fsx-ms MSFSX or X Plane 10

[Morrigan 90]

I don't think there is a point in getting both.

Both simulators come with rather poor quality stock planes. Having $100, you can buy X-Plane AND one of the available addons through steam (Carenado planes if you are into GA, DHC-2 if you are into bush flying or CRJ-200 if you are into regional jets). Plus, there is TONS and TONS of quality addons for X-Plane completely free. 

 

So basically, that money can get you a complete sim with quite a hefty number of addons.

With FSX, you will have to spend muuuch more to get it to the comparable level. It's pretty much no brainer. 

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

Actually, FSX is the definition of dead. It is no longer being supported, no new development will ever happen for it, and the studio that created it has closed. There will still be a user community for it for decades to come, but the software itself is indeed dead. P3D, on the other hand, is not dead. 
 

 

It's only dead in a political sense, or lawyer hype directed to a stupid jury box. So the base sim is no longer supported by Microsoft. So what. Third parties have been adding content to FSX for years, since MSFS pulled the plug on future versions.  New releases for FSX are still coming. I've never invested in P3D. I have the system for it, but not the time. I still have FSX and X-plane payware planes and scenery, that I haven't got around to installing. Some, I bought over a year ago. At least I support the developers for both sims. 

 

Over the years I beta tested three versions of MSFS, numerous third party aircraft, and scenery addons. As long as all of these third party additions are still being developed, the sim is anything but dead. "DEAD" is just an excuse used by competition. X-Plane developers were over joyed when Microsoft pulled out...................but it didn't make any difference. The sim just kept going and got better as well.

[LAdamson 240]

What????

 

EDIT:

 

Not to start an argument here, but...

 

Nah forget it. Each has the right to his own opinion. 

 

Enjoy your sim of choice.

By all means, you don't need to delete. I've been arguing this for a decade, if not more. I've owned all versions of MSFS, as well as X-Plane 8,9, & 10., and every free X-Plane download before them. I have lot's of addons for each.  

 

Just don't come up with the Blade Element Theory versus Look Up tables argument.  And what I hate worse, is the "rails" thing. IMO, flying on rails means a constant heading and altitude. FSX doesn't do that. Microsoft planes haven't done it since FS98.  Some think that the FSX planes fly too smooth. Some believe that light airplanes are always bouncing around in even smooth air. That couldn't be farther from the truth.  My wife and I, used the terms FSX day and X-Plane day, to describe the flight in progress. She often noted, that even though we were cruising close to 210 mph, it just almost seemed as though we were standing still. That would be a FSX flight. There was a lot of Them.  Then there was those mid afternoon return flights across a state or two, in which turbulence was the norm, as the sun heated the earth. That was a X-Plane flight. Kind of annoying. Needless to say, I've turned the turbulence down in X-Plane. I don't like annoying screen shakes!  

 

At this point, with super high frame rates, which my system achieves, the better X-Plane and FSX third party aircraft fly much the same. I never think, "Oh, sim (whatever) is so much more like real flight".  Haven't thought that, since jumping from FSX 98 to Sierra's Pro-Pilot. Pro-pilot was much better.  As I said, I did own a semi-high performance single engine airplane. It could do over 200 mph. Had two-axis auto-pilot, oxygen system and leather seats. Was semi-aerobatic. This was a Van's RV6 with a constant speed prop. I also flew another two place sliding canopy airplane called the Marchetti SF260. And this is where I'm making a point. The older RealAir Simulations (for FSX) Marchetti SF260 & the current Lancair Legacy............are by far, the most realistic airplanes, when it comes to comparing a simulated airplane to the real thing (of this category).  I always felt right at home, when returning from actual flying, to computer simulation. And since I flew a lot of Piper Warriors, Archers, and the retractable Arrow, I can easily say, that A2A (again FSX/P3D) makes some incredible simulations of these type of airplanes. 

 

Therefor, when you say "What"................I have all the answers. I've been in this sim thing since around 1992, when it started getting somewhat more serious. I was around X-Plane in 1994, when it was advertised in the Pilot Shop catalogs. 

 

But................getting back to the original question, I'd still own both, rather than convincing someone to just buy X-Plane.  I like X-Plane for it's rendition of mountain and desert areas, which I flew in real life. It's incredible looking, as well as the night lighting. At least the night lights around cities. When it gets to some rural areas, I far prefer the night lighting I see in Orbx sceneries. It looks alive, where X-Plane can look monotonous and dead. And..............I'd never give up the Orbx stuff, the RealAirs, or A2A. for FSX.  And I wouldn't give up the X-Plane mountains, city lights, or those excellent Mr. X freeware airports. The first time I went to Juneau Alaska in X-Plane with Mr. X's addon, I was blown away. It was just one of those WOW moments!!! 

