Nothing was mentioned about OPs intended usage either. If he's training to be a pilot then just go ahead and splurge for the pro version of Prepar3d. To me thats a no brainer particularly as a320 was mentioned. If however the simming is for fun then fsx on sale is an absolute no brainer to see what you can do. I don't know anything about xp but you can't really go wrong there especially with a free demo. It's a shame but it seems we are not all equally open minded here with recommendations. I run a high end seriously upgraded version of FSX and it looks and runs great. I can't run Prepar3d as I take licensing, not the sim itself, very seriously. 

FSX, Prepar3d and XP are ALL great sims, you will enjoy any of them plus there are huge amounts of support or all 3 here and elsewhere. 

8 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

2 hours ago, fta2017 said:

simple lua script fixes for the sim

Thank you, glad you at-least admitted their is a problem that requires a manual fix.

Why have all these "Lua fixes" for what should be or have the option to in the sim itself? Always baffled me.

4 minutes ago, tonywob said:

I actually didn't enjoy the AFL C172 too much as it had numerous problems for me and was rather heavy in performance and once the default Cessna 172 appeared with X-Plane 11, I actually didn't find myself using the AFL one too much because I found the default one better and lighter. Things of course may have improved, but I've not updated it for some time. I actually enjoy going slow over nice looking scenery, so I like the slower GA aircraft. What I'd really love to see is a well made Cessna 182 or 210, as these are both my favourites, and I'm sure they'll come eventually. I do enjoy JustFlight's Cessna 152, but it's a little too basic and slow for me. There is a large range of quality GA aircraft, but you are correct in that there is a lack of the traditional older and slower stuff if you're not a fan of Carenado or the default.

I guess we all look for something different in what we consider well simulated/modelled. With the A2A planes, I never bothered with the maintenance model and walk around modes, although I did like the plane reacting badly if I mistreated it. As an example, earlier I fired up the default Cessna 172, placed in Avitab with the real world Seattle VFR charts and some airport charts, and flew around quite happily as if I had an iPad with me in the cockpit. Avitab, the plande and the charts didn't cost me anything, and it was much more than I was able to achieve in FSX/P3D with quite a lot of addons loaded in.

 

 

The AFL C172 is still pretty hard on frames.  I do enjoy the default C172 with the REP addon.  Yes a guy can achieve a very detailed and realistic experience for next to nothing in XP. 

- Default C172 with REP

- Active Sky and some freeware replacement sky colors.

- Freeware airport replacement textures.

- Free ortho scenery.  I think XP does a much better job rendering ortho.

- Most default airports and autogen are done quite well.  MUCH better then FSX/P3D

For a similar experience in P3D where I normally fly would cost an additional $150 easy.  The default P3D scenery textures, land class, lighting, autogen, and airports need updated desperately.

 

 

6 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

 The default P3D scenery textures, land class, lighting, autogen, and airports need updated desperately.

I wanted to add that ORBX has a freeware airport package that vastly improves a lot of the default airports. 

30 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

- Most default airports and autogen are done quite well.  MUCH better then FSX/P3D 

Not sure about that. I'm still out on the fence about that using FS Economy and smaller airports. I have found ..P3D is much better at having terminals and complete airports for GA . 50/50 use of XP11 and P3dv4.4.

1 hour ago, mpw8679 said:

I have been burned to many times by Carenado to even consider buying from them.  It’s just hard to go for anything else after you have experienced AFL or A2A.  I am really looking forward to the AFL King Air.  I’m sure it will be well done.

FYI, Carenado in X-Plane isn't the same as in FSX/P3D. They develop for FSX/P3D first, because that's where the largest market is. Then the 3D model is ported over to XP, and that's about all. Maybe the sounds too, I'm not sure. The flight model and systems modeling are done basically from scratch for the XP version. Some are better than others, with the more recent releases being very good in my opinion. In XP they can take advantage of recent developments in the sim, like the new Free N2 (PT-6) turboprop models we just got in version 11.30.

The old adage that Carenado looks great but doesn't have good flight or systems modeling is no longer true. At least on the X-Plane side.

Trying not to be too much of an XP advocate here, and if the OP is more interested in airliners than anything else, they may well end up with P3D. On the General Aviation side though, I think XP holds its own pretty well, and just keeps getting better with the continuing advances Laminar is making in engine and aerodynamic modeling.

