It's interesting getting people's views on this. I wasn't going to get the DC-6 until I saw Kyle's YouTube video on it. I haven't bought anything for Xplane airliner wise for circa 2 years because everything is very expensive and not the complete product. And when you have products like PMDG's 777 & and the Q400 available for P3D V3 (only ever had 1 OOM in P3D V3) I always think why should I spend lots of money on mid level stuff for Xplane when I have those fantastic products on P3D? I must hasten to add I do have helicopters for Xplane which are a joy to fly. But I've got myself to a point where I want to learn aircraft in great detail and fly them realistically so the systems realism has to be there. Which is why I always come back to the NGX, T7 and Q400. Once the IXEG 737 is finished I will buy it.

Posted 04 May 2016 - 05:21 PM by Airline2Sim

 

As an FSX die-hard, I recently saw the light with X-Plane after the IXEG 737 came out. My thoughts thus, after 2 weeks of flying it pretty much exclusively:

 

- The night environment, even out of the box, is to die for and destroys anything I've ever seen in the ESP sims.

 

- Weather generation isn't there yet. The combo I use is NOAA plugin + real weather connector + skymaxx which works pretty well but there are still occasional cloud pops and weather shifts. Also the 'draw line' for the weather itself is still too visible for my liking. FSX with ASN (notably not P3D with its popcorn clouds) does this better currently. However, with some tweaking (Real Terra Haze and some playing around does the trick) it can look really nice.

 

- X-Camera is a must have for me as the pan is much smoother than the rather jerky default camera, plus smooth transitions between cameras, a la EZDOK.

 

- The sim feels so much more modern and can run really smoothly even at places like LHR and AMS, both nightmares in FSX.

 

- The flight model is less forgiving. You really NEED to fly X-Plane as it feels much more fluid. FSX just flies on rails.

 

- Scenery development is behind the curve for those coming straight from FSX/P3D. Do not expect Flightbeam/Flytampa masterpieces just yet. There are some freeware gems and some decent payware is coming through but it may be some time before you've got the whole planet modelled to the standard we see on the other side. The plus side of that is the lighting and effects of X-Plane out the box are much more advanced so even an average scenery in XP looks okay. The old 'fly there at night' trick rings very true.

 

- You can say bye bye to OOMs, blurry textures and all that 32-bit nonsense. All the tech in X-Plane is bang up to date and all that cash spent on your PC gets harnessed. However, don't be under any illusion that if you go bonkers on the HDR, AA and detail level that it'll run at 60fps. It won't!

 

- Apart from the IXEG, none of the jets are up to PMDG level - yet. The FF 767 is probably as good as it gets, but it's kind of mid-level against the PMDG yardstick.

 

In summary, it's a good time for X-Plane. Bear in mind we don't know what DT have up their sleeves in terms of DLC for DTG Flight Simulator and it might just be that the big devs bet the farm instead on porting to a modern 64-bit sim that is still open architecture - X-Plane...

I have X-Plane too. I know the pros and cons. I didn't need the full sales pitch. My comment was addressed to your assertion that FSX "flies on rails" which you repeated but don't justify.

 

The flight model in FSX isnt perfect but if you think it flies in rails then you don't understand anything about the model structure. How good the flight model feels is mostly down to how good the FDE designer is. All the necessary terms are there to be adjusted if you know what you are doing. Combined with an advanced weather system like ASN you can get a very realistic and immersive experience. Certainly not on rails.

The flight model in FSX isnt perfect but if you think it flies in rails then you don't understand anything about the model structure. How good the flight model feels is mostly down to how good the FDE designer is. All the necessary terms are there to be adjusted if you know what you are doing. Combined with an advanced weather system like ASN you can get a very realistic and immersive experience. Certainly not on rails.

 

Kevin, in your opinion, which Simulator is more "prone" to a realistic flight model? I mean, the same designer who has the same amount of data on the flying characteristics of a given real airplane, on which simulator will he get closer to the real thing?

 

As I understand it, on X-Plane you only basically need a good geometrical database of the aircraft, am I right? Since the calculations will be done in real time, as long as the airfoil is the same airfoil as the one in the real airplane, the results will be the same. In FSX you can "draw" a flying cow with the flying characteristics of a C-172 as longs as all the stability derivatives are accurate?

 

I'm just guessing, I really have no idea on how these sims work internally.