[avgaskoolaid 292]

It's only dead in a political sense, or lawyer hype directed to a stupid jury box

No, it's dead in the factual sense. The game FSX will never again be altered or otherwise developed by the original creator. That's how you define a 'dead' software. I don't know why you sound so offended, like I insulted your "tribe" or something.

 

. X-Plane developers were over joyed when Microsoft pulled out...................but it didn't make any difference. The sim just kept going and got better as well.

1)Of course they were overjoyed. If my main competitor suddenly disappeared I'd be pretty happy too.

 

2)Yes, it did make a difference. Interest in XPlane has gone up and the addons have improved because of the stone cold fact that no truly 'new' version of MSFS will ever be created at any point in the future.

 

3)No, the sim didn't do anything, because it is dead. Computers got better and so did addon developers, but they still have to work with the same 2006 code. Because it is no longer being developed. Because it is dead.

 

Therefor, when you say "What"................I have all the answers. 

Never mind, why would I need to say anything to someone who has all the answers...

[mwilk 1,106]

It's just about popcorn time.

[LAdamson 240]

 

 

No, it's dead in the factual sense. The game FSX will never again be altered or otherwise developed by the original creator. That's how you define a 'dead' software. I don't know why you sound so offended, like I insulted your "tribe" or something.

 

Typical lawyer B.S.  I'm not offended in the least. The "simulation" FSX is nothing more than a base.  Microsoft went out of it's way, to invite third party content.  Third party developers were always invited in the beta testing process.  Microsoft knew that third parties were essential to the popularity of the "simulation". The third parties are still constantly improving on the base "simulation". 3rd party developers still correct problems with their software. So............the original developer of the base, left.....................so what!  

 

At least, with Microsoft leaving, addon developers knew, that the base sim wouldn't change on a WHIM, such as X-Plane always was, with Austin's out of the blue changes. Happily, for X-Plane developers, those changes have slowed a bit, because Austin spends more time with mobile simulating.

 

And yes, I do have the answers. This is just a re-hash of all the arguments, that's come up over the years. Nothing new. 

[Morrigan 90]

 

 

The "simulation" FSX is nothing more than a base.

 

Actually, it's more of a "core". The aircraft addons need to be coded in agreement with the FSX demands. And it's pretty limiting. That's why A2A should be, and constantly is, applauded that they were somehow able to recreate somewhat accurate model. 

So yeah, no one is arguing that there is absolutely no "realistic" flight models in FSX. It's just the fact that in X-Plane it is much easier to do it right, mainly due to completely different, more advanced methodology of reacreating real flight dynamics. 

 

But I sense a lot of bias coming from your posts. "X-Plane always changing on a whim", "Austin's out of blue changes"... I am a bit confused by such statements as they were hardly "bad" or anti-developer changes. Quite the opposite actually. 

 

As for OP - The good question is to ask yourself what do you really want to fly. If BIG AIRLINERS is your answer, FSX might be a better chocie due to much larger pool of quality addons in that section.

If you want to fly smaller, especially props, X-Plane will probably deliever slightly more realistic performance, as majority of people in this thread say. 

 

Cheers. 

[CFIJose 5,485]

As long as there are developers creating add-on for FSX, it will remain alive and well. Come to think about it FSX-SE, P3D, and the up and coming simulator are all based on FSX. So can simmers please stop proclaiming that FSX is dead! Thank you.

 

My feelings towards X-Plane is that it's just a few steps away from being my main sim. It blows away my fully loaded FSX in many ways, but does fall short in a few departments. My hope is that SMP v1.3 & the weather connector, allow for smooth weather transitions. Add a PMDG 737ngx & 777 and more simmers will jump on board.

 

Plus, let me add that some X-Plane's freeware airports are better than payware airport.

[LAdamson 240]

Actually, it's more of a "core". The aircraft addons need to be coded in agreement with the FSX demands. And it's pretty limiting. That's why A2A should be, and constantly is, applauded that they were somehow able to recreate somewhat accurate model. 

So yeah, no one is arguing that there is absolutely no "realistic" flight models in FSX. It's just the fact that in X-Plane it is much easier to do it right, mainly due to completely different, more advanced methodology of reacreating real flight dynamics. 

 

But I sense a lot of bias coming from your posts. "X-Plane always changing on a whim", "Austin's out of blue changes"... I am a bit confused by such statements as they were hardly "bad" or anti-developer changes. Quite the opposite actually. 

 

As for OP - The good question is to ask yourself what do you really want to fly. If BIG AIRLINERS is your answer, FSX might be a better chocie due to much larger pool of quality addons in that section.

If you want to fly smaller, especially props, X-Plane will probably deliever slightly more realistic performance, as majority of people in this thread say. 

 

Cheers. 

