Archived

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

Guest SpeedBird192

X-Plane 9 -- very impressed...

Recommended Posts

Working on a review of X-Plane 9 vs. FSX SP2, the pros and cons of each.But so far, I'm really enjoying X-Plane 9, some quick pluses:1. Detail distance -- no shape shifting scenery like there is in FSX and no blurries.2. Control over image quality is considerably better than FSX and makes it very easy to dial in that perfect performance/quality threshold.3. Global scenery included that is impressive with the amount of detail (60GB on 6 DVD's).4. Weather, better than default FSX, but not as good as ActiveSkyX + Graphics X (but those are add-ons to FSX).5. Flight model from Taxi to takeoff to climb -- just feels better, more realistic, especially the Cessna which I have real world comparison with.6. Built in support for my GoFlight controlsmore to come.

Share this post


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

>Working on a review of X-Plane 9 vs. FSX SP2, the pros and>cons of each.>>But so far, I'm really enjoying X-Plane 9, some quick pluses:>>1. Detail distance -- no shape shifting scenery like there is>in FSX and no blurries.>>2. Control over image quality is considerably better than FSX>and makes it very easy to dial in that perfect>performance/quality threshold.>>3. Global scenery included that is impressive with the amount>of detail (60GB on 6 DVD's).>>4. Weather, better than default FSX, but not as good as>ActiveSkyX + Graphics X (but those are add-ons to FSX).>>5. Flight model from Taxi to takeoff to climb -- just feels>better, more realistic, especially the Cessna which I have>real world comparison with.>>6. Built in support for my GoFlight controls>>more to come.I really do like the X-Plane global scenery discs. A lot of mountain/desert detail of the southwest U.S.A. looks quite good.No blurries, but the fog can roll in and cover distance objects if the CPU load gets too high. It's still sometimes a tradeoff.What I don't agree on is a more realistic flight model. I enjoy flying real life planes that are somewhat of a higher performance nature than the Cessna 172. I do have some time in the Marchetti SF260 and think that the RealAir SF260 for FSX is un-beatable in the flight dynamics department!However, last evening I was cruising across the southwest in an X-Plane add-on aircraft, doing touch and goes at various airports; and it was fun too!But there is just no way that I'll give X-Plane a blanket and generalized thumbs up, when it comes to flight realism over the MSFS series. MSFS has had some extremely realistic 3rd party airplanes once we got past FS98. And some of the FSX defaults aren't bad either.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X-Plane is great(not perfect) if you are designing your own aircraft, and that's something FSX cannot do. If you want absolute perfect flight model, play Cordor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L.Adamson,Have you tried X-Plane commercial version - not home? The flight model in the commercial version is considerably better than FSX. However, I technically don't "own" the commercial version (only sampled it) so I probably should stick to just the home version of X-Plane for comparisons.But I do agree that some Aircraft in FSX are done better and Visa-vera with some Aircraft in X-Plane. IMHO the 172 in FSX is unresponsive, the real 172 is considerably more responive, especially to turbulance and even "normal" wind/weather conditions. But we'll just have to disagree on this. The 172 I've flown in the SF/Bay Area out of Concord are no picnic smooth comfy ride like you get from FSX.X-Plane 9 certainly gets a big thumbs up, but like I said, both FSX and X-Plane have their pro's and cons. Also, what annoys someone may not be significant for someone else. The biggest annoyance for me with FSX is the blurries and shape shifting scenery as texture resolutions get swapped in/out - X-Plane seems to have solved this issue with enough CPU/GPU power, where-as there really is NO solution under FSX regardless of what CPU/GPU power you toss at it.But for 3rd party support FSX has a big advantage even taking into account the issues over SP1 and SP2 changes. That's a big win for FSX.X-Plane is a little rough around the edge in terms of configuration, but for any enthusiast it's easy to understand and configure, but probably not so easy for the casual flyer.But both are good, in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've known, the commercial version began with some versions of X-Plane 6, and is now up to versions of X-Plane 8. Supposeably, nothing is special in regards to the flight model. In the past, long time X-Planers explained that the flight model was not of the greatest importance, when combining it with the full motion platform, which obtained FAA certification for a commercial simulator.However, I've used every X-Plane demo since they were avialable many years ago. I'm still not as impressed as I have been with specific addon aircraft for FSX. And as a several day thread going at another forum sugests; X-Planes as just "twitchy". And that's my thoughts too. They are twitchy enough, that I don't enjoy them more than five minutes unless on auto-pilot. I can go for hours and hours in a real plane in smooth air, and not be jerked around. Of course there is turbulence and wind conditions that can be downright annoying or un-comfortable; but certainly not all the time.IMO, the real 172 isn't exactly what I'd call responsive. It's rather sedate, compared to a Pitt's, Van's RV, or perhaps the Marchetti SF260. I think the FSX model is sedate too, which makes it seem somewhat real! :) L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments should be evaluated with some reservations, since I just started using the sim yesterday, My background is some J3 Cub and Aeronca flying years ago, and since then many years using MS Flight Sim.but:Pro:Aircraft seem to respond smoothly to smooth inputs, which indicates realism to me. The panel of the C172 looks good.The scenery I have loaded is impressive.It allows use of almost every button and slider on my Saitek X52. Very extensive control and feature programming.With the exception of a couple of the default planes (like the 172), Microsoft badly needs to rethink their careless attitude toward Flight Dynamics, and they could pick up a few pointers here.However:(Cons)When I installed the on-line update to my purchased X-Plane DVD, the ATC stopped working. I can only have ATC if I don't have the update.I have problems with an erratic throttle on the Cessna 172-it keeps wandering back and forth with no input from me.The Garmin 430 is almost impossible to read, so navigation is a chore.Many of the keyboard inputs listed as pre-programmed seem to be non-functional.Saving a "situation" then calling it back up has resulted in unpredictable results for me. I never seem to get back what I saved.I have a wide screen which I normally run at a fairly high resolution for the desktop. It appears that the only way I can get full screen with X-Plane is to drop the whole computer to their relatively low resolution.Many of my problems may be self-generated, and I am going to stick with it for another few days to try to get a better picture of what I have here. It has been entertaining so far, and I don't regret buying the product. However, although it has some very impressive programming, it is my opinion that this product is a different type of animal altogether, and it is not, at this time, comparable to FSX.Regards,ThraketeQuad Core Q6600, NVidia 8600GT, FSX SP2, Vista SP1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have a wide screen which I normally run at a fairly high>resolution for the desktop. It appears that the only way I can>get full screen with X-Plane is to drop the whole computer to>their relatively low resolution.Go in the "Rendering Options", set the screen res you want, and then check the "set color depth and monitor resolution on X-Plane startup" box. Restart X-Plane and all should be fine.Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Marco-I will try that this morning.As your input emphasizes, most of the perceived problems I listed in my post may very well be due to my lack of experience with X-Plane. I will no doubt find it more interesting as I learn more about it.However, at this point, I still don't think X-Plane is anywhere near the maturity necessary to be compared to FSX.To paraphrase a previous poster though, you do not have to choose between the two games, and X-Plane will very probably stay on my computer and see periodic use.Regards,Thrakete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, if I am missing something here or doing soemthing wrong , let me know.Today I bought Xplane 9.Basically I am SICK of tinkering with FSX and besides, with all the glowing reviews and screenshots, and the fact I had to go to BB and it was staring at me, I bought it.First off, IMO- Everything is exxagerated and looks like something Abacus would have sold 3 years ago.The only planes I saw even worth mentioning are the 172 and default jet.F4 is passable for fs2000 freeware.All of the others were just panels. No vr pit even rough ones. A panel floating in mid air.The flight modelling which everyone raves about is horrendous.I have a Saitek x52 and tinkered with the settings for over a hour.I can push frw and back and the planes just "yank" back and forth.We a re talking rip the wings off,black out forces at will.Again, If I am missing something tell me.I cannot feel the air. The planes are hyper sensitive and if you change the settings, they simply feel wrong.I am a real world pilot with thousands of hours in various planes.500 or so in the small 172-182 -210 range.I could yank the 172 around and crank that sucker around on a dime.Had a #### of a time trimming it and if the real plane bucked and twisted like this one, there would be students crashing everyday.I have played with earlier versions and the terrain was always horrible.What sold me was the gigs of terrain and nice screenshots.At low altitude, the terrain is a blurry mess and makes the worst of fs9 look good. At altitude it does start looking better.The landclass is almost non existant. Buildings are just dropped anywhere and I cannot regonize anything real world from the air.A pile of buildings next to a mile of feilds, another glob of buildings, a big feild with a industrial complex, no rhyme or reason just card board cutouts slung around the terrain.Sorry for the rant but I really wish some deep pockets would invest in this, or any other sim cause FSX has me at wits end with problems.I am going to continue to fly x-plane until I get my $60 worth. I figure Ive spent thousands over the years on fs9/fsx addons and you need a $400 card anymore just to run it.So sorry if I come across a angry and ranting but it is dissapointing after seeing and reading all the hype.X-Plane is still 10 years behind.I would reccomend reinstalling fs9 before buying x-plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I cannot feel the air. A good ......... simple description! One thing about MS and it's problems, is that there is actually a sense of riding on air. It's all a visual thing combined with