FS2004 or X-Plane? Or both?

[Guest cliffie1931]

Is there anybody "out there" with experience of both FS2004 AND the current version of X-Plane who would care to comment on the comparison between these two programmes?I've been flying Microsoft's Sim since it's inception as well as the early versions of X-Plane. Eventually I dropped X-Plane but have now decided to give it another try as there have been vast improvements; most notably in the scenery.Cliff

[kerosene31 349]

Try the demo:http://www.x-plane.com/demo.html

[Guest cliffie1931]

Thanks for the suggestion Craig but I know X-Plane pretty well. However my last flights were with Version 7 and it's now into Version 8 which I've ordered again.I was hoping for a comparison by someone knowing both Sims even better than me. The discussion could have been an interesting one.Cliff

[Guest Jimbofly]

I've got the demo of X-Plane 8 and I'm fairly certain the flight realism is generally greater in X-Plane. HOWEVER some aircraft in FS9 are modelled extremely well and fly very similar to their real World counterparts. Two examples are the RealAir Spit and Decathlon.As long as you fly within the envelope in FS9 you can generally be sure of good flight realism from well-modelled aircraft. If you want realistic flight performance beyond the flight envelope (say if you want to practise advanced aerobatics) then x-plane is the way to go. I still don't find the scenery graphics of x-plane anywhere near on par with FS9, and IMO the scenery is a major part of the feeling of immersion you get from a sim.James

[Guest Boogie]

I have FS2004 and X-Plane 8. I really wanted to like X-Plane, but rarely use it now. Some people say that the flight model is better than FS and some say that the gauges are better. However, with the latest aircraft for FS (e.g. from RealAir) I think that the flight model in FS can be as good as X-Plane, despite the fact that the method of calculation of flight characteristics (a file full of variables) is perhaps less realistic than the method in X-Plane, which tries to calculate how each aircraft will fly. As for gauges, again the latest aircraft for FS now have gauges that are just as fluid as X-Plane (at least on my system), and certainly more varied (and, I believe, more realistic).Otherwise, the environments in which you fly are so much more detailed in FS, and there is so much more choice of add-ons, all of which improve the experience.One of the features of X-Plane that I was particularly interested in was the ability to build or modify aircraft and see how they fly without creating a flight model, simulating building a real aircraft. However, I found X-Plane to be extremely user unfriendly and have never managed to use this feature, although no doubt I could have succeeded , with some perseverance.Having said all of the above, I know there are still many people out the who swear by X-Plane, so if you like it why not use both, if you have enough time available!Happy flying,Boogie.

[BobP 56]

The gauge refresh rates and physics of motion (very fluid) are much better in X-Plane. And there are many technical issues which X-Plane clearly exceeds FS9. However for me, none of that makes any difference because of the endless tinkering by the developer.As long as you understand the genius developer is absolutely unencumbered by the impact his revisions have on users. At first look there is a long list of third party aircraft and accessories available. But they are version specific and the add-ons you own now will not work with a new revision. Because of the developers decision to ignore the user base and maintain compatibility (that would require more time and work), there are few developers willing to invest in quality add-ons that have short lives. IMHO it is an excellent platform. And it will never mature for the simulation masses as long as the developer refuses to respect compatibility between revisions. Bob.....

[LAdamson 240]

> HOWEVER some>aircraft in FS9 are modelled extremely well and fly very>similar to their real World counterparts. Two examples are the>RealAir Spit and Decathlon.>> If you want realistic flight performance beyond the>flight envelope (say if you want to practise advanced>aerobatics) then x-plane is the way to go. Actually, you were more correct the first time around! :D If you want advanced aerobatics, then stick with the RealAir's for FS9. X-Plane doesn't have near the rudder authority for slips, knife edge, hammerheads, tailslides, or hammerheads, that the RealAir aircraft do. X-Plane won't spin with any realism either.L.Adamson

[mnmon 0]

I used x-plane for a LOOONG time, but as mentioned above Austin's business sense and ego finally got the best of me. Went over to FLY and was happy with it, but we know where that ended up. Iused FS up until about 1994 then the switch to x-plane. I'm very happy with FS now with regard to the environment and the add-ons are fantastic. I am still not happy with the flight models; x-plane will do that to you :-) I even tinker with many of the payware aircraft I have because I don't like some characteristics. But, all in all, I can't ever see going back to x-plane. I do check out Austin's site every now and then just to keep up on what is happening. Mike

