Sign in to follow this  
RichieFly

Payware AC vs Included AC in X-Plane

Recommended Posts

(This may have been covered before and might be a dumb question, so please bare with me.)

 

Are the payware aircraft available for x-plane better than the included aircraft you get with x-plane? Are they miles better as in the payware aircraft available for FSX?

 

For example, A2A's C-172 vs the included FS C-172. The difference is what I would call miles apart. Likewise, the B-55 in FS vs the Milviz B-55. All classes: tubeliners to a lowly Cub.

 

I've flown the included X-plane aircraft and I find them pretty meh. I'm not asking simply on looks, although that's important to me, but also general FPS performance and flight fidelity.

 

There's a lot of enthusiasm for X-plane here at avsim, so this should be the place to ask.

 

Right now, I'm strictly a P3d kinda guy. But I'm always looking for new ways to scratch my itch.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

It's just like default FSX or P3D aircraft I guess, they're good but for sure payware addons may be better compared to default ones but this depend on the developer as some may apply more effort into than others, if you want to have an idea try to search for specific addon on youtube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll let others answer for the stuck wing models, but I can say that the add-on helicopter models are much better than the default Sikorsky S-76 in XP11 beta.

 

The default S-76 looks pretty good in the external model, but lacks some of the special features of payware like opening doors, ground support, searchlight, sling loads, etc. It's very basic once you're inside the cockpit. Very few switches do anything, unlike the deeper systems modeling in the free Bell 429 or the payware models -- ND BK-117, X-Trident Bell 412, and Dreamfoil Bell 407 (to list my favorite models). Just a taste of what's out there past the default S-76.

 

I don't know if you're interested in them or not, but helicopters are one of X-Plane's strong points, with much better support in X-Plane's internal flight modeling than FSX/P3D. We have many good models to choose from, although the fleet is still being expanded and there are still many gaping holes (we could use a good deep-modeled Chinook!). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have personally found the default C172SP a very capable aircraft that functions rather well and similar to payware versions.  When it comes to the B737 though, I'm sure you'll get a resounding response that payware B737's function better.  There's no harm in taking any of the default aircraft for a spin, since their included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EADT 737-800 is quite good and it is free. It just costs 20 euros if you want to purchase the FMC.

 

If you look at the FlightFactor 757 v2/ and 767 or IXEG 737 then you are looking at something of great quality and half the cost of PMDG P3D products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually find most of the default aircraft in X-Plane tend to be pretty awful. They did significantly improve some of them for XP11 (particularly the C172) but they are still far from perfect. A lot of the payware for X-Plane is also of fairly low quality compared to most of the offerings for P3D/FSX, so you should do research on any individual aircraft you are considering purchasing.

 

Most of the flying I do in X-Plane is with tubeliners so that is all I can really give advice on. As the poster above said, EADT's 737NG is actually very good especially considering that it is free, although it is still leagues away from something like the NGX.

 

From my experience, the best payware airliners for X-Plane would be the FlightFactor 757/767 and IXEG 737 Classic (which rivals PMDG in terms of quality IMO). The Rotate MD80 is also a better offering than any of the MD80s I've seen for P3D/FSX. PMDG's DC-6 is also very good if you like older airliners. All of these have just about all the system depth and attention to detail you could want, and they tend to be as performance friendly, if not more, than the default planes. And if you have a decent set of controls, they feel FAR better to handfly than just about anything from the P3D/FSX realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hold of the Rotate MD-80, ATS just released/ releasing one which should be much better if/ when the initial bugs are fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense to the other posters but this thread is quickly turning towards an "add-ons" thread, which may need/get moved, according to what Tony posted the other day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that a subforum was added. I just want to post in 1 forum. More people will see it that way.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that a subforum was added. I just want to post in 1 forum. More people will see it that way.

I see both sides of the equation.  Tony would like to maintain some organization as well as preventing OP's from posting threads about general XP function and the thread suddenly turning into a discussion about add-ons and such.  On the other side, yeah it's nice to have a "one stop shop", but again, there are some who could use help about functionality in XP and not have to sift through post after post, seeking the right info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that a subforum was added. I just want to post in 1 forum. More people will see it that way.

 

You also don't get as many views of a topic if it scrolls off the main page too fast. There is a limit to how many extra pages many users will want to load. For those with short attention spans, anything that scrolls off the first page is ancient history.  :smile:

 

It's a tough thing to balance. I just reset my bookmark to the index instead of this main one, so I don't forget to check the other sub-forums. 

 

I only hope this X-Plane area of Avsim doesn't metastasize into the mess of sub-forums the .org has. That whole forum could be compacted down to about a third the size by consolidating topics, and it would be easier to navigate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't remember much from my FSX days - they were so long ago. But most of the payware in XP that I have bought I do not use. There is usually some problem with the modelling or the systems and very little support from the developers. I am not sure why this is - perhaps the market is too small for full time developers. I tend to think the developers in XP get into the field because of a love of flying and their particular passion, then find the support area a real hassle and not what they wanted. So then they drift away and the updates/fixes are slow in coming. I agree myself - I am a programmer and absolutely hate support. But I work for a company that hire support people for my software, not something that many XP developers can do. Programmers are not the type of people that generally want to do support.

 

But it is not all negative - I am guessing it is much the same in the FSX world. There are some really good aircraft in XP, the IXEG 737 for example. That is one team that does seem to want to support their product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's just down to individual developers when it comes to support, but I've had a positive experience overall. Maybe we're just buying different payware? I have aircraft from the following devs where I haven't had any trouble with the plane models, or support when I needed it:

 

DDen (Goose package)

X-Trident (Bell 412)

Carenado (Bonanza F33, Cessna C208, Pilatus PC-12)

LES (DC-3)

X-Aviation (MU-2)

Dreamfoil (Bell 407)

RWDesigns (DHC-6 Twin Otter)

STMA (DHC-2 Beaver, DHC-3 Otter)

HydroZ (PBY Catalina)

 

Granted, in some of these cases I've had no interaction because the planes worked fine out of the box. In other cases, I've had good interaction with the devs when bringing up an issue, or asking for clarification. Maybe I've just been lucky in not having a bad experience so far, but for a small niche market run mainly by solo developers, I'd say the track record is pretty good in my case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same as FSX/P3D.  Stock planes are simple and basic examples of what is possible, good enough, but no where near what is possible.  XP11's C172 is actually quite nice, but still no where near an A2A for a simple comparison.

 

But, the good news is there are absolutely FANTASTIC payware XP aircraft.  For small GA stuff, check out:

 

https://www.simcoders.com/

 

They offer "REP" addons to Carenado aircraft, making them very similar to A2A Accusim aircraft.  Great product, I love what these guys add.  Best of both worlds, all of Carenado beauty, yet you get a realism pack that adds/improves all the systems.

 

Additionally, it's about to be updated to v2 after XP11 is finalized, but I simply cannot say enough good things about the Leading Edge Simulations Saab 340A.  They nailed it.  It's the single best simulation experience I've had on any platform, love it.

 

http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_info.php/take-command-saab-340a-p-100

 

If you like heavier stuff, check out the FlightFactor 757 v2 or 767.  I haven't tried the 767 yet, but I am enjoying the 757 v2 as much as I've ever enjoyed the PMDG 737 or 777.  Great stuff as well.

 

So, in a simple answer, X-Plane 10/11 has tons more to offer in a proper payware aircraft than the stock planes.  It's almost like a different sim depending on the plane.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this