I'll tackle this one too. For years, X-Plane suffered from the "torque" problem.  Simulated airplanes had a tendency to roll left in flight, which required constant trimming. Especially with power changes. X-Plane sim pilots had the idea, that this torque roll was real.  If a 172 was doing it with 160-180 HP, then imagine the roll from a larger 260-330 HP engine, as they would say. Some simmers even defined it as a challenge, to keep the sim more interesting.  In fact, since most MSFS planes, didn't do this, they were considered less realistic, by quite a few simmers. I even saw some slammed in reviews, since they didn't do the torque thing. 

 

Now, here is what should happen. As we head down the runway in our simulated airplane, with the prop turning clockwise from the pilot view, the plane should pull to the left. We counter this with right rudder. Depending on conditions, torque, will also push that left wheel into the runway pavement. But...........as airspeed increases to rotation speed, we, as simmers should not be applying a bunch of right aileron, as the plane lifts off. Ever notice real airplanes banking to the right on takeoff?  You'll see them sometimes. The pilot is applying right aileron. However, with X-Plane, it was the norm. we should just keep applying right rudder as needed, until airspeed increases closer to cruise speed. At that point, since a single engine (right turning prop) will always want to yaw to the left........................the designers will use combinations of an offset vertical stab, hand adjusted rudder trim tabs, or flight adjustable trim tabs.

 

The X-Plane solution was hidden aileron trim changes in plane maker, or just telling sim pilots to use aileron trim;  or, it's more challenging.............even if it's wrong!  This applied to singles, as well as twin engine commuter aircraft.   Just last year, the torque bug, was actually recognized as a problem.  It's been around for many years, and even got far worse in 2009 with some changes made to the sim.  That problem was rectified, although the torque bug was still there.

 

As to torque, I'm well aware of it's presence. With low airspeed, and high engine power, torque can easily roll an airplane on it's back. Planes such as the P-51, Corsair, and SkyRaider (approx. 2600 HP) often went over.  I called my RV a torque monster when doing touch & goes. Very noticeable with more available power from the constant speed prop.  Yet, as I pulled the stick back, I would not need right aileron. The lift and other forces are over taking the torque effect. Right aileron can actually add more drag & yaw to the left. My plane had frize ailerons & differential to limit yaw.  I also know that planes will want to roll left on takeoff, if enough right rudder is not applied, to maintain runway center line.

 

A friend, ex-military pilot, and long time flight instructor, who flew the SkyRaider in Vietnam, made a comment about the takeoff & what controls to use. As for aileron, he said..........."Wrong control, it's all rudder"!   

 

As far as I'm concerned, there are certain developers who have mastered both FSX (P3D) and X-Plane. It's took them many years. Plane Maker by itself, has always been ball park at best. As to bias, yes, there has always been some, in favor of MSFS. I just didn't get along with the marketing hype of X-Plane. Slogans such as..................."If you're a real pilot, you'll know".  Plenty of real pilots were always working internally with Microsoft, as well as so many third parties. Austin wasn't alone, in the quest for proper flight dynamics. These days, I just don't really care much anymore. I'm 65, and have at least three other hobbies going at the same time. I still work everyday. 

[nilsca 0]

I recieved a $100 gift cerificate for Steam. I've had X-Plane 10 in my wish list for a while, its a bit pricey. Is different from MSFSX? Is it better? Or is my money better spent on planes for MSFSX, or something else? Any thoughts are welcome.

 

What about the time it's going to cost you to get used to another sim, map joysticks, browse for add-ons - if you need stuff to do, as others have said, go play. If you cherish few hours of virtual-time you might want to stick to what you have, X-Plane and FSX, there's no clear better imo.

[bonchie 2,305]

I bought XPX and tried it tonight.

I've using HD Mesh v3 (North America) and w2xp (North America) along with a bunch of recommended plugins that are all free. I have added some airports (and a few dozen libraries just to make sure they all work right, luckily all the libraries can be installed via two bundled installers though). The amount of high quality freeware airports is crazy. There's a lot of stuff for major airports that rivals payware and thousands of smaller airports done in much better detail then anything stock in FSX. I was shocked to find KVKS, an obscure airport in my hometown, done completely with full lighting and custom objects. There are gems like that all over.

 

As an avid P3D user, I have to admit that XPX has impressed me so far. I was very weary of the "plausible scenery" and whether it would translate, but with the above (free) addons, it does a very commendable job.

 

I'd recommend you buy it. What I did was not even start the sim for the first time until I had the HD Mesh and W2XP installed as well as a several plugins to improve the appearance. I didn't want to even give myself a chance to have a bad taste in my mouth. When I first started it up, the default settings were garbage, the AA was awful, etc. but I got that fixed quickly. 

