Considering Buying X-Plane X

[Bobsk8 12,489]

Sorry 64 bit is something long overdo for FSX/P3D. If you want to endlessly fiddle with your settings so to not get OOMs then XP10-11 is the way to go. I buy all the ORBX stuff, payware airports, great video card and you're pulling out something, reducing graphics settings on something else etc.  and then defeating the whole purpose of the very products you buy to enhance visually the sim. It's time to move on from this 32 bit nonsense.

 

I fly P3D many hours a week and I don't have to fiddle with anything. It is stable, I get good FPS, have all kinds of add ons, and everything works. I see nothing that 64 bit would give me that I don't have already, and I don't need a super computer to run P3D. 

[alpha12125 213]

I fly P3D many hours a week and I don't have to fiddle with anything. It is stable, I get good FPS, have all kinds of add ons, and everything works. I see nothing that 64 bit would give me that I don't have already, and I don't need a super computer to run P3D. 

Well then you are lucky, you know aswell as I do that when you post that post on the P3D forum section alot of other P3D users disagree with you aswell.

 

I use P3D for tubeliner exclusivley and when you are in a queue at heathrow on vatsim running a fully loaded t7 setup, you basically just hope you can take off before you OOM. Even developers dedicate entire Q&A / handbook sections on how to avoid OOM scenarios.

 

Now if you fly GA you typically dont run into these issues,  but constantly saying there are no problems and its just a matter of settings when virtually everyone that flies online in tubeliners has experienced this at one point or the other is simply ignoring that there is a problem.

[jymp 168]

I would wait for the X Plane 11 Demo, I tried the 10 demo, thought absolutely no way ever, laughed at it compared with FSX/P3D, however with version 11 X Plane has finally addressed the issues that were holding it back, easy to use UI and much better lighting for starters,  11 seems to be a major step forward for X Plane, 

[Lenny777 299]

I fly P3D many hours a week and I don't have to fiddle with anything. It is stable, I get good FPS, have all kinds of add ons, and everything works. I see nothing that 64 bit would give me that I don't have already, and I don't need a super computer to run P3D. 

Completely false unless you're running at the most basic levels. Threads upon threads of OOMs have been the mainstay of FSX/P3D for years. Please stop with the fictions.

[LAdamson 240]

Completely false unless you're running at the most basic levels. Threads upon threads of OOMs have been the mainstay of FSX/P3D for years. Please stop with the fictions.

I don't use P3D.  I've had a very successful run using FSX, since I did very decent computer upgrade 22 months ago. It's true that I don't fly tube liners for hours on end, but I do run a lot of extras that tax the system. The same holds true for X-Plane 10. I did the upgrade with the intention of running X-Plane 10 & FSX. I've never had an OOM on this system, and run far above basic levels. I'd even find frame rates between 100 & 200 with both sims.............................or sometimes below 30, with both. XP-10 has in fact crashed a few times. 

[jcomm 5,885]

Larry, you're an example of how to the get the best out of two very nice Worlds, something I was never able to do :-/  It's something within my intricate brain...

 

But I also never experienced a single OOM in all of my FSX user history, using mostly tubeliners from PMDG...

 

Of course this forums even have sections dedicated to OOM and CTD in MSFS and derivates, and uncountable threads on OOM, CTD, and Voodoo techniques to avoid such...

 

I guess that if I used scenery in FSX at the same level of complexity I used in XP10, including mesh and w2xp, OOMs would be my everyday experience, specially on longer flights - the trick is I always used FSX and then FSX SE defayult, with only 1 add-on airport ( Madeira ) and AS stuff...

 

And indeed the 64 bit offer a lot more of room for developers,, it's the new standard, and I am sure sooner or latter LM will make the move too... Meanwhile I already have XP10, IL2 BoS and BoM and AEFS2 in 64 bit :-) and Aerowinx runs Java, so, 32 or 64 bit will do...  ELITE is still 32

[Lenny777 299]

I don't use P3D.  I've had a very successful run using FSX, since I did very decent computer upgrade 22 months ago. It's true that I don't fly tube liners for hours on end, but I do run a lot of extras that tax the system. The same holds true for X-Plane 10. I did the upgrade with the intention of running X-Plane 10 & FSX. I've never had an OOM on this system, and run far above basic levels. I'd even find frame rates between 100 & 200 with both sims.............................or sometimes below 30, with both. XP-10 has in fact crashed a few times. 

Are you actually suggesting you've gotten 100-200 fps on FSX?lol. I've had every incarnation of Flight simulator since my C-64 days - Bruce Artwick's SubLogic incarnation. There is no way you're running such fps without completely stripping the graphics, traffic AI, weather, to the veritable skeleton. Further if you've never had an OOM then I can guarantee you haven't put all of ORBXs' sceneries on (global base, vector, etc.), pushed up the graphic settings to at or near their top, run traffic AI at 30% at least, ActiveSky, fly from payware to payware airport.

 

Look it. I'm not a disciple for XP. I never started using it until it went to 64 bit mode and I still use P3D concurrently on my system with FlyInside for VR flying. So I will never go on a XP thread and make completely gratuitous statements about the efficacy of an old worn 32 bit program with its DX10 patch - FSX. or its P3D cousin. They are just well worn but past their prime. Even flying VR takes up more of that precious VRAM which has to be coddled like  a baby even more. People who claim they  have never had an OOM haven't stretched their system to make it look like a modern sim with a PMDG product (for example) not like a graphics holdover from the 90s. I believe honesty serves all our purposes - not false promises.

