Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Fly II vs. X-Plane

Recommended Posts

Hi all,I was just curious about some difference between Fly! II and X-Plane 6.x. So I have some questions in hope someone can answer these for me.- Why are the scenery files of X-Plane mutch smaller than Fly! II? I saw some screen shots of X-Plane and they look rather good.- Why is X-Plane in OSX and OS 9 mutch faster than Fly! II. Is this becouse of the scenery?- Why shouldn't I buy X-Plane?Let me know.ThanksKoen :)

Share this post


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

Hi Koen,I don't own X-Plane but certainly have considered buying it, and have d/led the demos for v5 and v6. It runs quite smoothly on my old G3, but I can set the graphics options high enough to start slowing things. For me, the smoothness is the one thing I find appealing about X-Plane.I have problems with the cockpit panels (although this may have been corrected in a later release) looking too "cartoonish." However, the relatively lo-res panels may be the key to X-Plane's smooth running. The computer isn't having to work as hard to create a 2D panel and a 3D world at the same time.In external view, I dislike how it seems to start inside the aircraft and zoom through the skin. The external proportions of many planes in the demo seem skewed and unnatural. Probably some perspective thing, and maybe others don't mind this.I can't speak about the scenery other than one comment. Away from the airports the scenery in the early v6 demo seemed to lack the depth of the Fly generic scenery (Thank you, Jac Fearon!). That could explain the smaller files and faster performance.As the demos run only ten minutes before locking the controls and don't let me use the joystick, I can't say much else. Would I buy it? Probably yes, to thank and encourage Austin's loyalty to the Mac platform if nothing else. Would I like it as much as Fly! given the latter's current problems on the Mac? I honestly have to say I like Fly! better in spite of its limitations. Fly! seems to give me a feeling of reality that I don't get in X-Plane.I feel that the work Richard is doing on Fly will have a positive effect, and the rates will be better.One man's humble opinion,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there something to worry about fly!? becouse he has to check his mail? :)I have to agree to you allan that the panels are cartoonish. But maybe I can get a temporary copy from someone of have a good look at an original version of x-plane 6. Becouse i really would like to see if there is any 3d in the scenery of x-plane 6Thanks for the info AllanKoen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Is there something to worry about Fly!? because he has to check his mail?"Made me laugh! No, not to worry. Jim and I have been helping a third-party developer with some testing and needed to chat privately.If you have a fast internet connection, you can get the demo at http://www.x-plane.com. I don't know if the demo version includes the "new"scenery. The X-Plane site is loaded with details, I suspect.In the past, the demo was the full version, but would not accept normal control input after 5-10 minutes unless the distribution CD was mounted. The site makes it sound like the new scenery is on several CD's separate from the application CD. If the files are not moved to the hard drive, then the scenery is no different from previous versions. That's my interpretation from a quick reading of their web site.Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Because i really would like to see if there is any 3d in the scenery of x-plane 6"There is a scarcity of scenery for X-plane, since the author decided to change formats.I developed Chicago scenery for the previous version (v5.xx), and have just uploaded the conversion of that scenery from 5.xx to 6.xx. It's not true 6.xx format but close enough.Here are some pics:http://www.x-plane.org/users/mahesh/Chicago1.jpghttp://www.x-plane.org/users/mahesh/Chicago2.jpghttp://www.x-plane.org/users/mahesh/Chicago3.jpgThe terrain is Terrascene2 based. Don't mind the sky colors - I was fooling around with them, and not the most natural looking!There is some other scenery for SEngland:http://x-plane.majer.ch/Scenery/SE_England..._England_II.jpgAmsterdam:http://www.euronet.nl/users/dred/xplane/xplane.htmItaly(Payware): http://xplane.studiopleiadi.com/movie cliphttp://flightsimmers.net/airbase/jkallinen...es/XPBOLZANO.rmscreenshots:http://xplane.studiopleiadi.com/default.asp?lng=2&ipag=13X-plane has tremendous potential but pace of progress, I think, is real slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are really nice snapshots there. Did the scenery of SEngland came with the game (or expansion pack they advertise on the net) or did you make it yourself?Looks neat! And does it stay fast with OS X with this scenery? :-coolThanksKoen:-cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. All of them, except Italy, are available for free downloads from www.x-plane.org or links to the hosting sites; the Italian scenery is payware.I only did the Chicago scenery but posted other pics and links to showcase X-planes 3rd party sceneries for the benefit of people in this forum - I DO NOT claim to have made the rest of the scenery. Don't want to take credit(or blame!);) for something I didn't do. Hope I made that clear.I use a PC so I don't know how good they work on Macs. Perhaps you can find your answer at the org website link posted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is ESSA the only swedish airport in default or does, for example, ESPC exist in X-Plane?Keep'em flyin'!Bertil PerssonESPC Fr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have all sims FlyII, FS2002, X-Plane etc.It's impossible to say what is the best sim, because they have different features.X-Plane it's the best to fly with a fantastic frame rate, you can make aircraft and scenery very quickly. Aircrafts details are not very very fantastic really, but you can make very nice and realistic sceneries.FlyII give you a good cockpit feelings and a nice detail for aircrafts and sceneries, but often not so user friendly (but I love it all the same!)FS2002, if you have a fast system, give you the best in aircrafts modelling and you can do very very complex models. Here you have not the limitations you have in FlyII and you have a virtual cockpit also.Really in a nice sim like this, there is not an Observer view like FlyII an X-Plane.Anyway, I think it's wrong to search for the best sim, they have different features and the best sim it's the union of them.RegardsGiorgio Gnesda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to follow the discussion. I tried earlier versions of X-Plane and found out that it's a good buy for the people with older Macs. On the other hand it was the most expensive then. 1 000 SEK compared to 400 for Fly 2K an 600 for FS2000.As you see above I'm trying to find out which swedish airports are represented in X-Plane. Looks like FS 2002 is the best in this case. Fly! 2K and probably II don't have the proper ILS and navaid facilities compared to real world, but the airports are there. In FS 2000 and 2002 they also have all the real navaid facilities. That's probably one reason why it's hard to find swedes running Fly! or X-Plane and it's really a disaster concerning Mac simmers.A future FS 200X for Mac would probably blow Fly! and X-Plane out of the swedish market. Just look at the success for Office 98 - X. Hasn't Mr Gates ever thought of that? :-)Keep'em flyin'!Bertil PerssonESPC Fr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this