Flew the X-Plane demo a few times, still having it on my HDD, but because of the unfriendly UI and general foreignness of it, I haven't touched it in a long time. However, the 'livliness' of the airplanes always stuck with my memory. People have often compared the physics of XP10 to FSX, saying X-Plane was better at simulating the general physics of an airplane when detailed performance information was not present, while FSX was better when you had all the performance info and charts filled out. And as FSX addons get better, and weather gets more realistic, FSX began to feel very "lively" in its physics as well. Flying a Real Air, A2A, or PMDG plane through ASN weather is night and day compared to default planes through default weather. As I understand it, FSX also allows developers the ability to program more advanced systems, making possible planes like the NGX or 777. However, the curiosity about X-Plane is still there for me. 

 

If anyone has advanced experience in both sims, please share - especially in respect to FDEs and physics - how the best of XP10 addons and the best of FSX addons compare. Not trying to start a skirmish please, just really honestly curious what the nuances are here and what the benefits are in each sim in regards to aircraft specifically.  

 

 

If anyone has advanced experience in both sims, please share - especially in respect to FDEs and physics - how the best of XP10 addons and the best of FSX addons compare. Not trying to start a skirmish please, just really honestly curious what the nuances are here and what the benefits are in each sim in regards to aircraft specifically.  

 

Okay.....

 

I've run both sims for a long time. I've been more partial to FSX, until this last year. I also actively flew (real) higher performance airplanes, as well as built & rigged them. IMO, it's the liveliness &  fluid frame rates, that make some simmers believe X-Plane has better flight dynamics. I see it all the time. Simmers saying that "wow", FSX was just too easy, and X-Plane is more of a challenge. FSX flies on rails, so on & so on.  Here's the thing. FSX defaults to smooth flight. Some get the idea that real flight is never smooth. That the air is always moving the plane around a bit. That's WRONG!  Flights in little GA planes can be very smooth. Almost a sense of not moving at all. Some X-Planes just have this way of bobbing the tail & nose around. Some have a problem of getting rid of torque, which causes the user to be applying too much aileron trim...............even when the real plane doesn't have aileron trim. The X-Plane Carenado's work around this problem. I like X-Plane Carenado's. Their flight dynamics are done by someone very familiar with X-Plane. They fly better than the FSX versions.

 

I really like RealAir. They've been my personal favorites for MSFS since FS2002. I still find no X-Plane flight dynamics, that beats them. I know what I'm looking for, and X-Plane's blade element theory can't beat look up tables, as done by experienced programmers such as RealAir. I only have one A2A airplane at the moment, and didn't get a chance to really fly it, before I gave up flight simming for a while, until I got a new computer system. My new setup fly's both X-Plane and FSX very smooth & fluid. I can sometimes almost forget, which sim I'm flying, since the move smoothly across the ground. I do use good flight models for both.

 

X-Plane has the ability to generate excellent looking mountains. I prefer it for long distance travel down through southern Utah, up through Montana, Arizona and other states as well. It's water & sunsets look very good. But...............there are many places where I prefer Orbx scenery for FSX. That's why I switch back & forth a lot.

 

Okay.....

 

I've run both sims for a long time. I've been more partial to FSX, until this last year. I also actively flew (real) higher performance airplanes, as well as built & rigged them. IMO, it's the liveliness &  fluid frame rates, that make some simmers believe X-Plane has better flight dynamics. I see it all the time. Simmers saying that "wow", FSX was just too easy, and X-Plane is more of a challenge. FSX flies on rails, so on & so on.  Here's the thing. FSX defaults to smooth flight. Some get the idea that real flight is never smooth. That the air is always moving the plane around a bit. That's WRONG!  Flights in little GA planes can be very smooth. Almost a sense of not moving at all. Some X-Planes just have this way of bobbing the tail & nose around. Some have a problem of getting rid of torque, which causes the user to be applying too much aileron trim...............even when the real plane doesn't have aileron trim. The X-Plane Carenado's work around this problem. I like X-Plane Carenado's. Their flight dynamics are done by someone very familiar with X-Plane. They fly better than the FSX versions.

 

I really like RealAir. They've been my personal favorites for MSFS since FS2002. I still find no X-Plane flight dynamics, that beats them. I know what I'm looking for, and X-Plane's blade element theory can't beat look up tables, as done by experienced programmers such as RealAir. I only have one A2A airplane at the moment, and didn't get a chance to really fly it, before I gave up flight simming for a while, until I got a new computer system. My new setup fly's both X-Plane and FSX very smooth & fluid. I can sometimes almost forget, which sim I'm flying, since the move smoothly across the ground. I do use good flight models for both.

 

X-Plane has the ability to generate excellent looking mountains. I prefer it for long distance travel down through southern Utah, up through Montana, Arizona and other states as well. It's water & sunsets look very good. But...............there are many places where I prefer Orbx scenery for FSX. That's why I switch back & forth a lot.

 

 

Thanks for the thorough response, I appreciate the input. That seems to coincide with opinions I've heard before about the default capability vs. exploited capability of both sims. I am also a really big fan of Real Air products, and always thought they felt very realistic, fluid, and linear in response. That's exactly what I meant by comparing the best of X-Plane to the best of FSX. X-Plane does indeed seem more lively, but as you mention it is a constant, whereas a Real Air plane will get lively only when there are appropriate weather conditions or the plane gets out of its flight envelope. And even then the Real Air "liveliness" is a predictable response in yaw, aoa, or pitch/bank angles, so you can tell why the plane is acting the way it is and how to react. In X-plane there is a general instability to everything, but it's hard to pinpoint the causing factor or how to react to it. 

Very interesting reads by some of you folks, pointing out the good and the bad. Thumbs up to you for keeping it constructive and open-minded. :smile:

 

Apart from the technical aspects of X-Plane, which already offers what other sims would wish for (GPU usage and 64bits for example), I think it's noteworthy that X-Plane won't be able to trap you in the 'commercial' regime where some software either is rendered not (legally) available or extra pricey 'just because'.

 

As a side note, I'm currently very happy with a main sim like FSX and a possible future one like X-Plane also being installed. I think I've read about that combo in some of your comments too. Reasonable perspective.

 

And e.g. Jose had a huge point on the third parties. It's them injecting some life, generating interest. And it's the 'chicken or the egg' problem at times which leads to a slowdown. But that can be solved, eh?