Anybody has X-Plane ?

[Guest]

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

[Geofa 108]

I would download the demo and make up your mind based on that.http://members.telocity.com/~geof43/geofanim2.gif

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[LAdamson 240]

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

[Guest ben_]

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).

[Guest ben_]

Is that your RV Larry? :-)

[LAdamson 240]

>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

[cat 2]

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

[Guest ScottPilot]

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

[Guest Richard_H]

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

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>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

[Geofa 108]

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

[LAdamson 240]

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

[LAdamson 240]

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