Pros & Cons of X Plane

[hychewright 46]

 

 

I think a lot of people shy away from X-plane because it works very different and has a more complex and sometimes, not very user friendly interface. I can totally understand that. All I can say is that it does get easier and before you know it, it becomes a breeze to use and a lot easier to diagnose and fix issues. But that comes with time. Also its hard to devote time and money to a 2nd sim after spending a lot of money on FSX\P3d. I can relate to that too since I was a heavy FSX user since way before FSX (FS2 on C64). FSX felt like an old shoe. Comfortable and worn in nicely. Plus I spend a small fortune on it. There was no reason for me to move to X-plane except curiosity.

 

Rob, does this mean that there is a lot of tweaking that has to be done with X Plane to get the performance you want?

 

When you say more complex could you expand on that for me?

[Scramjet333 39]

As far as I am concerned, X-Plane has a fair bit going for it:

 

1) A well modelled plane, flying in both FSX and X-Plane, flies more realistically on the latter, primarily due to the blade-element theory concept that's behind X-Plane.

 

2) X-Plane is 64-bit - need I say more?

 

3) It is extremely easy to extend X-Plane, whether with plugins, your own scenery or your own aircraft. Aiding this is the simple file structure that X-Plane has, such that all you need to do is unzip aircraft and scenery into the respective folders. Likewise for the custom FMS data.

 

I hope PMDG doesn't bring in their Ops Centre DRM to X-Plane - keep the .zip files, guys. Make it simple.

 

4) X-Plane does not mess with your registry to get itself installed. It is highly self-contained - meaning you can have several copies running on the same system, such as in instances when you might want to beta-test.

 

5) You can get near-payware-quality add-ons for free in X-Plane - think HeadShake, HD Mesh v3, UHD Mesh, W2XP, the x737 Project (3D cockpit coming soon), Pumper's B777 cockpit remodelling and many of the older SimHeaven orthophoto scenery. The list is not exhaustive. Many of these are donation ware, so please donate to the authors if you like their products.

 

I honestly feel the only thing that X-Plane needs to get it really going is a better, more realistic and less abruptly-changing weather system, as well as slightly less demanding clouds. We need multiple layers and vertical clouds as well - not just three layers.

 

All the seasonal textures, reflection maps and other eye-candy are just that - eye-candy. One could make do without them. If they exist, cool, but there's no need to complain if they don't, or give up on the sim altogether.

 

About the UI - it's actually rather simple. It just looks dated, but that gives it a professional look, unlike iOS 7's candy colours.

[RichUK 474]

 

 

Performance tuning X-Plane for various hardware configurations is very straight forward

 

I agree. I really don't have to worry too much since my PC specs are pretty darn good. Out of the box it just works and I never had to tweak much of anything anything - unlike FSX where all I did was that.

 

The flexibility that XP gives you is way better than any other platform. Certainly gives you every option that you'd ever need. If you have a lower end PC then you can change the config to suit.

 

I'll say it again - UHD scenery and some of the freeware airports along with the LES SAAB. Looks and feels much better than anything else out there.

[Comanche 417]

Rob, does this mean that there is a lot of tweaking that has to be done with X Plane to get the performance you want?

 

When you say more complex could you expand on that for me?

 

 

The tweaking comes in the form of playing around with the rendering settings menu. For  me, this was a big learning curve. I really didn't know what impact on the sim that the many rendering settings would do. I didn't know if a particular setting was going to really bog down my system or make it look ugly if I turned it off. So like most, I had to do a lot of trial and error to get the best balance between what my system could handle smoothly and what looked good. HDR or no HDR etc.. 

 

I also had to tweak my scenery order in the scenery_packs.ini. Originally this worked differently when X-plane first came out. Some scenery has to be listed before others in order to show up correctly. This was also a learning curve for me, but not that different than it works in FSX.

 

I wouldn't say there is more tweaking in XP than in FSX, its just that I was very familiar with FSX and when I went to X-plane, I was clueless. The XP community was very helpful, I have to say and that got me up to speed quickly.

