I had a chance to play around with the demo of X-Plane today and I have to say that I was impressed. Sure, it does has it's shortcomings in respect to ATC and AI traffic - however I did learn that you can actually import FS9 scenery and traffic.Scenery:The graphics in the 'demo area' were not as nicely textured, but I found the scenery overall more crisp and clear for flying. Airports can be more easily located. The autogen scenery also looked overall more polished and crisp. Overall framerates were smooth and never dropped lower than 20fps with almost all options maxed. However, even the full version ships on 7(!) DVDs, I understand that seasonal textures are missing, which is a big minus, but the scenery is truly VFR with accurate roads, railways and rivers (although with some degrees of error). However, X-Plane does support sloped and therefore more realistic runways.External models:FS wins, but I still found the default X-Plane aircraft detailed enough for me. After all, I am here to fly, not to look at my aircraft. Again, a nice touch is the addition of weather effects to the runways, ie. if you take-off from a wet runways, the spray from the thurst is visible and you can also 'feel' the hydro-planing.Panels and Gauges:The default panels are not a nice as their MSFS equivalents, but the gauges were incredibly smooth, crisp and easy to read. But forget about a VC. Actually I found flying without the VC in X-Plane even more comfortable, because you can literally switch to a 45, 90, 135, 180 angle with a keypress instantanously and without the lag of re-rendering the textures.Flight Dynamics:Here is where X-Plane really starts to shine. I have never seen better flight dynamics before. From gyro drift, propeller displacement, turbulences, stalls, spins, you name it - the dynamics are just more unforgiving and feel 'more real'. For example, take-off with the C172 - when you apply full throttle the plane also immediately drifts to the left, while in MSFS it just lags too much behind, so you can feel the left-turning tendency at around 35kts.Weather:Overall very nice and realistic. I actually found it almost more realistic than ASv6 weather without constantly having to tweak FSUIPC settings for visibility. I cannot really comment about cloud textures yet, but it was good enough for me.ATC:MSFS wins hands down. The X-Plane ATC is text-based and uses the MS Speech API with the robotic "Mike" voice sey and is fairly limited. However, a nice touch of the X-Plane ATC is that you can turn on/off runway/airport lights via CTAF.Flight Planning:The X-Plane flight planner is excellent. It's less a flight planner in the traditional sense than a nice representation of sectional charts, airways and terrain. Very nice.Sounds:I would say that both sims are on par. I have only tried the default X-Plane planes, but I found it to be a nice touch that the noise in the cockpit seems to vary with changing airspeed - again, it just 'feels' more realistic.I think that X-Plane has a serious shot of becoming a real FS contender. I cannot put my finger on it, but it feels more real. Additionally, X-Plane has become an FAA-approved training simulation, so if you are picky about flight dynamics or want to practise for your PPL or IFR rating, X-Plane is supposedly the way to go, if you can pass on a virtual cockpit and overlook some shortcomings when it comes to scenery and ATC. I have to say that I was really impressed with the demo and just wanted to share my first impressions.Pat

>Flight Dynamics:>Here is where X-Plane really starts to shine. I have never>seen better flight dynamics before. From gyro drift, propeller>displacement, turbulences, stalls, spins, you name it - the>dynamics are just more unforgiving and feel 'more real'. For>example, take-off with the C172 - when you apply full throttle>the plane also immediately drifts to the left, while in MSFS>it just lags too much behind, so you can feel the left-turning>tendency at around 35kts.>FWIW, some X-Plane models have an excellent left drift on the takeoff roll, but some just don't. It's the same with MSFS, as some are incredable & some are not. I've been picky about this issue for years.RealAir products for MSFS, simply win out over X-Plane in the spin, slip, and aerobatic catagory. X-Plane doesn't come close.My overall best "feel" models, since I like to kick a lot of rudder, still go to the RealAir SF260 & Spit. If X-Plane someday gets close to these, then I'd be happy......I guess.L.Adamson --- own both sims.

> Additionally, X-Plane has become an FAA-approved>training simulation, so if you are picky about flight dynamics>or want to practise for your PPL or IFR rating, X-Plane is>supposedly the way to go, if you can pass on a virtual cockpit>and overlook some shortcomings when it comes to scenery and>ATC. >It's well known, that the X-Plane FAA approved trainer has little to do with flight dynamics. And the $120,000.00 trainer uses an older "6" version of X-Plane. MSFS, is also used with some FAA approved trainers. Mainly, this is just marketing hype.Personally, I don't care which sim someone uses for a PPL, or IFR rating. They both have their positives and negatives. It's always been that way.

Best flight "simulator" I have played is IL-2 FB, possible the original IL-2.

> I cannot put my finger on it, but it feels more>real. I've heard this statement before. It's because it's generally more "fluid" in motion. Has little to do with actual senses of flight, but it's very pleasing.

I was an X-Plane customer until v7. Why I stopped using and upgrading it to v8? It's the lack of professionally made airplanes (payware), gauges/instruments (the "FMC" is not even comparable to a GNS-XLS), airports,... and the complete absence of complex systems simulation (e.g. airliner overhead panel, FCU/MCP etc.).The sim itself I find superior to FS in many ways, but without support of 3rd party developers who produce add-ons and planes (esp. the heavy iron) on FS9's level (PMDG, LDS,...), X-plane keeps playing only a niche role IMHO and will never be a real competitor. A pity, somehow...Andreas

Agreed...bt