motoadve

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 !  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

35454182072_40652ebedb_o.jpg

(Default aircraft with freeware ortho4xp generated scenery here)

34781181904_0205e44bba_o.jpg

(default scenery this shot)

35235778260_7f12490e17_o.jpg

34813560713_8b78c3e4d4_o.jpg

(Freeware Gulfstream--- yes freeware)

35583020936_967e00c96f_o.jpg

(Payware LES Saab 340 - it's amazing)

35235852980_aabfc1269c_o.jpg

(Payware Aerobask Pipistrel landing FREEWARE KLAX by Mister X)

34813618543_efe9a771dc_o.jpg

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! :ha:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will keep trying it, as I said its great that they make a demo, I stopped flying Xplane 10 a year ago, used to be my favorite , just started to get bored with it and like Prepar 3 D more.

 

With ORBX terrain , its so accurate its good to train to go to some real airstrips (backcountry ones)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always been my P.O. that if anybody posts a forum thread, with ...."convince me why I should buy this after the demo...", it's truly a redundant post.  They are really posting, that they won't fly the sim, because of no personal wow-factor experienced,...and are not looking for opinions, as to why they should.  If someone for themselves does not see a user-case model at the first...than the entire post seems to me, to be redundant.

 

 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the demo for a few weeks.  About gave up on XP11 till I figured out how to get rid of the haze.  I was not impressed with the demo.

I've played sims since Flight Sim 2.1 on a 3.5" floppy.  Loved FS9, but that damned money pit FSX burned me out with the constant tweaking and gave up on the hobby about 4 years ago.  I had P3Dv2.5 and never even installed it.... A few months ago I finally installed P3Dv2.5, and realized I really do miss the hobby and purchased P3Dv4.

A few days ago my wife surprised me with Aerofly FS2 for my birthday, tried it for 70 minutes and was bored to tears, so I refunded it and got XP11... My wife hasn't seen anything but the back of my head since I got XP11.  I can't leave it alone :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that for anyone who really wants a good opinion about what a sim can do they should go and watch some Youtube videos. I'd avoid the mainstream streamers such as Froogle, Matt Davies etc, as these channels can be very biased, and instead just look at what users are posting (There are some amazing videos being produced in X-Plane, AFS and P3D, and most will list what addons they used). 

...but I agree with Mitch. Nobody can convince somebody who has already convinced themselves. If your current sim works for you, then stick with it (Or install both and cheat on your wife :biggrin:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sesquashtoo said:

It's always been my P.O. that if anybody posts a forum thread, with ...."convince me why I should buy this after the demo...", it's truly a redundant post.  They are really posting, that they won't fly the sim, because of no personal wow-factor experienced,...and are not looking for opinions, as to why they should.  If someone for themselves does not see a user-case model at the first...than the entire post seems to me, to be redundant.

 

 

It's a borderline troll kind of post. Trying to change someone opinion is futile. He should stick with P3D and be happy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, how do you get rid of the haze?  I have not figured that out.  But then again when I look out the windows on any of my real life commercial flights, XP11 is the closest to the real thing to me (unless my vision is flaw and distorted).  I am not a real world pilot, so any reference to real world flight behavior to me has little value.  What I do value is how is the sim flight experience gives me as to what I can feel being in the passenger seat of the real life commercial flight, so that's what I use to compare.  I have been an FSX user, P3D v1 to 3.4, recently tried out P3Dv4 but asked for a refund while I wait for the final cost of that option.  To me the whole FSX and its derivatives are just not real enough for me, plus the microstutters drove me nuts.  My system is pretty old and handle XP11 just fine.  I can't say the same about P3D franchise though, as I can't keep up with the PC HW arm race.  Moving to P3Dv4 means hundred dollars more of add-ons upgrade and license, then thousands more in HW cost.  What about the thousands I have spent todate for FSX/P3D?  And why should I spend even more? It's becoming absurd.  It's kinda bizarre that the XPlane forum keeps being visited by folks that must declare that XPlane falls short.  I don't see this in FSX or P3D forum.  I think XP11 simplified the hurdle to get used to the XPlane way quite alot, yet people still complains, almost like they have to post to convince them to not ever try XP again!  LOL ,Peace people, take your favorite sim and stick with it :anonymose:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anxu00 said:

Hmm, how do you get rid of the haze?

That's a good question. I'm a major Microsoft f-a-n boy from way back, and I love my Prepar3d v4, but lately I've been using X-plane 11, and starting to think it is a serious contender. So much so that I'm planning on extending my next scenery projects to include XP11.

To me, although it didn't initially grab me compared to P3D, it does make for a hell of a realistic flying experience, including the natural view out the window. But I am very much aware that some places I fly are renowned for beautiful crisp and clear weather, and I've never really seen anything like this in X-plane, it always seems filtered through the haze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toprob said:

But I am very much aware that some places I fly are renowned for beautiful crisp and clear weather, and I've never really seen anything like this in X-plane, it always seems filtered through the haze.

I asked about sky in an earlier post here "XP11 Noob, Questions" and got a good answer.  As for visibility distance, it can be set with a slider, to me 25 miles looks about right for VFR.

This online manual does a nice job of explaining settings and sliders to get a smooth running experience (also confirmed my suspicions that I need to upgrade my GPU).

http://x-plane.com/manuals/desktop/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, toprob said:

That's a good question. I'm a major Microsoft f-a-n boy from way back, and I love my Prepar3d v4, but lately I've been using X-plane 11, and starting to think it is a serious contender. So much so that I'm planning on extending my next scenery projects to include XP11.

To me, although it didn't initially grab me compared to P3D, it does make for a hell of a realistic flying experience, including the natural view out the window. But I am very much aware that some places I fly are renowned for beautiful crisp and clear weather, and I've never really seen anything like this in X-plane, it always seems filtered through the haze.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Loose Rudder said:

 

i've just tried the demo and have been left equally un-impressed. It feels like a kids arcade game. The problem is that to get acceptable performance in XP11 it seems, you need to either have a GTX 1080TI 64 Gb vram loaded GPU, or accept horrible low fps. 10 if your'e lucky. Turning down all the sliders and you're left with 20 fps at best but with mush to look at.

Using a 3.5 ghz quad core and GTX 560, i get much better visuals with FSX (which I dislike) and better performance.  

 

 

You need to get a little realistic about your expectations. You are using a graphics card that was released over five years ago that has the absolute minimum requirement of VRAM and you are surprised it plays an 11 year old game better than a modern, few months old 64 bit simulation. I run X-Plane 11 beautifully with an i5 4690K clocked to 4.3ghz, Nvidia 970 and 16GB Ram. It utterly blows FSX out of the water both on visuals, performance and dynamics. Moral of the story, you want a modern sim get modern hardware.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.