 

As for "complex", the UI in X-plane (which many seem to dislike) give you a lot more options than FSX. Some may say it gives control over too much, but honestly I see this as a strong point. Its just a little intimidating when you first get into it. I still dont know what everything does and I'm always learning.

 

Actually, I find X-plane a lot easier now that I know how to use it. Installing scenery is easy. Just drop it into your custom scenery file. Want to get rid of it? delete it from the same directory.  This freaked me out at first. I thought it cant be that easy! I was use to installing scenery and planes with an installer that was going to put hooks all over my registry and leave a mess if I ever un-installed something. In XP, this is not an issue. One of the things I really like. 

 

Rob

[ryanbatc 12,859]

OP - have you tried the demo yet?  Lots of replies here, tons of info.  

 

If you're frugal and fly USA only just buy the regional pack off amazon... about 30 bucks.  Otherwise get the demo and try it.  I think global is about $60.

http://www.amazon.com/X-Plane-10-Regional-North-America/dp/B007TMFD7M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1440464200&sr=8-2&keywords=x-plane

http://www.amazon.com/X-Plane-Global-Flight-Simulator-PC-Linux/dp/B006RJ373K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1440464200&sr=8-1&keywords=x-plane

Global on steam: http://store.steampowered.com/app/292180/

 

I wouldn't recommend steam edition because you won't be able to do the beta updates.  It can take a lot of months between stable versions.

[LAdamson 240]

Short reply due to no computer internet all week. Only phone. Xplane has a lot going for it. I use both XP and FSX. What I don't agree with, is that Xplane is more capable with flight dynamics over the best models for FSX. That's been my position for many years, and it has yet to change. I've been using both sims quite frequently lately....doing tests here and there.

 

Still liking that freeware Jeneau Alaska from Mr. X for Xplane. It's great, and I too, need to donate. I all ready have, for some others.

[ohsirus 241]

Now that I have my Radar Contact 4 & MCE working for XPX, I don't even fire-up FSX/P3D anymore. I have enough quality XPX ACs to keep me busy, eventually I'll set up WT2.0 for my normal hops.

[deetee 164]

I would say the UI in X-Plane is straightforward and logical once you get used to it. To someone coming from FSX/P3D it may appear difficult, but really it's no more so than switching to any new simulator or learning a new software. People sometimes don't like to stray out of their comfort zones, and have used MSFS for so long anything else however good seems alien!

[jcomm 5,939]

Regarding the absence of good AI, either default or in the form of an add-on, I confess I practically never used that in either sim ....

 

I often play medium or long range flights in my Aerowinx PSX, or now in the PMDG 777 or Aerosoft Airbus in P3Dv2, and I do it all without a single hint of ATC. I would like to have ATC, but I think I should not spend my money on an expensive solution just to stay there waiting to be used...

 

Regarding Weather, that's another story. This is a rather complex subject because there are two different aspects which are equally important - the visuals and the effects.

 

I think that wind variation and turbulence is overall better modeled in XP than in the FSX/P3D family. This is in good part the reason why most describe FSX/P3D as "on-rails" and, in fact XP can be as on-rails as FSX/P3D if you clear all weather. 

 

But visually I still do prefer the effects in P3Dv2 aided by the ASN weather injector. I am actually even using now ASN weather in Aerowinx PSX, and would love to be able to build a smart app that could port that into XP10 ( but presently it is only possible if P3Dv2 is running too, because that app reads the weather data from it... ). To sum up, weather needs a good weather injector, and the upcoming version of SMP, but other than that, it gives you a more realistic feel in XP, IMO...

 

Flight dynamics wise, there is that long story of the prop effects, and I am always bringing that back to the discussion, but truth is, actually prop aircraft are poorly modeled for other reasons ( yes, even the best examples ) in FSX/P3D as well, where many basic effects aren't modeled or are poorly modeled. That's why I was "forced" to use combat flightsims, and after a long iteration of tests which started with DCS, I ended in DCS ( the sim I use for the most realistic flight dynamics ).

 

And... XP's flight dynamics model is STILL in development, and Austin said he would try to fix the prop effects, probably during XP10... so... I will wait and see. 

