FSX vs. X-Plane 8.5 + Global Scenery

[Guest Szybowiec]

Hi everyone,This is my first post here on this website. Currently, I am using FS2004 on a machine with P4 2.8 Ghz, 512 mb RAM, 64 mb video card. This setup works perfectly with FS2004 and i can get great FPS. I am very interested in upgrading to a new flight sim and the two best options i hear so far are FSX and X-Plane 8.5 with the new global scenery. Ive searched many forums to get plain comparisons between the two and the only ones ive found were pretty much flame-fests with people saying "FSX IS SO GOOD! X-PLANE 8.5 IS CRAP!" and "X-PLANE 8.5 IS MUCH BETTER THAN FSX" without even saying why. I am planning to receive a sport pilot certificate this summer and ive been flying FS2004 for the past few months. I am also planning to get a new laptop soon with these specs:Intel Core Duo 2 ghz2 gb ram256mb X1400 Video Cardall from dell. Now, to the question. Can someone please tell me which simulator is better, keeping in mind these specifications. I heard FSX demands top-of-the-line computers to run somewhat OK. Preferably, somebody with experience in both simulators. Also, keep in mind that I am talking about the 8.5 version of x-plane with the global scenery package, not version 7. I really liked FS2004 and I hear great things from these two simulators. Now which one to buy?Also, one question: Is it possible to install these simulators into an external harddrive and play it from there?

[Guest jcomm]

The only thing I can tell you right away is that xplane8.50+Glob Scenery runs perfectly from my 80GB External USB drive...I don't think the same applies to FSX, given the disk intensive app it is...Ah! I own both, and can't simply give up using one or the other... ;-)

[Geofa 108]

Both programs have free demos to try-best way to decide! "Better" really is always in the eye of the beholder. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

X-Plane's global scenery has mesh elevations with slightly better terrain data-points than FSX with added mesh scenery. However, no seasons, and no global scenery areas in latitudes such as Alaska. It's just a tradeoff. Buy both, as it's really a matter of "best at what", and keep FS2004 too.L.AdamsonAthlon 64 3800+/2GIG/Geforce 7600GS 256MB --- not top of the line!

[rjsagel 0]

Hello,I have them all - FS9, FSX and Xplane 8.5 (most current update via internet. These are my feelings (sim pilot only - no real experience)First - my system - AMD64 3500+ with 2 gigs of ram and two Nvidia 6800 in SLI mode. Two more computers in a small network. A rather large GOFLIGHT console and CH yoke and pedals. That's about it! Initial statement - I cannot run FSX very well.The GOFLIGHT and CH gear work on all setups. I use a joystick for helos.1. The best sim I have is my FS9 setup - runs like a dream at 40-50 FPS in all situations. I use TWEAKFPS for setup and I own a lot of addons that run great on this setup. 2. The FSX runs the worst on my system - I use TWEAKFPS for FSX and get 8 FPS at big airports and about 16 in VFR situations away from the big locations. I tried all forum tweaks and still have bad performance. The Tweakfps is a big help.3. The X-plane is a totally different animal - very realistic (sim experience) flight, adequate scenery and a lot of Freeware scenery addons for many airports. The visual aircraft models and cockpits are nowhere near the FS9 and FSX level. Far more simplified but adequate for my needs. IMHO the weather sim is very realistic - out of the box it updates from the internet and really looks good on my system.I found a pushback system for startup and it was free. There is no real ATC and no addons that I know of for its use. I use GOODWAY for flight planning and it loads flight plans into my setups.I only fly helos, single and twin engine aircraft in my sim now. Helos have become a passion for now and I really like the FS9 and FSX models. The X-plane download world of aircraft is very large and can be a great help in stocking up on planes.My ranking for my use is: FS9 is the best, X-plane is more usable than FSX on my rig and X-plane is last (realism of cockpit).I probably would run my FSX instead of the X-plane for visual appearance sake.I really feel this is a matter of personal choice based on visual appearance. The X-plane lacks cockpit visual realism for my taste so if I had to eliminate only one, the x-plane would go. I don't think it is crap at all and it has a large following.Anyway,Cheers and lots of luck with your choice,Ron Sagel

[LAdamson 240]

>>3. The X-plane is a totally different animal - very realistic>(sim experience) flight, adequate scenery and a lot ofAt 25 fps, it's my personal opinion, that FSX has nailed the "feel" of flight over the other two. That, combined with improved visuals, puts FSX at the top of my list. Yet, it's still a tradeoff. Frame rates are very computer, location, aircraft, & slider dependent.edit-- of the three, X-Plane is also the least used. L.Adamson

[Guest Len]

Stick with FS9. Even with the rig you're getting FSX would labor your system. Of course what's stopping you getting the Deluxe FSX at $60-70 when you get your new rig and having an exercise in frustration? You'll go back to FS9 for flyability, ai, visuals, planes etc. In that respect you might want to wait for the FSX "patch" and see what people say.I've demoed X-Plane numerous times but if it had come with the whole package, global textures, etc. I might have bitten.

