Why not use both.

As a long time FSX/P3D user, there's a lot to enjoy in Xplane 11, especially General aviation and night scenery.  But regarding Airliners (e.g. FSLABS A320) and real weather, P3D plus Active Sky is far better. XPlane doesn't even come close.

By the way, to enhance the weather ,I had bought SkyMaxx 3.0 at X-Aviation for XP10 half a year ago, and now have to pay full 40$ price for SkyMaxx 4 again. If anyone wants to encourage users to buy XP11 Addons, I wouldn't do it like that.

Mike

 

 

Wow. What a lot of nonsense in this thread especially from those who really don't have a clue about what X-Plane can do. All this "X-Plane doesn't have weather and airliners and my Orbx regions look so much better". What a BS. Get to really know what X-Plane can do and at which price and then come back. (And no. I'm not an XP fan@&€. I also use P3D and love it as well). 

8 hours ago, warriorpilot said:

 

 

Are you using PTA? If so mind sharing your preset?

There's no PTA for Xplane. You can use reshade though.

1.: There always is a confusion around whether we talk about the base 'out-of-the-box' sim or the sim as a platform. There is probably no doubt about XP11 being the better base sim, while as a platform P3D clearly has the advantage with lots of very advanced aircraft, scenery and tools. That is of course subject to change: P3Dv4 will likely make the base better than v3, but XP on the other hand is catching up with addons.

2.: Money is an issue we rarely talk about here, but it is very relevant to lots of people. To take advantage of the great ecosystem of addons that the P3D platform provides, you have to have lots of it. XP11 being the better base sim and having great freeware tools is certainly the cheaper sim and therefore the better option for those who don't have (or are not willing to spend) that much money. For those who are short on free time, but have plenty of $, P3D will look like the better option.

3.: These discussion inevitably lead to the point where you have to acknowledge that people want different things from a sim or have different priorities. Some want great visual immersion and performance, some want an airliner that simulates each and every system as closely as possible, some want to have a superb GA feel, some want all the tools to simulate airline procedures as closely as possible, some want military combat aircraft (they won't choose either XP or P3D), some want all of these things combined (they'll always be dissatisfied with each and every individual sim, but they can of course maintain several sims in parallel). Some are willing to spend lots of money for it, others are not. The bad thing is: There is no perfect sim that provides everything for everybody. The good thing: There are different sims out there that you can choose from depending on your needs.

3 hours ago, Scramjet333 said:

Aaaand... how much did you pay for everything?

Ortho4XP, W2XP, plenty of airports at the X-Plane.org forums (including those by ISDG, MisterX6, tdg, etc.) are all... free. Your various add-ons may make P3D look some 20% better than X-Plane, but I'd rather pay nothing at all and get maybe 80-85% the quality of P3D, whereas I'd have to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars extra to make that hundred per cent. Nothing says 'diminishing returns' better than this. 

Admittedly X-Plane still has some rough edges, but even with XP10.51, you can make wonders with freeware, a good CPU+GPU, 32 GB of RAM and a fair bit of free space for HD mesh + orthophoto scenery.

(For the record, this is no sleight on Scramjet333, just adding to his thoughts)

XP vs. the others is like Apple vs. Android.  With FSX and P3D (Apple), you get everything handed to you, so you install and go.  When things don't work right, everyone argues on the forums until fixes come down the pipe...wash, rinse, repeat.  With XP (Android) you LEARN about how everything ties together.  You LEARN how to customize and create the sim to suit your own tastes.  

I was once heavily vested in FSX and P3D and sometimes I still have regrets in spending what I did over the years, but it was a live and learn moment.  Since I discovered XP, I just don't experience the same amount of "out-of-the-box" realism with the others, as I do with XP.  Sure, you can go and spend a ton of money on several add-ons, for the other sims, to get them to look real and to be honest, I have seen it and it does look great, but give some credit to XP that "out-of-the-box", XP has evolved a whole lot quicker as a base sim.

If one can afford to maintain three or even four sims at a time, complete with add-ons, then great, I'm happy for you, but I think I speak for many others when I say that we've been "chasing reality" for far to long, and XP11 has finally provided a more realistic, with minimal investment, simulation experience.  The pains and frustrations of trying to get a simulator to actually run like it should (or was marketed) is a whole lot less now.  It will take time for other developers to jump on board while LR continues to optimize the sim and introduce newer, more modern technologies into it, but for right now, there is plenty to feed the needs of it's users. 

