Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LAdamson

Anybody has X-Plane ?

Recommended Posts

Lately I did some reading about x-palne now I noticed that there is an Upgrade. I am thinking of what X-Plane can give and what is the difference between X-plane and FS2K2. I am more into IFR and do not know whether it is worth having both, so any advice from real users.Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Definately download the demo and check it out.The short version is that X-plane in general has much more realistic flight modeling, but falls short of FS in almost every other area, such as visuals, weather, atc, etc. It does include a aircraft and scenery builder, so there's lots of 3rd party add-ons in these categories, but you won't find anything like fs-meteo, fs-navigator or flightmax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own the older version of X-Plane - I would take issue on the weather. The storms in X-Plane and the clouds are still light years ahead of the weather in 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I confess........... I've never figured what is superior with X-Planes flight modeling. The rave for the new version 6.13-.14 is modeling of engine torque. I have had some fun with the 6.12 demo, but havn't ever noticed where is stands ahead of the others. My past demo experience has lead me to believe that the X-Plane flight models need numerous "tweeks", just like MSFS & FLY. It's mathematical wing forumulas just don't make it on their own.P.S.---- Just throwing in this pic of a "GREAT" machineL.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have it (yet?); but, it does have ridge lift - a nice bit of reality to have ( especially if you have any interest in soring/gliding).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Is that your RV Larry? :-)Yes............ I converted it to a 1944 P51-D & tossed a Merlin into it instead of the Lyc!! :)At least they both have "bubble" canopy's!! L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post us a picture of the superior storms & clouds CWR.Peter Sydney Australia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own X-Plane 5.xx and it runs much smoother as far as FPS than MSFS2K2 (due to openGL and scaled back scenery) but as far as the other features, I still like MS Flight Simulator better.I would definitely download the demo and decide for yourself. Also, I think X-Plane is a bit over-priced for what you get, but compared to other high-end FAA approved SIMMs for the PC, X-Plane is still the least expensive of the lot. (X-Plane 6.xx is approved for use in perusing the ATP certificate.)As a flight instructor, I have used MSFS and X-Plane in my ground school sessions with my students, and I feel that for demonstration purposes of in-flight procedures, Microsoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic.Interested that you use this simulator for real life ground school training. That sort of thing was frowned upon when I was a PPL student. I was into Fly! then, and I have to say that I secretly used to use it to practice things like circuit procedures and basic instrument flying. Whilst it isn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The short version is that X-plane in general has much more >realistic flight modeling, but falls short of FS in almost >every other area, such as visuals, weather, atc, etc. "In General" MSFS AC are lousy. But, they don't have to be. I've been checking X-Plane AC and the jets don't have near the right modeling that is possible in MSFS. The prop performance is also wrong. I guess no one knows how to interpret the data that can be placed on the screen, or saved to a file. If they did, it would be seen that X-Plane isn't all it's cracked up to be in "flight modeling." However, SEL AC are probably easier to model half decently in X=Plane, and it is good for finding some effects of airframe variations. And, you can fly on Mars. Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for verifying this-and from an expert. I was never impressed with the flight models of xplane-prop aircraft in particular.I have always felt the "superior flight models" of xplane is frankly a myth-like all sims it models some things well and leaves out others. Perhaps this rallying statement is held on to, as it is a harder claim to prove/disprove than many of the other deficiences which are obvious, even to a casual observer.The thing I always found frustrating is although certain aspects of the "feel" of an aircraft in xplane are very good-finding one that performs like a real one was another story. I worked on my own aircraft for quite a while-it looked ok for the time ( a year and a half ago), feels pretty good, but flying remotely close to the real thing with real world numbers and performance is another story. One of the things I found interesting is when I put all the real dimensions and numbers in the program I ended up with an aircraft that not only didn't look like the real one but didn't fly at all . Only by fudging the real dimensions and numbers-much like one does in fs did I get anything close-and it was so far removed from reality that I gave up.Still not anywhere as close as I can get in fs-the main reason I abandoned it. http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/geofanim2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least I don't have to feel like a "dummy"!! I always thought X-Planes supposeable great flight modeling had more to do with it's fluid frame rates than what the models were capable of themselves. Like "Geoff A." said, thanks for verifying!