[Mike T 208]

1. FS9 is still king in my book, with the caviat that to get it to your expectations you will have to do your homework and also open your wallet. There are at least 6 or 7 must haves for mesh, terrain, weather, ATC and AI traffic. However, in terms of performace, FS9 is tried and true.2. FSX has the capacity to give more bang for the buck out of the box because it comes with the equivolent of Activecamera, FSUIPC, Genesis Mesh, ActiveSky weather, Ground Environment Autogen alignment as well as 1m textures with seasons. Of course, your enjoyment will greatly depend on what your definition of smoothness is, your tolorence for compromise in turning off many features, etc. But the good news is that Aces is working on three significant patches / refreshes / upgrades that will probably make FSX king in the coming months and years.3. X-Plane. The better flight dynamics myth is now moot nice BOTH FS9 and FSX have 3rd party aircraft that are equally as realistic. X-Plane global scenery is spectacular...if you plan to only fly in the summer. Panels are not even close to realistic and other things like AI, etc are not even close to FS9 or FSX. I still haven't found any reason to move to X-PLANE if one already has a full blown version of FS9 with all bells and whistles.I'd say to give FSX a try to see if it works for you. For me FS9 is still king, for now, and I wait patiently for Aces to start releasing their patches, at which time, I am assuming that FSX will be the sim of choice for ALL OF US.

[Guest Szybowiec]

Wow. Thanks for the great input guys! If only you could connect the global scenery from X-Plane with the planes and add-ons for FSX, it would be the greatest flight sim ever. I cant really tell from the screenshots, but how much better exactly is the scenery in FSX? In X-Plane, the thing that cought my eye is the density of the buildings that really simulated a city, such as NYC. And the topography was just out of this world. What add-ons, would you guys recommend i get when purchasing FSX to make it fantastic for eye candy? (Not dropping x-plane though.... just want to see how much the total cost is for a great sim)thanks

[LAdamson 240]

> In X-Plane, the thing that>cought my eye is the density of the buildings that really>simulated a city, such as NYC. And the topography was just out>of this world.If it's NYC that you want, then I don't believe you can beat FS9. This area is an FSX frame killer, and X-Plane isn't as detailed as FS9. Last year, I did some linking to videos of FS9 addon airports, that would put the X-Plane crowd in awe, on their general simulation forums. These airports were extremely detailed to "reality" with lots of vehicles and other aircraft moving about.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

FS9 NYChttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164633.jpgX_plane 8.50 Global Scenery NYChttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164634.jpgFSX NYC -- first one, no auto-gen, the rest with auto-gen, but frame rates of around "7". I prefer 25 fps in FSX, and would prefer FS9 for this area. FSX does have crisp textures though!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164635.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164636.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164637.jpg

[Guest Szybowiec]

wow. it looked much different in the screenshots at www.global-scenery.orglooks can be deceiving.

[LAdamson 240]

>wow. it looked much different in the screenshots at>www.global-scenery.org>>looks can be deceiving.I reviewed the NYC pics at the link, went back into X-Plane & set the "object" slider at the "totally insane" option. Scuds of buildings, that look good, but frame rates vary from an acceptable starboard view, to less than "ONE" fps using the cockpit or port view. And as usual with all three of these sims, something in between, slider wise, might offer usuable frame rates.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164657.jpg

[Guest ps76]

I thought X-plane global scenery was meant to look like this(?!):http://www.global-scenery.org/NYC/pictures/NYC_02.htmlWas thinking of maybe trying it out?!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/164656.jpgEdit: Just saw the last post. Guess it looked a little too good to be true - was optimistically imagining that much autogen had magically been made possible running +30Fps(!)

[Guest Len]

>wow. it looked much different in the screenshots at>www.global-scenery.org>>looks can be deceiving.Forget using any autogen for New York flying in FSX. It will crush your system. In fact you'll have to shut autogen off and default the rest to get workable frames.