Scramjet333's statement about 'diminished returns', brings up the fact that there is more of an active development community with X-Plane.  I was overwhelmed at first, in what was developed by the everyday public, over what was offered commercially.  I am grateful that there are folks out there who create for the sake of the community.  I am also grateful to those who create above and beyond the norm and only ask for a nominal fee, if the others feel it warrants it.  To me that is a very humble approach and should be commended.  Of course, on the flipside, there are some very impressive payware options out there too.

I have some money invested now in XP, but far less than with the others, and for what I do have invested in XP, it is definitely well spent because it works, it works well, with virtually no issues whatsoever.

1 hour ago, mikealpha said:

Why not use both.

As a long time FSX/P3D user, there's a lot to enjoy in Xplane 11, especially General aviation and night scenery.  But regarding Airliners (e.g. FSLABS A320) and real weather, P3D plus Active Sky is far better. XPlane doesn't even come close.

By the way, to enhance the weather ,I had bought SkyMaxx 3.0 at X-Aviation for XP10 half a year ago, and now have to pay full 40$ price for SkyMaxx 4 again. If anyone wants to encourage users to buy XP11 Addons, I wouldn't do it like that.

Mike

 

 

That IS everyone's prerogative, so no argument there.  I have P3D installed, with add-ons, and while the features of those add-ons do help provide a better experience for say, aircraft study, so no disputing that, BUT your statement of comparison is still a little too early to judge.  

ActiveSky has been around for a very long time, as well as FSLabs (and PMDG, A2A, etc) so it's not really fair to judge right now.  There are several developers for X-Plane that are still getting their feet wet, waiting for Laminar to get the base sim stable to a point where they can fix, upgrade, or add-on to their existing products to bring them to the level of realism and function that they deserve, and by the looks of it, LR is pretty close.

For weather, you have SkyMaxx, X-Enviro and default, for XP.  Default weather has come a long way from what it was, and XE is pretty impressive right now.  For the record, I bought into SkyMaxx and share the disappointment, but that doesn't mean they are down for the count.

If anyone has a strong interest in XP, then they should stay as informed as possible by reading up on the developer's blog, where Ben Supnik gives a lot of behind the scenes information, development paths, etc.  The information is out there, and if you have the ambition and curiosity, I encourage you all to engage, ask questions, air your concerns.  

15 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I tried X plane 11 off and on for about 2 weeks. I just couldn't get over how poor it looked compared to the P3D I have on my PC. I considered it a major step backwards and finally deleted the demo. 

Me too.

Ibtl.

XP11 LOOKS better but P3D SIMULATES an airline environment much better.

You have P3D?  Fly it!  Enjoy it!  

You have FSX?  Fly it!  Enjoy it!

You have X Plane 11?  Fly it!  Enjoy it!

That's...pretty much...where it should end.  

All these petty arguments over which sim is better, detracts from the hobby itself.  

Let it go.  It's getting boring.

8 hours ago, CarlosF said:

whatever, you are still a troll Bob!

And you are ignorant and rather than have an intelligent discussion you have to engage in calling people names   like a child. 

8 minutes ago, Boomer said:

XP11 LOOKS better but P3D SIMULATES an airline environment much better.

Equivalently, I could say: P3D airports LOOK busier, but XP11 SIMULATES the feeling and visual realism of flight much better.

 

14 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

And you are ignorant and rather than have an intelligent discussion you have to engage in calling people names   like a child. 

Ah but you see you're no better becuase you can't let it go. 

Just now, Boomer said:

Like I said, ibtl.  Takes 2 to argue.  Only children can't let an argument go.

Ah but you see you're no better becuase you can't let it go. 

You call me a troll, and I won't let it go, would you if someone called you a troll because you voiced your opinion about a topic? Please respond.  

22 minutes ago, Boomer said:

Ibtl.

XP11 LOOKS better but P3D SIMULATES an airline environment much better.

Love those word games! Its like those game/simulator discussions we had one year ago when Flight School launched...

The visual aspect of flying is part of the simulation as long as you intend to imitate the real-world visuals. And for GA flying that part of the simulation is also highly relevant, for airliners of course less so. What I am getting at: The distinction between "looking" and "simulating" doesn't really hold up.