a bit of centering spring resistance; but it's there! As described before, it's a case of the mind filling in blanks, and a "pilot's" mind knows what to look for. This is why the "magic carpet" look of X-Plane's smoothness, isn't something I equate to the sensation of real flight. However, others seem to. To me, it just gets annoying after five minutes, and I go auto-pilot.With MSFS, you sense dampening, inertia, and mass. It lacks in X-Plane, and always has. That's why I compare X-Plane to a puppet on strings, tied directly to the yoke/stick. IMO, the more advanced 3D cockpits of MSFS also add to the sensation of yaw, and moving airmasses. This is especially good in FSX.Since I do have a great interest in mountain topography, X-Plane's global scenery does offer a different form than MSFS. That's my main reason for running it every so often.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man Im tryin but its painfull!I have been trying X-plane demos from the early days and understand why they turn the joystick off after 10 minutes. Cause thats about all you can stand:-lol X-plane just does not have any soul. I always felt like I was running regedit or changing my bios settings than flying a simulator.Why go on and on about the advanced aerodynamics and flight models and then have all these joystick options.It all comes down to how YOU think a plane should feel. I have alot of hours in the 172 and I spent 20 minutes trying to get it flyable. How is someone with no idea or time in the plane going to set it up?They use fancy terms like "Coefficient Determination""Velocity Determination""Force Build-Up".Meaning- Handles like crap.There is even a section on changing the settings so you can determine how YOU think the plane should feel.Defeats the whole "X-Plane's accuracy in flight model" concept.EDITEDI went off but bottom line is there is not exactly alot to choose from so ANY competition is welcomed.They are trying and each gets better I guess. At least an attempt to overhaul the terrain graphics is a good thing.Its the weekend so I will leave with a positive note about X-plane.The trains are cool.And aahhh,,,,Microsoft does not have anything to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>EDITED>I went off but bottom line is there is not exactly alot to>choose from so ANY competition is welcomed.They are trying and>each gets better I guess. At least an attempt to overhaul the>terrain graphics is a good thing.>Its the weekend so I will leave with a positive note about>X-plane.>The trains are cool.>And aahhh,,,,>>Microsoft does not have anything to worry about.WRT the excessive sensitivity, go in the controls setup screen and set the control response to FULL-RIGHT (non linear) to all axis, then the stability augmentation to FULL-RIGHT to all axis.You had plenty of possibilities to try X-Plane before buying, since you tried the demo. Since the demo is basically complete (except for worldwide scenery) and representative of the final product (flight model, etc.), I can't understand why you decided to buy the product and then rant about it this way: if you didn't like the demo at all, why you bought it?Everyone is looking for different things in different products. As for myself, I find a lot of advantages (and a lot of disadvantages as well) when comparing X-Plane to FSX.Marco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I buy ANYTHING flight oriented to support the few developers left.Acceleration,wings over Vietenam,First Eagles,Il2 and its numerous versions,Falcon.....Also buying gives me the right to complain.Otherwise,screams of its only the demo,buy the full version are heard.One of the reasons why X-plane is attepting to add eye candy and go after the upset MS crowd is because of feedback from customers over the years.I paid my $60 and added my 2 cents here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!--Watch your blood pressure! It's just a game! :(It cost me about $50.00 with tax, and some of the FSX add-on airplanes alone are in that price class. I think I will get that much worth of entertainment out of it, though I have gotten some frustration also.You will notice that I have already said it is not in the same class with FSX, and should not be compared to it. It's a different animal altogether-even the manual says it is not a game. I still am going to keep it (just to try to figure out exactly what it can and cannot do). I occasionally get bored with whatever I am doing in FSX,and need a break to something different before returning to it.I have already learned a number of things:1. There are a lot of settings and you need to look at all of them before you try to fly it.2. You need to read the manual posted at www.x-plane.com. I don't recommend trying to print it, because a lot of it is common knowledge and hype for X-Plane, though I did print our the navigation section (6).3. I have found a lot of bugs already, but I am running Vista SP1, which may add to that problem. My 172 throttle seems to have a mind of it's own, I can' load the update without losing my ATC window, I have had one jet engine bar graph just disappear, etc.4. I tried the C172 in moderately windy weather, and it was impossible to even point it at the runway where I wanted to land. However, by eliminating the turbulence setting, it handled fine.I don't think many people consider X-Plane a threat to MS Flight Sim.Regards, I am not trying to mislead anyone.Thrakete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$20 Paypal to me gets it. Us ONLY....One day old.Retails $50 plus tax and gas to the store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites