What can X-Plane 10 offer if I already have FSX,P3D2

[x-plane 123 61]

In FSX I can have different controllers for each plane with the help of FSUIPC but it I get problem with EZdok. I can't assign one button (i.e one controller) for one specific function at a time. I wondered if there was away around this problem in XP (btw I use Track Ir)

Definitely look at X-assign.

 

And still forget some. One thing I don't like with FSX and Carenado is the lack of damage modeling. You can treat the engine anyway and it runs fine.

For example the otherwise excellent Aerosoft BeaverX where you can run it at max power without problem. Does XP 10 offer a more realistic Beaver ?

As has been mentioned, check out REP. It currently supports the Carenado F33 Bonanza and the Cessna 210.

Also check out the SMS Beaver. I've heard it's excellent and plan on picking her up soon.

[sparkie66 81]

To answer the title of your post:

What can X-Plane 10 offer if I already have FSX,P3D2?

 

I'd say:

• better (much better) night lighting
• No real VAS issue 
• More stable than fsx, same as p3d v2+
• NAV freqs correspond to real info, not like 3 different ils freqs depending on scenery
• Big one: A lot LESS quality aircraft. IMHO only the saab 340 and the airfoillabs c172 qualify as a2a like/ pmdg like. Rest is mostly overpriced and unfinished beta products.
• Big one: A lot WORSE weather representation (visuals) even with payware addons, because of the limitations of XP
• No seasons (can be added but requires fiddeling)
• A lot LESS populated stock airports, a lot (getting less these days) of the airports have no buildings at all
• A lot of exellent freeware scenery and utils, some equal or better than payware
• (in my case) Smoother sim 4790k @ 4,6 16 gb ram, 980ti 6gb
• Better FM than p3d/fsx (this is why majestic for one does the FM outside of the sim and is about the only aircraft that doesnt feel like its on rails, aside from the exellent a2a planes) 

 

There's much  more and all are my observations/opinion. Short answer: if you have a ton of addons and something like pmdg / majestic. FSX/p3d will be the better looking sim (provided it runs smooth), no matter how many addons you throw at XP, except at night. Be very weary of "ultra realistic, tested by real pilots etc etc" bs. Like a recent review of a newly released jetliner again revealed is that with most XP aircraft addons quantity comes before quality. (notable exceptions imho is the stuff from x aviation and the airfoillabs)

 

A big gripe with xp is the weather, and that takes away so much from the sim. There is now a very good weather injector (fsgrw) but its what XP does with it to display the injected data that's severely lacking when compared to p3d/fsx with asn. The weather is there, but it's not displayed always. This leads to clear air rain for instance. (screenshots don't say poop, that's mostly just a snapshot taken from a well positioned spot)

 

Nevertheless I will be flying XP mainly when the IXEG 737 is finally released.  

 

A final note: Be weary/critical also of some posts periodically praising XP or some addons into high heaven, often in CAPS and loaded with superlatives and well positioned screenshots; and most certainly do not base purchases on these! (to find the same poster bash the very same product into damnation) Read through the Xp forums and you will know where to be crtitical, it's easy to spot what i am talking about. (Not to offend anyone but it IS sometimes annoying to unwittingly get swept up in almost manic ups and downs, and taking it in as useful information, before you learn to disregard. )

 

XP can be beautiful in some areas, but meh at best in others.

 

[jfri 42]

 

 

A big gripe with xp is the weather, and that takes away so much from the sim.

 

Exactly what is so bad about XP weather ? Is it only real time weather ? Can you set up your own weather like in FSX ? I have a weak memory about XP having better airmass simulation and volumetric clouds or am I mistaken ?

 

Also in the list of what it can offer should there not be better ground handling ? Think I have heard something about that.

[tonywob 4,769]

You can set up your own weather, but it's limited to three cloud and wind layers which can be somewhat limiting compared to FSX/P3D. As for how it renders the weather, well the default isn't too bad, but Skymaxx Pro makes a real difference with the clouds (Which are volumetric I believe)

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

Better FM than p3d/fsx (this is why majestic for one does the FM outside of the sim and is about the only aircraft that doesnt feel like its on rails, aside from the exellent a2a planes) 

 

As well as RealAir, and some others.

 

I like X-Plane for various reasons, but I've never considered the flight modeling to be superior over MSFS third party products, except for some helicopters. I personally haven't been fond of choppers, even though I flew R/C helicopters for years, and have a bit of stick time in four place helicopter, as well as ridden in a bunch of them. I have flown many GA airplanes, and different models of gliders. 