Kevin, in your opinion, which Simulator is more "prone" to a realistic flight model? I mean, the same designer who has the same amount of data on the flying characteristics of a given real airplane, on which simulator will he get closer to the real thing?

 

As I understand it, on X-Plane you only basically need a good geometrical database of the aircraft, am I right? Since the calculations will be done in real time, as long as the airfoil is the same airfoil as the one in the real airplane, the results will be the same. In FSX you can "draw" a flying cow with the flying characteristics of a C-172 as longs as all the stability derivatives are accurate?

 

I'm just guessing, I really have no idea on how these sims work internally.

A good flight modeller will make a good flight sim regardless of whether it's FSX or X-Plane. However I would say that it's easier to get a good model with FSX as that models the aircraft as a single entity. This is the classical aerodynamic stability and control approach. With X-Plane you need all the different aerofoil characteristics and accurate geometric data of where they are on the wing.

 

All full flight aircraft sims I'm aware of use a whole aircraft model like FSX. It's simpler to translate flight test data into a validated flight model like that than use aerofoil design data and build it from components, then tune everything to match flight test.

 

Helicopter sims use X-Plane style blade element theory because of the complex dynamics of the rotors.

Thanks! Yes, I also thought it's "easier" to take all of the known data (stability derivatives etc.) of the aircraft and apply it to the sim, instead of exactly replicating the aircraft's geometry.

I have Xplane as well as P3D. I've had more Xplane CTD's than P3D OOM's (I've only ever OOM'd once with P3D V3). As far as I can see all Xplane has to offer is a 64 bit platform but for me P3D looks way better with the likes of Orbx etc installed. And now IXEG have released their 737, which isn't really a finished product, apart from PMDG's DC6 what else high fidelity is on the horizon? Time and time again people talk about Xplane being the future but after three years I just don't see that.

 

I have been hearing that " X plane is the future" for over a decade.  It still isn't. 

The Future IS DCS World... in terms of flight and overall physics modeling. IL-2 BoS is another great sim. Both are way ahead of either FSX or X-Plane in this regard, but unfortunately, they're combat flight sims :-/

Bob,

 

The future is the future.

 

Anything promised by anyone else is just an opinion, and not worth the time to debate. 

 

From PMDG's perspective, it doesn't matter whether you like FSX, FSX-SE, Prepar3D or X-Plane.

 

In the not-too-distant future you will have access to our products across all of these platforms- and that gives you the choice to go with the platform that suits you best.

 

 

In the not-too-distant future you will have access to our products across all of these platforms- and that gives you the choice to go with the platform that suits you best.

 

Oh wow! That is a very strong statement indeed!

 

I hope I can fly the PMDG 777 (and others) in X-Plane one day! Just have a look at my FSX icon on the desktop, hehehe:

 

They ( PMDG ) are just missing one platform now - DCS World.... Maybe a C-130 Hercules one day.... a Starlifter, KC-135, B-52 ...

the future depends on the person, p3d may be the future for one and x-plane for someone else, fsx can't be the future because it's dead, an active project can always be the future.

Bob,

 

The future is the future.

 

Anything promised by anyone else is just an opinion, and not worth the time to debate. 

 

From PMDG's perspective, it doesn't matter whether you like FSX, FSX-SE, Prepar3D or X-Plane.

 

In the not-too-distant future you will have access to our products across all of these platforms- and that gives you the choice to go with the platform that suits you best.

Awesome!

I have been hearing that " X plane is the future" for over a decade.  It still isn't. 

Because to many close minded people hang on to dead things!

Bob,

 

The future is the future.

 

Anything promised by anyone else is just an opinion, and not worth the time to debate. 

 

From PMDG's perspective, it doesn't matter whether you like FSX, FSX-SE, Prepar3D or X-Plane.

 

In the not-too-distant future you will have access to our products across all of these platforms- and that gives you the choice to go with the platform that suits you best.

+1

They ( PMDG ) are just missing one platform now - DCS World.... Maybe a C-130 Hercules one day.... a Starlifter, KC-135, B-52 ...

Are the scenery areas in DCS already so big that such aircraft would make sense?

Are the scenery areas in DCS already so big that such aircraft would make sense?

 

For me they are Mario, at least for me. I use my Aerowinx PSX mostly in circuits around LPPT, or as far as from LPPT to LPPR and back :-)