 

But truth is, there are aspects of aerodynamics modeling unique to XP, and that if properly and wisely used, can give us unique products, like any aircraft from LES, that 727 and 737 from FJSim, etc...

 

I want a good glider, which I trully believe is possible to design, but doesn't yet exist for XP10...

[tf51d 284]

 

 

I think that wind variation and turbulence is overall better modeled in XP than in the FSX/P3D family. This is in good part the reason why most describe FSX/P3D as "on-rails" and, in fact XP can be as on-rails as FSX/P3D if you clear all weather.

 

This is another exaggerated assertion in the XP camp, I have yet to see any XP video or Stream of an airliner exhibit any form of movement or turbulence in the air. I have though seen smaller aircraft, exhibit turbulence. Even with IXEG video, which clearly shows from the Weather Radar, he would be unstable air, it's as smooth as it can be. I can see the problem with XP is most likely with the lack of a good weather engine, not it's flight model, but the assertion XPer's like to make that FSX flys on rails is fantasy!

 

 

Now compare that to this. Start at 32:30 time mark.

 

[mwilk 1,106]

Did a flight out of KLGA yesterday in the JarDesign A320. The airplane was bouncing around pretty good due to gusty winds.

[hs118 707]

This is another exaggerated assertion in the XP camp, I have yet to see any XP video or Stream of an airliner exhibit any form of movement or turbulence in the air. I have though seen smaller aircraft, exhibit turbulence. Even with IXEG video, which clearly shows from the Weather Radar, he would be unstable air, it's as smooth as it can be. I can see the problem with XP is most likely with the lack of a good weather engine, not it's flight model, but the assertion XPer's like to make that FSX flys on rails is fantasy!

 

 

Now compare that to this. Start at 32:30 time mark.

 

 Tom,

 

Congratulations, you finally downloaded the X-Plane demo and have some direct experience comparing the 2 sims! oh wait...no you didn't

[tf51d 284]

 Tom,

 

Congratulations, you finally downloaded the X-Plane demo and have some direct experience comparing the 2 sims! oh wait...no you didn't

Actually I do I have the XP10 Regional NA. (I also had XP9, XP8, XP7...) So I do have direct experience as you put it. Personally I think XP10 has come along way, most of it's limitations except for AI and a decent weather engine has been addressed. While there is no true XP developed ATC solution,  FS++ RC4.3 plugin goes along way to improve the situation! All XP10 needs in my opinion is a more flexible, expandable  AI system, preferably one that can use real world flight schedules and flight plans and, A weather engine with capabilities like ASN, and it could very well become the dominant go to sim at least for the home market!!

[LAdamson 240]

Both sims can bounce from simulated turbulence. Flight in real life small aircraft can be glass smooth much of the time. Just pick the right times, as I often did. Didn't have to worry about scheduled rental times. I never considered MSFS as flying on rails.....but I'd often remark in real flight, that it was a FSX day.... meaning smooth and a sense of almost motionless. FSX does default to calm air.

Seems I've set my Xplane to so the same these days.

 

BTW, with a high powered computer, both sims appear quite identical in the smooth fluid department.

 

Slowly tapped out on phone.

[hs118 707]

Actually I do I have the XP10 Regional NA. (I also had XP9, XP8, XP7...) So I do have direct experience as you put it. Personally I think XP10 has come along way, most of it's limitations except for AI and a decent weather engine has been addressed. While there is no true XP developed ATC solution,  FS++ RC4.3 plugin goes along way to improve the situation! All XP10 needs in my opinion is a more flexible, expandable  AI system, preferably one that can use real world flight schedules and flight plans and, A weather engine with capabilities like ASN, and it could very well become the dominant go to sim at least for the home market!!

 I stand humbly corrected about your sim experience and do apologize. However, I beg to differ with your opinion.

 

 With just south of 200 hours as passenger/navigator/camera man split between Cessna 337, Cessna 206, and a bit in Piper Archer, my experience is that X-Plane does a remarkably better job at simulating the airplane/atmosphere interaction. Cross wind landings in FSX are a gross overgeneralization of what happens in real world cross wind scenario. (Yes I have ASNsp3 and it is better than default FSX).