 

On other places on these XP threads I've stated there have been roughly three major issues with XP 64. And believe me it's not the 64 bit platform which is fantastic. In no particular order: Traffic AI. Out of the "box" it stinks in XP. It's a joke.In FSX/P3D you have two great programs which stand out: Ultimate Traffic and MyTraffic. Nothing, and I mean nothing comes close in XP. The closest it  comes is in JarDesign's XLife. WorldTraffic 3.0 when it comes out may fill some more of the gap but that waits to be seen. The big issue in WT has been auto-generated ground and taxi routes - you have to make them by hand. The second: ATC. This is another joke. Out of the box P3D/FSX are just superior. Again there are various makeshift solutions such as the XLife built in ATC, or third party solutions such as Pilot2ATC. However, after all these years it's just poor. The third: Seasonal textures. I'm flying in Norther Europe or Canada in winter and I still have summer textures? Another failure in XP.

 

XP11 promises an improved ATC - that will remain to be seen. But I don't see the traffic AI issue any better or the seasonal texture issue addressed unless I missed it. 

[ryanbatc 12,770]

All systems are different.... they really are.  I get OOM's all the time in FSX (rarely in P3D) with glorious addons.  My coworker never get's them.  Not sure why, we both run high end addons, and we both like eye candy.  So for Bob to say he runs that - well I believe it!

[Cat_Dad 17]

From all of the comments I have seen so far, "None" of the "Current" versions of FSX, P3D, or X-plane seem to be the one and only "Ultimate" flight sim. All seem to have various "Faults" especially when running on the thousands of different computers with numerous add-on's.

 

Currently I am still running my original copy of FSX now on it's third operating system and several hardware updates. Windows Xp seemed to be a very good platform and moving to Windows 7 helped add additional memory but not a lot of performance. Windows 10 adds a  more memory and supposed capability but now I get a lot of crash to desk top if I just try and move the aircraft via the menu verse actually flying to a new location. Maybe this is some sort of weird glitch to force you to only fly to each destination? Also I cannot change the call sign or look up aircraft data/specs when selecting a different aircraft to fly.

 

All of the above problems comes from the exact same nearly ten year old FSX software. The only thing different is that the program started out made for windows XP and now is forced to run on a supposedly backward compatible windows 10. This is why in my opinion, any and all new flight sim programs need to be designed to run on the "Current version of operating systems/hardware.

 

With my current computer, i7 4790/16Gb/GTX980/500Gb SSD/win 10/64, I can almost set most of the sliders to the full right position and still get flyable performance. Still there are many times when I have to limit scenery/ air and ground traffic and other eye candy settings in order to get a specific smooth performance in flight. And this is to run 10 year old software. This just shows how the FSX engine/code can no longer handle today's technology.

 

I guess I will wait to see what X-plane 11 looks like and hope that someday you will be able to buy a "Hard" copy of the P3D program. Maybe when they decide to go to 64 bit?

 

Again thanks for all of the inputs to this question and please no fighting over your individual simulator set ups.

 

Terry

 

Retired USAF Flight Sim Tech (F-4E and F-111D)

[tonywob 4,768]

They are just flight simulators folks, there is no need to turn aggressive. Please say on topic (I've hidden the posts in question)

[3dflyguy86 0]

I'd say go for it, If you buy it now you get Xplane 11 free. I like Xplane 10, it has its few quirks, but hey, can't have everything. I fly GA planes with it and it does a really good job at it. Plus I like the 64 bit platform and the fact that it continues to grow and get better. 64 bit makes full use of my system where as 32 bit doesn't.

   Anyway, my 2 cents worth.

[LAdamson 240]

Are you actually suggesting you've gotten 100-200 fps on FSX?lol. I've had every incarnation of Flight simulator since my C-64 days - Bruce Artwick's SubLogic incarnation. There is no way you're running such fps without completely stripping the graphics, traffic AI, weather, to the veritable skeleton. Further if you've never had an OOM then I can guarantee you haven't put all of ORBXs' sceneries on (global base, vector, etc.), pushed up the graphic settings to at or near their top, run traffic AI at 30% at least, ActiveSky, fly from payware to payware airport.

 

 

Yes, I'm suggesting it. I'm not new to flight sims either. Started at the beginning of it all. Have beta tested three versions of MSFS, as well as many third party aircraft.  And, I do have all those Orbx products you listed. As I said, there is below 30 fps. No OOms, ever.

[ryanbatc 12,770]

From all of the comments I have seen so far, "None" of the "Current" versions of FSX, P3D, or X-plane seem to be the one and only "Ultimate" flight sim

 

 

You hit the nail on the head.  I use XP10 and P3D and have immense enjoyment from them both.  You'll make trade offs by limiting yourself to one sim (but you'll save money LOL!!!)

[jcomm 5,885]

Hey guys! Come play wars with me in IL-2 too!!!  It helps releasing all of those "dark" energies that sometimes make us write "throwing" posts....