[victorwest2 0]

FS2004 or X-Plane?FSX!!:-hah

[Murmur 3,941]

>I've got the demo of X-Plane 8 and I'm fairly certain the>flight realism is generally greater in X-Plane. HOWEVER some>aircraft in FS9 are modelled extremely well and fly very>similar to their real World counterparts. Two examples are the>RealAir Spit and Decathlon.>>As long as you fly within the envelope in FS9 you can>generally be sure of good flight realism from well-modelled>aircraft. If you want realistic flight performance beyond the>flight envelope (say if you want to practise advanced>aerobatics) then x-plane is the way to go. I still don't find>the scenery graphics of x-plane anywhere near on par with FS9,>and IMO the scenery is a major part of the feeling of>immersion you get from a sim.>>JamesI agree with James.When out of the envelope, X-Plane superior modeling comes out.For example, FS9 fails to appropriate model asymmetric thrust conditions, in particular near or below VMC. Also, windmilling props modeling is very poor in FS9.Modeling of prop slipstream on tail surfaces is highly superior in X-Plane.X-Plane flight model works at a higher frequency, so it is not subject to instabilities during high dynamic maneuvers (in FS9, I've experienced them e.g. with RealAirSF260 and helicopters).Regarding spins, the author of X-Plane has been tinkering with spin dynamics in the latest versions, now they're better (although probbaly default a/c's need to be re-tuned). I've been able to do hammerheads and tailslides with X-Plane.Helicopter modeling is simple not comparable between the two (also due to the non-existent props/rotor modeling of FS9). X-Plane copters really feel like they're "soaring". Trying autorotations in X-Plane is a dream.Weather effects (turbulence, downbursts, ice) are more challenging and dangerous in X-Plane. Extreme variations of friction with runway conditions (dry, wet, ice) is modeled. Aquaplaning on wet runways is modeled, as well.For all the rest (scenery, AI, complex add-ons availability) FS9 obviously wins hands down. However, there are several developers who produce nice GA a/c's for X-Plane.Marco

[georgetyrrell 7]

What about the comparison in fluidity? Like are there the same stutter problems reported, plateau airports, or any other problems that fill the pages here at the forum?George Tyrrell

[Murmur 3,941]

>What about the comparison in fluidity? Like are there the>same stutter problems reported, plateau airports, or any other>problems that fill the pages here at the forum?>George TyrrellApart from problems with specific users, X-Plane is much more stutter-free. Gauges are smoother as well. On the other hand though, probably FS9 has better average FPS than X-Plane, when scenery complexity is similar. However you can try the demo and see by yourself.Marco

[Guest cliffie1931]

Thanks Marco...and all the others that put in their pennyworth...for the interesting comments.Marco I was intrigued by your comment that "Trying autorotations in X-Plane is a dream"It will be a few weeks before my new set of X-Plane DVDs arrive but as I cannot recall an autorotation facility in my older versions please tell me where to access it. Till now I've found copters too finicky and difficult to control in FS9. Cliff

[LAdamson 240]

>X-Plane flight model works at a higher frequency, so it is not>subject to instabilities during high dynamic maneuvers (in>FS9, I've experienced them e.g. with RealAirSF260 and>helicopters).Please explain....I get more sim time with the RealAir SF260 than anything else. I've also flown the real Marchetti SF260. I just happen to like sliding canopy's and good simulated aerobatic flight dynamics. I don't have a clue of what you're trying to explain.And if you do happen to fly the RealAir SF260 or Spitfire, it would put an end to claims, that X-Plane always has more fluid gauges. :( L.Adamson

[Murmur 3,941]

>Thanks Marco...and all the others that put in their>pennyworth...for the interesting comments.>>Marco I was intrigued by your comment that "Trying>autorotations in X-Plane is a dream">>It will be a few weeks before my new set of X-Plane DVDs>arrive but as I cannot recall an autorotation facility in my>older versions please tell me where to access it. >>Till now I've found copters too finicky and difficult to>control in FS9. >>CliffWell, that's a problem since in X-Plane IMHO copters are more difficult to control at first :). Maybe, to begin, you should try to select "Auto coordinate anti-torque in helos if no rudder axis selected" (in joystick-equipment menu), especially if you don't have rudder pedals. It's a big helper.Also, make sure you have smooth and steady FPS (I'd say >40 FPS), since copters want smooth control.There is no autorotation facility, just shut your engine while you're flying. :)Marco