 

Where P3D still has it beat is shadowing performance (I can run shadows high in P3D but they slow XPX way down for me), ATC being light years better, AI aircraft, and better payware planes. But each is useful.

[jcomm 5,938]

BET is just a wider collection of table lookups, instead of just a few ones, combined together, so... BET is even more table-based than the FDM used in FSX / P3D :-)

 

If one opens an Airfoil, prop, etc... in AirfoilMaker, what one finds is EXACTLY a table, presented in a graphical way to make it easier for the aircraft designers to get what they want, sometimes starting with guessed data, or using specific profiles ( NACA, etc... )

 

It's been debated over and over, ad-nauseum, that X-Plane also used the same table-lokkup-based approach of any of the sims we use, the only difference being it partitions the aircraft into a collection of lift, drag, and control plus power generation units, and tries to figure out the outcome when they all work together.

 

Should the approach be so "perfect" a simple glider wouldn't perform so lausily like some do, including the default ASK21 ( which I know very well from RL ) or a Van's RV-6 would pitch down, not up, when flaps are deployed if one uses the original aircraft blueprints, airfoils, etc... We have to use Plane-Maker or even more sophisticated approaches to then bring a given aircraft model to the numbers of it's real counterpart as much as possible...

 

Ground handling under wind is still a pure joke, unless developers work out their own tricks ( like Carenado ) and write some code to overcome the ridiculous weathervaning effect aircraft have when simply taxiing with a 10 knot wind component :-/

 

The on-rails sensation is due to weather ** only ** and if you get a decent weather injector for FSX / P3D and a well designed aircraft, it'll give you as much of a ride as the best equivalent prop for XPX. Clear the weather in XPX and go flying.. and see how on-rails it also feels... ( same for DCS, which has a lousy weather model )

 

Am I saying X-Plane is bad? Certainly not, just as much as FSX isn't.

 

Are there better alternatives ? Certainly YES - DCS World and IL2 Battle of Stalingrad for instance, but it happens these are very limited in their scope - Combat Aviation, but IMO give a great lesson to flight simulation developers of what can be achieved.

[Bjoern 1,157]

Info about X-Plane's flight model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Plane_%28simulator%29#Flight_model

And the method used by it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory

 

Short version: MSFS reads its aerodynamic data from static tables, X-Plane actively computes it based on airfoil information.

 

Advatage MSFS: Much more resource efifcient.

Advantage X-Plane: More accurate results.

 

Both sims, however are, as usual, susceptible to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). If I can't find airfoil data for X-Plane or coefficient tables for MSFS, there's no way you can produce a convincing flight model (no one has time for 500 years of trail & error).

 

X-Plane's method possesses the advantage that a lot of airfoil data, especially for GA aircraft, is available online. FSX needs a detour through an aerodynamics tool like DATCOM or XFLR or similar to produce compatible tables from airfoils.

 

One disadvantage of MSFS' flight model has always been the lack of official documentation. Every bit of info concerning the flight model has been found by third party users  and there are still some areas for which only basic information is available. This is a huge disadvantage for people willing to make more accurate flight dynamics for MSFS airplanes and probably as much of a reason for the perceived inaccuracies as the limitations of a table-based flight model.

 

Also keep in mind that the default aircraft in MSFS were designed for the average Joe/Jane in terms of systems and flight characteristics.

[nerrad33 2]

Well, I didn't expect this must information, thanks, Bottom line: found money, why not?

[jcomm 5,938]

Info about X-Plane's flight model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Plane_%28simulator%29#Flight_model

And the method used by it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory

 

Short version: MSFS reads its aerodynamic data from static tables, X-Plane actively computes it based on airfoil information.

 

Advatage MSFS: Much more resource efifcient.

Advantage X-Plane: More accurate results.

 

Both sims, however are, as usual, susceptible to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). If I can't find airfoil data for X-Plane or coefficient tables for MSFS, there's no way you can produce a convincing flight model (no one has time for 500 years of trail & error).

 

X-Plane's method possesses the advantage that a lot of airfoil data, especially for GA aircraft, is available online. FSX needs a detour through an aerodynamics tool like DATCOM or XFLR or similar to produce compatible tables from airfoils.

 

One disadvantage of MSFS' flight model has always been the lack of official documentation. Every bit of info concerning the flight model has been found by third party users  and there are still some areas for which only basic information is available. This is a huge disadvantage for people willing to make more accurate flight dynamics for MSFS airplanes and probably as much of a reason for the perceived inaccuracies as the limitations of a table-based flight model.

 

Also keep in mind that the default aircraft in MSFS were designed for the average Joe/Jane in terms of systems and flight characteristics.

 

Not correct IMO regarding the "dynamic" computation... AFAIK X-Plane doesn't really use CFD... The tables are there - called airfoils ...

 

As far as MSFS documentation goes, there's at least this good source of info: