of a real airplane, be it GA or an airliner? I have no idea if the aircraft I'm flying in any of the sims I own( I own them all) is accurate or not. I'm not a real world pilot.

What's interesting here, is that Carenados for X-Plane, are better flight model wise, than they are for FSX.  Has to do with the fact, the Dan Klue (spell?)  has the X-Plane knowledge to make them X-Plane compatible in a better way.

I guess with the Carrenado observation you come down to the root of the precieved better flight dynamics in x-plane.  Both A2A with Accusim and Realair use very powerful tools they develop to bring FSX to the real world as much as possible.  In X-Plane there is no such sophisticated tool yet (REP is in the making). My understanding is that Carrenado use the default FSX flight dynamics and with X-Plane its the same. So in a sense you can see the superior flight dynamics (out of the box!) there. There is no doubt that there are models in P3D/FSX that surpass x-plane models but they have to use their own technology to make up for the shortcommings of the simulator. There are some nice posts on the development page of REP that talk abit about what is possible and what they add.

Larry, have you ever talked to Andy Goldstein over at the .org? He takes a very scientific approach to FM issues in XP and is candid about the strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

My understanding is that Carrenado use the default FSX flight dynamics and with X-Plane its the same. So in a sense you can see the superior flight dynamics (out of the box!) there.

 

Changes have been made to the X-Plane flight model. An example, is dealing with the roll issue, that's inherent in many XP models.

Larry, have you ever talked to Andy Goldstein over at the .org? He takes a very scientific approach to FM issues in XP and is candid about the strengths and weaknesses.

Yes.  

The default models roll a lot and that ground handling lousy no wonder I have not touched XPX since a week.

 

Can''t say about the paid ones as I don't have any 

The default models roll a lot and that ground handling lousy no wonder I have not touched XPX since a week.

 

Can''t say about the paid ones as I don't have any 

I use the Carenado F33 Beech, & Cessna 206 a lot. These planes are pleasant to fly, and the graphics, especially panels, look real good in XP.  There are some excellent scenery additions out there, and I especially like the way XP10 simulates terrain mesh.  With the night lighting, sunsets, and sometimes the runways following terrain.........................the sim is certainly worth holding on to, and exploring over time.  

I use the Carenado F33 Beech, & Cessna 206 a lot. These planes are pleasant to fly, and the graphics, especially panels, look real good in XP.  There are some excellent scenery additions out there, and I especially like the way XP10 simulates terrain mesh.  With the night lighting, sunsets, and sometimes the runways following terrain.........................the sim is certainly worth holding on to, and exploring over time.  

 

 

I have heard about the payware one's are good. But there are many things that are a put off for me in X plane 10. (NOT TRYING TO START A DEBATE IT"S MY OPINION ).  

" . . . Yes, grass and sometimes dirt runways are tough to spot.  In the real world, most pilots have flown into these areas and know where to look and what VFR references to use.  In XP it can be a matter of flying over to find it and then coming back to land. . ."

 

And that adds to realism in XP which I appreciate.

 

JJ

 

 

TRYING TO START A DEBATE

:o  LOOK  :o   Hes trying to start a debate 

 

 

IT"S MY OPINION

 

And you know what they say about opinions.