Just tried the demo, 172 feels overpowered and scenery not impressed.

[motoadve 49]

I tried it in an airstrip I fly my real 182, and outperforms my 182 in climb by far,(mine is STOL equipped with MT prop and VGs, so its even a better performer than a stock 182, scenery not impressed at all, are there add ons like ORBX for Xplane 11?

 

Initial impressions not good, although the flight model does fell nice, seems waay too powerful.

[kpan 8]

The demo only has scenery from the Seattle area (I think).  You might try KBFI.  The default 172 shouldn't be taken seriously.  There is a good payware 172 though.

[YukonPete 586]

1 hour ago, motoadve said:

I tried it in an airstrip I fly my real 182, and outperforms my 182 in climb by far,(mine is STOL equipped with MT prop and VGs, so its even a better performer than a stock 182, scenery not impressed at all, are there add ons like ORBX for Xplane 11?

 

Initial impressions not good, although the flight model does fell nice, seems waay too powerful.

And hows the Default FSX aircraft and scenery? Don't judge a book by its cover!

[bonchie 2,305]

It's a 180hp 172 (not an older 150hp model) with one person in the seat by default. It's gonna climb around 900-1000FPM in standard conditions unless you are near max gross.

My real life 182P makes about the same.

As for not being impressed with the scenery, I don't know what to tell you. The scenery in the XP11 demo blows away just about anything you can get in FSX in detail, resolution, and accuracy. And to answer your question, no there's no Orbx. There's the free Ortho4XP everyone uses. It's high resolution photoreal + autogen overlays. 90% of the XP pics you see these days are using that.

[strider1 575]

3 hours ago, motoadve said:

I tried it in an airstrip I fly my real 182, and outperforms my 182 in climb by far,(mine is STOL equipped with MT prop and VGs, so its even a better performer than a stock 182, scenery not impressed at all, are there add ons like ORBX for Xplane 11?

 

Initial impressions not good, although the flight model does fell nice, seems waay too powerful.

 Yes the default 172 is a bit overpowered. I reached my climb altitude 15 seconds to fast according to the numbers. But it's default ! It can be tweaked in planemaker or the developer is pretty receptive to input.

The scenery is a lot better then default P3D/FSX scenery. 

No ORBX scenery but we have ortho4xp !!

If  you are not impressed then stick with FSX/P3D !  

[ryanbatc 12,816]

3 hours ago, motoadve said:

I tried it in an airstrip I fly my real 182, and outperforms my 182 in climb by far,(mine is STOL equipped with MT prop and VGs, so its even a better performer than a stock 182, scenery not impressed at all, are there add ons like ORBX for Xplane 11?

 

Initial impressions not good, although the flight model does fell nice, seems waay too powerful.

Yep, not gonna lie - to get a real experience expect to pony up - just like you did with P3D/FSX.  Though out of the box it can look better than default P3D or FSX, you'll need to spend some cash to get the quality addons etc.  There is however,  A LOT you can do with freeware like the amazing Ortho4xP (make your own photo tiles with autogen accurately placed etc), freeware sky/airport textures, freeware airports (search Mister X at .Org)

If you're looking for a payware starter plane - look at the AirfoilLabs C172 and the vFlyteAir PA30 twin Comanche.

https://www.airfoillabs.com/

http://www.vflyteair.com/

If you're into airliners check out the IXEG B737-300 (it's essentially like a PMDG aircraft)

If you do get into the sim, check out more planes like the amazing Aerobask Eclipse 550 v2, Epic Victory jet - http://www.aerobask.com/

The LES Saab 340 is a sublime regional turboprop - http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_info.php/take-command-saab-340a-p-100

Flight Factor 757 v2 - http://www.flightfactor.aero/boeing-757-screenshots

Carenado does XP10 releases, but they only have 1 or 2 XP11 native releases, I believe their Beech 1900 is out native and it looks excellent.  Unlike in FSX/P3D, Carenado aircraft are much more well done in XP.  http://www.carenado.com/CarSite/Portal/index.php?accion=product&correl=196

Helicopters?  Look no further than the new native XP11 Bell 407 from Dreamfoil - it's incredible - http://store-x-plane-org.3dcartstores.com/Bell-407-XP11_p_620.html

So yea, especially put a little time into the sim (give it at least two weeks - you've got to adjust!) - in no time you'll have a decent looking sim like so:

(Default aircraft with freeware ortho4xp generated scenery here)

(default scenery this shot)

(Freeware Gulfstream--- yes freeware)

(Payware LES Saab 340 - it's amazing)

(Payware Aerobask Pipistrel landing FREEWARE KLAX by Mister X)

 

[jcomm 5,890]

@motodave, 

would really like to use your R experience in the 182 regarding ground physics, when taxiing / taking off under a mild 5 knot direct or quarterly x-wind... 

Then get it up to, say, 10 knot..

What do you think ? And if you think it's way out of sync with reality, as I do, please wait for XP11.10 because Austin is working on updated propwash and ground physics for that release.

 

 

[bonchie 2,305]

Mine's a P model but the only difference between it and the R is the engine (higher TBO).

It's not secret that XPs ground physics are way off at this point.

If it's true that Austin is looking at fixing that in 11.10, that would be great.

[ORDspotter 3]

Those screenshots look stunning! Can't wait to get the sim

[swk1959 21]

19 hours ago, motoadve said:

I tried it in an airstrip I fly my real 182, and outperforms my 182 in climb by far,(mine is STOL equipped with MT prop and VGs, so its even a better performer than a stock 182, scenery not impressed at all, are there add ons like ORBX for Xplane 11?

 

Initial impressions not good, although the flight model does fell nice, seems waay too powerful.

not impressed? how did you ever put up with fsx? there are plenty of scenery available, a lot of them far superior to ORBX, the major difference is quite a few are free, with a little time and effort the sim looks amazing

[motoadve 49]

Had Xplane 10, Prepar 3D with ORBX which I like.

Was expecting a better Xplane 11 not an overpowered 172 , that you notice in the first take off.

And so so scenery.

Im not trying to ruin someone else's experince, Im glad Xplane 11 has a demo, maybe next update will be better.

FSX I dont have.

[Murmur 3,941]

20 hours ago, motoadve said:

Initial impressions not good, although the flight model does fell nice, seems waay too powerful.

I cross-checked with a C172S manual ( https://www.gaceflyingclub.com/Member Download/172S Skyhawk Information Manual Searchable.pdf  , page 130), and the numbers I get in X-Plane seem pretty close. For example, I can climb at around 700 fpm max, at 2000 ft pressure altitude, and at max gross weight (2550 lbs), exactly like the manual states. Don't see how that is "waay too powerful".

In any case, do you judge P3D by the accuracy of its default aircrafts? You must be the first simmer in the community to do that!

[ryanbatc 12,816]

1 hour ago, motoadve said:

Had Xplane 10, Prepar 3D with ORBX which I like.

Was expecting a better Xplane 11 not an overpowered 172 , that you notice in the first take off.

And so so scenery.

Im not trying to ruin someone else's experince, Im glad Xplane 11 has a demo, maybe next update will be better.

FSX I dont have.

As I said - give it a fair shake- at least a week to get things setup - 

im still tweaking P3D v4 and I've been in since v2

you can't honestly form your entire opinion off a few tries of the demo - I did that with XP10 and almost quit it for good.

[tonywob 4,768]

Agree with Murmur here. You are comparing the default sim, scenery and aircraft to P3D with payware scenery and aircraft. For what you get out of the box in XP11, it's a bargain in comparison. There are problems with the ground physics and flight models, but for default it's not bad at all. The sim just like P3D has a learning curve, but IMO you'll get much much more bang-for-buck in X-Plane than you will in P3D.

...but anyway it seems the OP has already made up his mind before this topic was even posted, so no amount of pretty screenshots or anything else is going to work at this point.

[sd_flyer 6,034]

Well, many people - many opinions. I own 172P, I used to own 182F.  I'm very impressed with XP11 :)