 

I just don't go with the "rail" thoughts. MSFS planes haven't remained on a straight and level course since FS98. They'll always drift off course & altitude, just as real airplanes, and X-Plane. Some people have the idea, that air is constantly moving, and that light airplanes are always moving one way or another, only to be controlled by the pilot's conscious or unconscious  use of the controls. That is incorrect. With smooth air, of which there is plenty, a small plane will seem nearly motionless. The ground just appears to move slowly by. It's even smoother than rails. As I've said many times before, this was often discussed by my wife and I, as we flew our airplane across the western US mountain and desert states. A smooth day, was an FSX day, and afternoon turbulence was an X-Plane flight.

 

I've never liked flight models, that seem to introduce phony turbulence, just for the sake of it.  X-Plane has had its problems with an unrealistic torque, that always required trimming in the roll axis. Some users believed the effect to be real, while others just thought it, more gratifying, because there was more to do. I personally found it to be a un-realistic annoyance. It appears, that this problem is now corrected, in new versions. I worked on high performance singles, in which the idea was to rig the plane as straight as possible, to eliminate unwanted drag. I expect a plane to yaw, which is corrected through offset vertical stabs, trim tabs, or a combination of both. I don't want roll from torque, that should easily be overpowered by the wings lift. Unless of course, it's high power & low airspeed, which could easily flip some high powered planes on their back. I've seen it happen in real life. 

 

Anyway, I have some X-Plane models that I really enjoy. Especially across those simulated western US mountain and desert landscapes, that I flew with the real airplanes. X-Plane is especially good at this. On my high powered system, even the water, with it's reflections look great. I've seen other posts, in which that's not always the case. I generally get high frame rates with both X-Plane and FSX. Sometimes, I can drag both sims down, if I throw enough at them.  Over the years, I've found enough difference between the two sim platforms (FSX/X-Plane), to make it very worthwhile having both. When I upgraded my system a year ago, that was the idea, from day one. 

[greggerm 312]

 

 

I have tried the demo although it was when XP 10 was newly released. One glaring issue I encountered then was that I could fly and see the ground below and then when descending I suddenly found myself inside clouds which were not visible when you were above them. I think I have read that this issue is fixed by now.

 

The demo is kept up to date with the current version, so any fixes and updates found in the retail X-Plane edition will be found in the demonstration as well. The demo will also accept scenery addons within the Seattle area, as well as freeware (and payware!) aircraft.

 

I used the demo to monitor the platform's progress before I finally caved in and made the purchase some time ago. While it seemed technically sound, the only unknown for me was how my local area was going to be rendered using the "plausible reality" model they instituted. Unfortunately for my personal tastes, the areas around which I fly were mapped very well but still looked far too artificial for my liking. In some areas of the world, X-Plane's scenery method is amazingly realistic - in other areas though, even the most robust HDMesh and addon city textures couldn't fix it and I could never achieve a suspension of disbelief like other simulators provided me.
 

I still keep tabs on the X-Plane world, but all of my flying is done elsewhere. I have respect for the platform, but it just doesn't suit my flying needs and styles like it does for other people. In a way, you won't be able to make that determination until you fly the demo, and then fly the full package more deeply.

 

Good luck!

-Greg

[jymp 168]

I've tried XPlane and cannot see any reason whatsoever to recommend it over FSX/P3D v 3.1, My opinion only.

[Glenn_C 135]

I've tried XPlane and cannot see any reason whatsoever to recommend it over FSX/P3D v 3.1, My opinion only.

Well thank you for coming here and adding your well grounded arguments of the goods and bads. It has been enlightening! In all seriousness do you expect to be taken seriously with a comment like this in the X-Plane forum? I used FSX and later P3D for many years and liked it a lot but I want a flight sim to be able to use my 64 bit architecture 16GB of ram and 4GB of VRAM and where there is at the moment at least an air of optimism as to what can be achieved. I never use P3D anymore. Photo scenery costs a fortune, clogs up the VAS and ens up with OOM's purely due to the archaic 32 bit  architecture. Yes the UI is different but you get used to it and the friendly atmosphere of X-Plane users and willingness to help cannot be found elsewhere (in my opinion)

[GoranM 3,764]

I've tried XPlane and cannot see any reason whatsoever to recommend it over FSX/P3D v 3.1, My opinion only.

 

The most articulated, lucid, well thought out response I have ever seen on any forum!

Hat's off!

[Janov 2,383]

The most articulated, lucid, well thought out response I have ever seen on any forum!

Hat's off!

 

Hey, I can beat that!

 

X-Plane RULEZ!!!!

 

how is that?

[GoranM 3,764]

Hey, I can beat that!

 

X-Plane RULEZ!!!!

 

how is that?

 

Very, VERY close.

:wink:

[sparkie66 81]

 

 

Some people have the idea, that air is constantly moving, and that light airplanes are always moving one way or another, only to be controlled by the pilot's conscious or unconscious  use of the controls. That is incorrect. With smooth air, of which there is plenty, a small plane will seem nearly motionless.

 

i try to avoid smooth air in real life, but that's because i fly planes that do not have an engine

 

What you say is true ofcourse, and "rails" may be a too strong a word for it. But between something like the majestic dash 8 and other planes that use the default fm i see a diference if you disengage the AP on final. I've had several times where i could let the default fm plane drive up to the round off altitude w/o touching a control. 

 

The lower air is almost never calm due to wind gradient, wind over obstacles etc. This is what i meant. I do not mean the sim has to introduce fake turbulence, and to my knowledge XPdoesnt do that. This would be unrealistic ofc. But in my (limited to mostly gliders) experience, planes will drift away from the intende pathif you let go of the controls regardless of noticable turbulence. 

 

I sometimes let passengers fly a bit and they think that if they do ot move the stick, all will be well. Which moslty ends in a descending turn. It's not like you have to beat imaginary rats to detath with the stick to keep flying straight, but very subtle and slow movements are nessecary. In fsx/p3d planes with default fm I can often let my stick sit there for extended periods of time. To me that is not realistic.

 

I have no real experience in props (2 hours maybe in c172) so it may be different for that and bigger planes.

[Janov 2,383]

I sometimes let passengers fly a bit and they think that if they do ot move the stick, all will be well. Which moslty ends in a descending turn. It's not like you have to beat imaginary rats to detath with the stick to keep flying straight, but very subtle and slow movements are nessecary. In fsx/p3d planes with default fm I can often let my stick sit there for extended periods of time. To me that is not realistic.

 

I have no real experience in props (2 hours maybe in c172) so it may be different for that and bigger planes.

 

I can´t really vouch for all planes, since I have only flown F33s, Piper Cherokee´s, C152s, Cheyenne IIIAs, Boeing 737s, Boeing 747s and even Airbus 320 family with their supposedly "fly like on rails" FBW system...

 

In all of the above, however, if you let go of the controls in perfectly smooth air and look back after 5 minutes, you will be all over the sky. This even applies to the Airbuses to some extent.

 

The much toted "stability" that is required for certification is not an autopilot, and you can´t even eat a big hamburger (requiring both hands), unless you have a very big mouth and eat really fast...I tried that.

 

Jan

[Tom Wright 438]

I do have admiration and respect for X-Plane. It's a very good sim in its own right.

 

For me, I've found it actually requires an even more powerful PC than FSX, particularly in the graphics card. My GTX560Ti with its measly 1GB VRAM just doesn't cut it. Maybe I would use it more if I could get better performance out of it. My observation is, while it is smoother (generally) than FSX, it is significantly worse when the fps get low. 20fps for me in FSX is still reasonably smooth. In X-Plane it's almost unusable.

 

I have mixed feelings about the flight model too. All aircraft I have tried, default, freeware and payware, have all felt too light to me. I have flown light aircraft for real, and never come across anything so twitchy as I've found in X-Plane, it feels to me like they're made from paper! FSX took a whole new level of realism when I added ActiveSky Next. The turbulence effects on the flight model induced by that, feel pretty spot on. I haven't seen anything like this in X-Plane.

[uwespeed 497]

As I currently (unfortunately) have a lot of family commitments I only chime in from time to time ... especially when the items "no seasons" and "UI/operation of XP" are raised :wink:.

"No seasons"

I had a (kind of funny) discussion with a guy here on the avsim forum longer time ago. I wrote that XP of course has seasons - admittedly no seasons textures, but ... and described the technical background. He only seemed to have read "admittedly no seasons textures" and answered "you contradict yourself".

 

I tried again:

"SEEING seasons textures but hardly SIMULATING seasons on the one hand, and SIMULATING seasons but not SEEING textures on the other hand is a HUGE difference.

 

In other words:
Have you ever heard of the Potemkin village and radioactivty?
Potemkin village: you SEE a village, but there is NOTHING (only a "texture")
Radioactivity: you SEE nothing (not even a "texture"), but there are A LOT of alpha particles around with BIG effect."

 

After that, the a.m. guy was never seen again in the discussion .

 

Ok, and here the technical background:

Wet or icy runways in FSX are very poorly simulated (braking distance for one). Not so in X-Plane: (much) more realistic braking distance

Wing icing is not simulated in FSX (at least not by default) - but in X-Plane (although not perfect, but at least existent)

Fogging and icing of the plane's windows - possible in X-Plane (t.b.h., I don't know if this is possible in FSX or not)

 

 

"UI/operation of XP"

Of course XP is more "complicated" as FSX/P3D - because it is different and you have to learn something new. As I was tired of all these threads about this item, I did a research and instead of writing it down again, I refer to my posting back then (with some sarcasm included :Big Grin:).

As meanwhile not only me, but many other people write, once you are used to the XP UI, it is pretty easy and straightforward - and you might wonder why some things are so complicated in FSX.