32 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

FYI, Carenado in X-Plane isn't the same as in FSX/P3D. They develop for FSX/P3D first, because that's where the largest market is. Then the 3D model is ported over to XP, and that's about all. Maybe the sounds too, I'm not sure. The flight model and systems modeling are done basically from scratch for the XP version. Some are better than others, with the more recent releases being very good in my opinion. In XP they can take advantage of recent developments in the sim, like the new Free N2 (PT-6) turboprop models we just got in version 11.30.

The old adage that Carenado looks great but doesn't have good flight or systems modeling is no longer true. At least on the X-Plane side.

Trying not to be too much of an XP advocate here, and if the OP is more interested in airliners than anything else, they may well end up with P3D. On the General Aviation side though, I think XP holds its own pretty well, and just keeps getting better with the continuing advances Laminar is making in engine and aerodynamic modeling.

Thanks for the info.  What models would u say are better?

1 hour ago, Adrian123 said:

Not sure about that. I'm still out on the fence about that using FS Economy and smaller airports. I have found ..P3D is much better at having terminals and complete airports for GA . 50/50 use of XP11 and P3dv4.4.

I’m sure it depends on location.  From what I see there is no comparison.  With the P3D defaults you are still stuck with the same old runway/taxiway textures unless there is some freeware replacements available.  The XP replacement textures available on the org are very well done.  

Again "replacements". Out of the box, P3D have more complete airports. I don't believe that is debatable. Im flying Xplane now so its no degrading one or the other. Just a fact having flown all over the US 1000's of hours.

The airports you have in P3D I believe are autogenerated (and the same ones from FSX), so they look realistic enough if you don't know them in real-life or don't care, but they are quite believable. The X-Plane ones, if they have been added to the airport gateway by users generally are more accurate and have buildings in approximately the correct place etc, but they're still generic. I've just corrected and submitted one to the scenery gateway that had a runway in the wrong place, so it's pretty easy to fix up and airport and submit it for inclusion into a future update. I think European airports are in a better state, especially places like Germany and the UK which have active communities submitting airports, but the US seems to still be behind (probably because there are a lot more of them :-))

2 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Nothing huh, fire up a PMDG 747 at Toronto (with all options enabled) with Orbx FTX NA OpenLC and Vector and HiFi weather and tell me if you even get to see the airport before it OOMs.

N.B, I said for me :-). I don't care for PMDG stuff, jets, or large airports, so for me, there really is nothing I couldn't do in FSX that I can't in P3D and get the same experience. Don't get me wrong, I loved flying around the PNW and California and landing at little airfields etc, but I can still do this in FSX with the same scenery. Luckily I'm not charged again by ORBX, but I was expected to repurchase my planes for double the cost and this put me off A2A. I do have P3D v4.4 for scenery development, and I use it now and then to check out new stuff and I do like the sim, but I don't think it's worth the asking price.

2 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

What issues are there with the Camera system? 

I like to set and save views and assign them to various keys, I can't do this without a paid addon (Ezdok etc). Unless you can tell me otherwise, I've not found a way to do this. 

 

4 hours ago, FreeBird(Josh) said:

Where are the moderators. 

Why? Everyone just needs to stop pointing fingers.  I don’t know what everyone’s beef with Rob is about.  Most everything he has mentioned is accurate.

1 hour ago, Adrian123 said:

Again "replacements". Out of the box, P3D have more complete airports. I don't believe that is debatable. Im flying Xplane now so its no degrading one or the other. Just a fact having flown all over the US 1000's of hours.

I do not see the issue including free “replacements” in the comparison.  It takes a whole 5 minutes to download and install.  I also see no issue including the ORBX freeware airports in P3D. That brings the comparison much closer.  I will call a truce on the airports as I don’t think that we can have a valid comparison due to the vast number of airports.  I mostly fly in the Midwest Rocky Mountain regions.  The difference is quite staggering from airports I visit.  Kbil, kshr, kgcc, kcpr, kbzn, kgpi just to mention a few.  U might be correct that P3D has more complete airports but I will take quality over quantity any day of the week.

Here ya go Tony: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/530913-assign-cameradefinition002-to-keyboard-key/

Yep, default airports aren’t great in either product.

Still don’t know how saying “out of box” is better in XP is being negative ... but this is much the exact problem I see in many (not all) of the XP “exclusive” user base per the other thread on this with PMDG.

