Pros & Cons of X Plane

[jcomm 5,939]

Vector data in default XP is already at least as good as in ORBX.

 

LC, specially if you apply the modified Andras mesh v3 is wonderful. The Seasonal textures are, so far, the only big limitation :-(

 

Regarding weather, I have installed the latest version of the NOAA plugin and get winds and temps aloft just as good as in ASN. Cloud rendering, that's another story, because the default is really heavy, and SMP while much better in performance can't still compete with even the default in, say, P3D v2 IMO...

[soaring_penguin 428]

airlinejets, ohsirius, 

 

Both plugins are promising, but from what I understand: 
- both are IFR only, I like it low and slow, so I would like to see a good VFR ATC. I am not interested in the big iron or replicating a complete flight, starting with a dark cockpit, I like to jump in and fly. (I know, that is swearing for a lot of people here, but I am sure there are more like me).

- both are windows only. I made the switch to Linux years ago.

 

That is the only disadvantage I found for running X-Plane under Linux, not all plugins are supported, because of the market share is so small.

But it is my choice, so I did not put it under the things I don't like, it has nothing to do with LR, on the contrary, they do a great job delivering similar experience on 3 different platforms (not counting the 2 mobile platforms).

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Xplane has it headaches the loading time compared to fsx loading time far longer and jaggy screen hurt at times, but with Xplane a decent computer get far more fuild flying experience and it interface more suited to vfr flying for me than fsx is. The DIY freeware of Xplanes is great as most scenery and aircraft can be found. needs OSM data with world to XP with correct vector data is awesome get nothing like that in fsx.

[LAdamson 240]

Still on slow type phone.

 

More time with XP-10 and FSX due to no computer internet. With fast machine (GTX 980), both sims are very fluid. Both seem nearly identical for the feel of flight. I'm mostly VFR over mountainous regions, so it's the scenery difference that keeps me with both sims. Each has its winners and loosers.

 

On my system, XP water is a winner. The reflections look great. I hear they don't on some setups. Same for the mountains, deserts, sunsets, and nights around cities and airports. For rural areas, I still prefer ORBX for FSX. I picked up my Orbx scenery during sales, and won't be leaving it any time in my immediate future.

 

I have some good planes for both. Afterall, I flew the real things over a 40 year period.

 

Now looking forward to more scenery for both, if a technician gets our Internet back on Monday.