Why don't you just download it from Steam and try it yourself? You don't need to uninstall P3D to run XP10 as well, and by the time PMDG/IXEG comes out, you will already know how to use the simulator. Plenty of people (including myself) run multiple simulators and see the good/bad parts in all of them, but you'd be missing out if you decide to just stick with one simulator.

 

Either way, it sounds like you're happy with P3D, so nobody here is going to be able to convince you otherwise without starting a flame-war ;-)

 Also with AI Traffic. As I understand AI traffic is also not very good with XP10, right?

 

Yeah, it's pretty bad, but there are plugins/addons for it. I personally just switch them off

"Real Full screen"? What in P3d is not "Real full screen"?

OOM is not an issue any longer so I do not count that as a real advantage.

 

What kind of "wow moments" do you get? Can you be a bit more specific here?

 

The bad ATC is also not what I want. Even though the P3D ATC is not the best, it is doing its' standard job. Also with AI Traffic. As I understand AI traffic is also not very good with XP10, right?

You can start with Misterx airports for the wow moments (FREE...)

worldtraffic once configurtes is spectacular AI are visible for miles .

P3D is a fake full screen has mentioned by Glynn,

 

OOMS will always be an issue on 32 bits ????

 

Merry Christmas

P3D doesn't simulate the look of the real horizon, and distant detail.  In fact, I hate to fly at higher altitudes in P3D because of it.  It's a limitation of the core of FSX that P3D is based upon.  XP however has a horizon and distant detail is LOOKS real.  Goes a long way for immersion.

I have struggled for years with XP (now on 10.42), and although I have made some progress I don't enjoy flying it. I agree that it has some good points - that's why I keep struggling.

 

I find it easier to get a Cessna safely in the air in the RW than I do in XP. That can't be what the designer had in mind, can it?

 

I am looking forward to a re-designed UI, decent ATC, a GPS that is fully WAAS (LPV) capable, realistic online weather and realistic AI traffic.

So I guess I have to wait for X Plane.

 

I see that it is clearly the better plattform.

But for my personal needs as a huge fan of Airbus and Boeing airliners with AI traffic, good big airports, ATC... I think it might be a bit too soon to switch.

 

What I would need is:

X-Plane with decent ATC, a PMDG 777/737, ASN for XP, GSX and AI traffic.

 

And for the "no real fullscreen" stuff: I don't care if it is "true" fullscreen or a full size window as long as I don't see the taskbar...

I find it easier to get a Cessna safely in the air in the RW than I do in XP. That can't be what the designer had in mind, can it?

 

 

While X-Plane falls short in many areas, the consensus regarding the GAs flight model is that XP is the closest to the reality from all the sims out there. So I guess that's exactly what the designer had in mind. 

I fly both XP10 and FSX.  I'm actually in the process of trying out P3Dv3, and from my initial results, it looks like I may move over to that platform for my MSFS use.

 

Each platform has it's pros and cons - I love the depiction of the horizon in XP (via RTH) while flying GA at low altitudes, and for mountain flying, it's hands down superior, since it displays crisp textures and mesh on visible mountains.  FSX is passable, better in areas with FTX coverage, but not nearly as beautiful.

 

OSM coverage in XP (when it's there) renders small towns as they actually are, whereas in FSX, the vector cut towns in FTX regions, although spatially accurate, just don't compare.  The OSM data (via W2XP, for me) just adds so much in terms of realism.  One example - I can not only find my house in XP, but I can see my detached two car garage...  That was a real 'wow' moment for me.  The buildings obviously are just generic, but the fact that they are there is impressive.

 

On the flip side, I can't stand flying in XP in anything but clear, or nearly clear weather.  It's weather depiction is absolutely abysmal to me, and the performance hit for even a modest amount of clouds is unacceptable.  Contrast that to FSX, where the combination of wonderful textures (via REX4) and an excellent weather engine (via ASN), creates amazingly realistic looking scenes, all with stutter free performance, and well done real world weather.

 

I really like XP's GNS units.  They might not be fully featured, but they are quite decent, and very nice to use.  I've recently been using Mindstar's GNS 530 in FSX:SE and now P3D, and it's nowhere's as nice to use, even if it more 'feature complete'.  On the other hand, the presence of the Flight1 GTN units in FSX is something I really miss in XP.

 

But all of that aside, what it comes down to in the end is picking the platform that has the aircraft I want to fly, for the flight I want to fly.  Even if I wanted to, I couldn't pick one or the other.  Each platform has aircraft I enjoy, and while scenery is important, it's not as much of a deciding factor as the aircraft is.