Its exhausting dealing with fanatics that refuse to acknowledge problems in their single platform of choice.  Issues exist in both platforms and I’ve acknowledged those issues in P3D and XP11 and AF2 and FSW and run into those issues daily ... look at some of the responses in this thread, “fix problem with a Lua Script” ... so there is a problem.  It’s like pulling teeth to get a platform fanatic admit there is a problem.

When I get input of problems from end users with P3D I report them to LM.  Why, because it makes for a better platform ... and change has come, with PBR support, hi res PR and LC terrain and much more.   

Sadly when one reports weakness in XP they immediately get attacked just like we see in this thread ... attacked without any accuracy at all.  

Problems get fixed when you admit there’s a problem rather than attacking users as not “valid” users.  XP11 needs proper seasonal support.  Because someone only wants to fly summer has no bearing at all on those that want proper season support.  It’s an XP weakness, getting that weakness address is a positive not a negative ... making excuses about hard drive space so therefore seasons aren’t going to be done ... come on, book of 1001 excuses.  Poll any flight simmer from any platform and ask them if they want seasons ... you know the answer as do I.  Orbx thread was clearly voted in favor of seasons.

And that’s were the XP user base fails their platform of choice ... admission of issues that need to be addressed.  And I’m NOT talking crazy expectations like max everything out and my FPS is low.

I admit P3Ds limitations and pass them on the developers.  That’s been a very positive process that has resulted in positive change.

Cheers, Rob

Edited January 13, 20197 yr by Guest

5 hours ago, tonywob said:

There are piles of quality GA addons for X-Plane. JustFlight's products are fantastic as is the xAviation's TBM 900 which is incredibly detailed. There is most of Carenado's catalogue (although they are a bit weak on systems), vFlyeAir, vSkylabs etc etc. Many have very high quality modelling and systems simulation. If you're not convinced at how detailed some of these are, then look on Youtube for videos of, e.g. The TBM 900 or JustFlight. There was a time I used to pine for my FSX A2A C172/C182 and the RXP units, but those days are gone now and I'm not missing it. Also, as previously mentioned, helicopters are top quality in X-Plane if this is the sort of GA flying that you like as well. Even the default Cessna 172 is fantastic and perfectly usable for IFR/VFR

Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't mean it should be locked. Nobody has said anything out of line yet.

Thanks for standing up for Xplane11 Tony.  I have found many good payware and freeware add-ons for the sim, and its default aircraft are very good.  Both sims have their place and people dissing one or the other have not fully invested time in one or the other.  Simming is like buying fine wine, you have to smell its aromas and see the hidden flavors underneath, you have to swirl the sims around a bit to release the flavor and sip them, not scarf them down (lol intended)....

John

23 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Its exhausting dealing with fanatics that refuse to acknowledge problems in their single platform of choice.  Issues exist in both platforms and I’ve acknowledged those issues in P3D and XP11 and AF2 and FSW and run into those issues daily ...

Well, if you're grouping me in this category then you likely have not read the numerous complaints and whining I do about missing features in X-Plane, mesh boundary limitations, glowing trees, bad water textures and lighting issues. No amount of complaining and begging the developers on my part has made any difference and I just have to accept what the sim is and try to work around these problems or ignore them. I'm not loyal to any sim and I'm the first to admit and complain X-Plane has lots of issues, just as does P3D etc.. 

28 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Sadly when one reports weakness in XP they immediately get attacked just like we see in this thread ... attacked without any accuracy at all.  

I see this in lots of places about P3D when someone mentions a weakness, so it's exactly the same the other way round. Either way, I don't think you were attacked in this instance. A user France89 covered your points and attempted to prove you wrong with what I thought was good information. The other things you stated are just personal opinions and experiences, some I agree with, others I don't. It would seem you are far more of a forgiving person than me, because as I said, I'd expect more from any simulator out of the box, especially at that price and its target market.

31 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

XP11 needs proper seasonal support.  Because someone only wants to fly summer has no bearing at all on those that want proper season support

I don't think we'll ever agree on this one. As already stated (and you can even download sceneries such as the Faroe Islands that have it), it isn't a weakness in the sim itself as it can do seasonal textures, it's just that nobody wants to do it, including LR. This is understandable, because if someone releases a winter seasonal Germany regional, but the payware airports remain with summer textures, it will look very weird. If P3D users want seasons in their sceneries, then they'll have to live with the requirement for more storage, however I don't think this solution is going to happen in X-Plane anytime soon, as the developers and addon developers are going down a completely different route.