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a pilot myself, I think it's rediculous for CFI's to frown apon FS2002 as added "ground school". The sim & it's databases have come much to far, to be shoved aside. It's a superb way to get "cheap" hands on training for IFR work. Also works as an excellent tool for taking "simulated training flight's" to unknown airports before an actual cross country. Know the airport runway layout in relation to surrounding topography before you ever get there........... what a perfect tool!Back in 94' I was using both MSFS & "On Top" for at home instrument training before the actual in flight session. FS2002 is way beyond that now, in nav, airport, & topography data-bases. With additions such as Dreamfleet's Archer.......... even accurate panels can be used for training, as the 172 has been for FLY.I won't say to use products such as FLY, FS2002, or X-Plane to learn exactly how to fly a plane, because it won't work. From what I've seen, it's apparant that many of us who have flown real planes, can also fly simulated ones easier, when it comes to items like landing or maintaining a steady climb without porpousing & large speed variations.Quite honestly, when it comes to instructors that frown upon products like FS2002, I have an opinion! They have not used the sim to know, their biased towards something else, or just plain ######!!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry,I must confess That I too wasnt impressed with the flight modelling.I was tempted to buy the programme and may still in the future but it still isnt yet "my thing".Having said that we should support any sim as there are now to few players.Sooooooooo ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess you must love Fly! then?>As a flight instructor, I have used MSFS and X-Plane in my >ground school sessions with my students, and I feel that for >demonstration purposes of in-flight procedures, Microsoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,I WAS quite impressed with X-Planes new "mountain" textures when flying low level near Mach One in the F-15. Maybe I should throw my support!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Guess you must love Fly! then? >Just out of true curiosity............... how about yourself? Just wondering, since you picked up the program.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As some I wasn't at all impressed neither by the Fm nor other aspect of X-plane.What impressed me is the commercial hunger of austin the creator of x-plane.I payed for the 5.60 version when the price just dropped from obscene highness and now I have to pay again for the upgrade.I didn't had this feeling of being roberred since MS product.The guy that supported austin since the start and made a lot of material for x-plane are in general disgusted from it: they payed a lot, made a lot of things that aren't compatible anymore and now should pay again and again.for me X-plane is definitively a no no.Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very recently discovered it, and tried it.And indeed, the 747 in it doesnt even come close to the 747 in FSMy airfile for the 747 is almost 100% close, with the great help of Captain Tarmack.Seeing the Xplane 747 I wonder how the rest is.. (not tried yet)But the FPS are good..hence no scenery.. so we can have the same in MSFS with all sliders to the left.Johan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been flight instructing for 14 years now. Back when I started, the flight sims available for the PC weren't that great for using as additional tools to training. That has changed today in my opinion. Computer technology for both the business and home user has increased greatly. (As we all know)I primarily use MSFS to supplement IFR procedures and concept training. For example, when teaching how to track as opposed to home an NDB station, I can set up a simulation in MSFS for the student to try before we ever get to the airplane.Also, I use MSFS to emphasize key concepts during the ground school portion of my student's training and have seen good improvement in their understanding how a particular flight maneuver or concept is done.However, I do not allow my students to log "Simulator" time with MSFS (That isn't legal anyway per the FAA) but I can use the sim as another tool available to both me and the student to improve their understanding of key flight maneuvers and concepts.The primary role of a flight instructor is to keep the student safe and provide the best learning environment possible to enhance learning and help develop safe, competent pilots. This means as CFI I should always be learning myself and looking for ways to improve the training environment. There are many excellent flight instructors in the USA today, but unfortunately there are a few CFI's around who are not open to change in their teaching methods.The FAA has approved many new CAT's (Computer Aided training devices) and I look at simulators, like MS Flight sim, as a possible computer tool to enhance the learning experience for my students.Yes, it is true that a student most likely will not be able to learn how to fly a real airplane using a simulator like MSFS, but I feel that Flight Simulators for the PC are an invaluable addition to any student pilots training program.For me, using PC based simulators have worked out well for my students. (98% pass rate on the first attempt is my students' average pass rate)Happy Simming!Scott Heinz - ATP/CFII (6000 HRS TT, 2800 as a Flight Instructor. I have both Corporate and Commuter Airline experience.)Currently finishing a degree in Computer Information Systems from the University of Colorado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Guess you must love Fly! then? >Just out of true curiosity............... how about yourself? Just wondering, since you picked up the program.L.Adamson

 

I have not tried it yet but I've heard it is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

triscam, on 23 May 2013 - 5:16 PM, said:

I have not tried it yet but I've heard it is good.

Because of your post, this topic is locked. Please start up a new topic and do not post to old topics.

 

Jim Young

AVSIM Forum Moderator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.