 

For example, I am about to embark on a coast to coast Canada flight.  Through FSEconomy, I bought a DA20 in Sydney, NS with zero hours on it.  The DA20-100 by Marcel Felde happens to be one of my favorite aircraft (I think I've mentioned that before :wink: ).  I've flown it over to St.Johns, and I'm prepping to fly it all the way to Vancouver Island, picking up FSE jobs where available.  I plan on using P3Dv3 for this journey.  So while I'd love to use XP for it, I need to use a MSFS platform for the aircraft, and plus, I want (historical) real world weather to fly in, so that it can affect where and when I can make my flights.

 

Wow, when I get going I type too much...

 

Anyhow, each have their strengths, but for me it often comes down to what aircraft I'm wanting to fly.

While X-Plane falls short in many areas, the consensus regarding the GAs flight model is that XP is the closest to the reality from all the sims out there. So I guess that's exactly what the designer had in mind. 

 

Well, this statement is gonna open the usual can of worms... I'd say the accuracy of flight models of 3rd party aircrafts depends mostly on the skills of the author who designed it, and not on the specific platform, be it X-Plane or FSX/P3D. Both of them have limitations or shortcomings in different areas of the flight dynamics.

 

Excluding flight sims like DCS, IL2, Condor Soaring etc. that use highly customized flight models, the most versatile general purpose flight model is probably JSBSim, but being not natively implemented in FSX nor in X-Plane, basically no one uses it for these two sims.

3rd party developes have to base on limitations and what is actually implemented in the core application. FSX and X-Plane flight model mechanics are significantly different. 

Also, unlike your statement, what I said was not general. I don't debate in "pros and cons" of specific platforms, which I fully agree do exist, but what is objectively(as much as you can be objetive in that matter) closer to the reality in regards to most decently made GA airplanes. 

I could obviously bring links to articles and "youtube figures" that echo that statement, but it's counterproductive as we all have our own authorities on that matter.

For example, Froogle agrees with it, but personally, I don't really count him as an authority. Hence, I find it rather hard to provide sources. 

I mainly base on my own experience and research of other sources as a licensed glider pilot. Again, I doubt I would be an authority to anyone else though. Lastly, I haven't tried P3D, so I will hold my judgement about that, though I was repeatedly told it is really similar to FSX in that area.

X-Plane is so poor  in the modeling of such basic things, common to GA aircraft, that I really can't agree with any comparison of this platform with MSFS or any of it's incarnations, as better or worst... They're both as good as they can be...

3rd party developes have to base on limitations and what is actually implemented in the core application. FSX and X-Plane flight model mechanics are significantly different. 

Also, unlike your statement, what I said was not general. I don't debate in "pros and cons" of specific platforms, which I fully agree do exist, but what is objectively(as much as you can be objetive in that matter) closer to the reality in regards to most decently made GA airplanes. 

I could obviously bring links to articles and "youtube figures" that echo that statement, but it's counterproductive as we all have our own authorities on that matter.

For example, Froogle agrees with it, but personally, I don't really count him as an authority. Hence, I find it rather hard to provide sources. 

I mainly base on my own experience and research of other sources as a licensed glider pilot. Again, I doubt I would be an authority to anyone else though. Lastly, I haven't tried P3D, so I will hold my judgement about that, though I was repeatedly told it is really similar to FSX in that area.

I probably have a few thousand posts, that would disagree with that conclusion.  Not saying that an X-Plane can't be a decent depiction of GA flight, but it certainly has never been more convincing than some 3rd party models for FSX ( I don't own P3D).  These sims arrive at the flight model with different methods...........is all.  My conclusions are based on flying 30 or more different type GA airplanes, as well as owning a semi-high performance aircraft. 

 

In the meantime, when I do sim (which isn't a lot lately), I do enjoy both X-Plane & FSX.

 

P.S. --- Good to hear about the torque issue. I'll have to check it out someday. I still have some 3rd Party payware airplanes for both FSX & X-Plane, that I haven't got around to installing. I'm slow, as some were picked up a year ago.

I don't have P3D/FSX because I haven't got enough money, and X-Plane's freeware community is more than enough for my simple needs. Is that a good enough argument?

And I went full Linux a few years ago, any flightsim supporting alternative platforms then Windows is welcome on my hard drive.

I guess the same is true for MacOS.

 

There is not exactly an alternative to X-Plane for my needs, but I have my hopes up for http://nexgenflightsim.com/ .

I tried flight gear, but not only it is difficult to install, in my eyes it is ugly (but let us not start another flame war, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder ;-) ).  

X-Plane needs to really really revamp its trees.  It's bad when an ancient sim like Falcon 4.0 BMS 4.33 has better looking trees than XP.

There are a lot of things I like and don't like about xplane and some things that should be improved, but trees are not one of them. I think they look pretty good. Higher resolution trees would impact fps too much and people would complain it runs too slow or jerky.

 

You can get away with better looking trees in other Sims because they cover smaller areas. Falcon has very low res scenery and graphics compared to xplane so better looking trees to make up for the 1999 graphics is do able.