Tired of FSX Tweaks & FPS Woes?

[Murmur 3,940]

>All in all, I'm glad FSX isn't X-Plane.Me too I'm glad X-Plane is not FSX. At least something on which we agree! :(Marco

[Guest Jimbofly]

I agree.And FSX runs like a dream for me, although I do turn autogen off. However the textures and sky in FSX are so good you don't actually need autogen.Yes I've seen the screenies and I've even played x-plane and imho FSX has much better visuals, and definitely better flying and looking aircraft! (and water)James

[MD83 1]

>And FSX runs like a dream for me, although I do turn autogen>off.A-ha!!!!!

[Guest B1900 Mech]

X-Plane has virtual cockpits?

[LAdamson 240]

>X-Plane has virtual cockpits?Very few, and much simpler.

[MD83 1]

It can't be that bad:"Fidelity Flight Simulation has obtained FAA approval (documented here) to train pilots towards their COMMERCIAL CERTIFICATE, INSTRUMENT RATING, and AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT CERTIFICATE. This training is done in a full-motion simulator, using X-Plane as the simulator software!This is the first time ANY consumer-priced software has EVER gotten this certification."http://x-plane.com/FTD.html

[LAdamson 240]

>>And FSX runs like a dream for me, although I do turn>autogen>>off.>>A-ha!!!!!So do I for a lot of flights around my city/mountain areas. The photo-real city textures just happen to look a lot better without cartoon buildings stuck on top. These texture tiles are far improved over FS9. L.Adamson

[Murmur 3,940]

>This is the first time ANY consumer-priced software has EVER>gotten this certification."FAA approval has little significance with regard to the overall realism of the flight models. It's basically just marketing hype.The big problem of X-Plane is that it requires precise flight controls ( or, even better, Precision Flight Controls http://www.flypfc.com/ :( ) to bring the most and let its flight models shine. It's probably been designed with those in mind and loses something with home pc controls.It's still my preference though.Marco

[Mike T 208]

"...the default aircraft in the new FSX, do in fact beat the defaults in X-Plane, flight dynamic wise, by quite a bit,..."WOW! All the X-Plane site does is extoll the fact that their aircraft tires are modeled to the exact specifications of racing dynamics (can you say OCD?) and each wing is modeled to exacting laminar fluid dyanamic properties and then a currently licensed real world pilot, who flies very frequently, comes along and says the DEFUALT FSX aircraft are better? That has to be actually the saddest thing I've ever heard!I've thought about X-Plane and it seems all the focus has been spent on calculating the drag coefficient of each bolt in relation to the relative airflow's hydrodynamic properties during light to moderate mist and then you step into the virtual flightdeck and you reach under the ASI to control the throttles?AND THEN, I loaded up X-Plane's 767 took off at full throttle, dropped full flaps and gear and the aircraft flew nose down 30 degrees at the 400 kts. I promply erased it from my HD and defragged to reclaim my contiguous disk space :-lol

[Guest Len]

Hmmm Paul. Time to take a look at X-Plane again. Thanks for the link.

[Guest Len]

HA HAHAH AHAHA HA HA...clears throat...Interesting how you'll spend hours and days tweaking FS but a few minutes with X-Plane and you're into hysterics when you can't get it to run the way you want. Go figure.

[Murmur 3,940]

>WOW! All the X-Plane site does is extoll the fact that their>aircraft tires are modeled to the exact specifications of>racing dynamics (can you say OCD?) and each wing is modeled to>exacting laminar fluid dyanamic properties and then a>currently licensed real world pilot, who flies very>frequently, comes along and says the DEFUALT FSX aircraft are>better? That has to be actually the saddest thing I've ever>heard!Flight model and flight dynamics are two different things. Even if X-Plane flight model is a bit more sophisticated, this does not automatically yield that X-Plane a/c's flight dynamics are better than MSFS a/c's flight dynamics.Ground dynamics is, again, another different thing. I can tell you that X-Plane ground dynamics are vastly superior to MSFS. This, along with the more sophisticated FM, results (for example) in a very different handling of taildraggers on ground. The other day I read all the articles on http://www.taildraggers.com/, and have been amazed on how closely what's written there matched with my experience of taildraggers in X-Plane. Again, of course, you can certainly find a poor designed taildragger that performs poorly.And then there is the helicopter modeling, that is several order of magnitudes more sophisticated. Here (more than is the case for fixed wings) the importance of having professional flight controls, becomes unfortunately paramount.>AND THEN, I loaded up X-Plane's 767 took off at full throttle,>dropped full flaps and gear and the aircraft flew nose down 30>degrees at the 400 kts.If you judged its flight model solely by that test (I can do the same in MSFS, though), you don't have probably the knowledge to appreciate it, and your decision to stay away from it is very wise.Please note, I respect MSFS and his users and I'm not bashing it. Everyone's free to choose one or the other (or both), and each of the two has its pros and cons. Mine was just a defense of X-Plane in response to Mike's attack.Marco

[LAdamson 240]

>>AND THEN, I loaded up X-Plane's 767 took off at full throttle,>dropped full flaps and gear and the aircraft flew nose down 30>degrees at the 400 kts. I promply erased it from my HD and>defragged to reclaim my contiguous disk space :-lol>:-lol

[Guest FxF3]

Please all you guy's that want X-plane go for it there is even a Forum for it. I tried the Demo you can to just crank it up then tell me asbout FPS. Xplanes Aircraft look well you will see for yourself.A year from now this forum will be singing the joy's of FSX even from some of you that think you hate it now. Same thing happened with FS9.

[LAdamson 240]

>Ground dynamics is, again, another different thing. I can tell>you that X-Plane ground dynamics are vastly superior to MSFS.>This, along with the more sophisticated FM, results (for>example) in a very different handling of taildraggers on>ground. The other day I read all the articles on>http://www.taildraggers.com/, and have been amazed on how>closely what's written there matched with my experience of>taildraggers in X-Plane. Again, of course, you can certainly>find a poor designed taildragger that performs poorly.>In reality, how well a simulated model raises or lowers it's tail from prop blast with brakes locked, isn't all that important. Where FSX doesn't until about 20kias, X-Plane over amplifies the effect.Numerous MSFS taildraggers, especially some done by RealAir Simulations, that I'm familiar with have excellent flight dynamics when it comes to wheel or 3-point landings; and the results of keeping approach speeds in check, and so on. The RealAir Spitfire is a fantastically fun taildragging airplane to land over and over, just to get it perfect, without bounce. Just requires good throttle management!L.Adamson