X-Plane is nice, but some aircrafts looks so sensitive, I found increasing the pitch, roll and yaw values in controls center settings halps a lot, with a smoother control curve.Some people gets a wrong XP impression when downloading aircrafts, some of them have bad flight dynamics, XP offers much much much more dynamics controls over FS. IF the developer doesn't manage these settings very well the plane will fly wrongly.I still see room for lots of improvements in XP, in my opinion planes are still bad with high winds, you can see that while in runway.Weather, elevations and textures are very nice, and the best part is the fluid simulations including smooth gauges.Ulisses

Geo are you saying that the conversions are not working very well in regards to the scenery of taking a dab of 2004 scenery spot and convert to X-plane's scenery program????does anyone know about Flight Gear and if it is a good program or not.If Flight Gear is having problems etc, I can then only surmise one thingflight simming is going to get awful crispy indeed. Fried to smitherins. I would at that time think those who have the FS 9 and FSX now, better hold on to it cause it will indeed turn to gold as it being the only good known software that works at least 80% overall. This is scenery and effects, the aircraft, the third party stuff basically overall that either assists or functions within either of those two games. Seeing a new and or better version come out is going to be soon just a dream and not reality anymore. This is just a gues depending on the reports from other members who can describe how the other outfits play for them.From what I have read so far it looks like X-Plane is not that good overall with the exceptions of some eye candy worth mentioning but it will not make the standard grades that all of us expect more or less.Yea I can see it now, depending on members reports if true Flight simmin is in deep trouble.The loss of MS will loom even largerChanRak

It really depends on what you are simming.I use both fsx and xplane now, but for different reasons.If I want a fm that feels and reacts like my Baron, instrumentation that matches that is still unavailable in the fs world (stormscope for instance), practice reading both the stormscope and radar and then seeing matching weather conditions, realistic prop sounds-I can sync an engine by sound like rw,sloping runways and cloud shadows, more realistic looking water and for sure streams/rivers for the most part, great icing simulation including seeing it , and better more realistic ground handling-I'll be using xplane.If I want some great visuals including hi res textures, a plethora of adds ins, mission capability (I am more interested in training missions -not the game like ones), ease of doing things-I'll take fsx.Like all sims they both have their plus and minus parts-the only trouble now is I find myself somewhat unsatisfied with both sims now that I can compare what each is lacking. :( Yes-I had trouble importing some scenery-but it is my understanding with every upgrade of xplane something breaks (just like fsx). Since I am using the beta version the conversion scenery utilities probably have not caught up yet.

Perhaps you will agree Geof, perhaps not, but after the examination I have run X-Plane through over the past couple of months I think that the two sims can be summed up, in large part, by saying that X-Plane is often overdone and FSX is often underdone....with obvious exceptions of course. I also agree that seeing capabilities in both can lead to displeasure with either. Every time I fly in FSX I'm frustrated with the poor prop sounds, lack of sloped runways, 10 foot waves on inland ponds, stutters, etc. Every time I fly X-Plane I'm disgusted by the horrific low altitude ground textures, lack of AI traffic, pathetic ATC, and a personal issue with control calibration, etc.

It really depends on what you are simming.I use both fsx and xplane now, but for different reasons.If I want a fm that feels and reacts like my Baron, instrumentation that matches that is still unavailable in the fs world (stormscope for instance), practice reading both the stormscope and radar and then seeing matching weather conditions, realistic prop sounds-I can sync an engine by sound like rw,sloping runways and cloud shadows, more realistic looking water and for sure streams/rivers for the most part, great icing simulation including seeing it , and better more realistic ground handling-I'll be using xplane.If I want some great visuals including hi res textures, a plethora of adds ins, mission capability (I am more interested in training missions -not the game like ones), ease of doing things-I'll take fsx.Like all sims they both have their plus and minus parts-the only trouble now is I find myself somewhat unsatisfied with both sims now that I can compare what each is lacking. :( Yes-I had trouble importing some scenery-but it is my understanding with every upgrade of xplane something breaks (just like fsx). Since I am using the beta version the conversion scenery utilities probably have not caught up yet.

Hi GeoThanks for your response. Still I would like to know more about Flight Gear and some reports from members who can give me some kind of idea how this outfit is overall in comparisons to MS and or X-Plane.I do not know much about Flight Gear. I do have somewhat of a grasp on X-plane and one of their features is of about Weather and etc, but have seen reports that the planes are not that good, and even airports end up being a blank without buildings etc. I also see you had conversion problems as well. So.........I know MS very well up to Fs 9 and understand that the FSX scenery is much better overall but the rest of it ??????? The thing about MS is most of it is 3rd party supported and that is what makes the game good. If I can get some pros and cons from others and reports analysis of this Flight Gear itself of which I understand is always being upgraded on a near constant basis. Other than that I know very little of this outfit as a whole.Would appreciate your opinion concerning Flight Gear, and if you can debrief me a bit on it.ThanksChanRak

It really depends on what you are simming.I use both fsx and xplane now, but for different reasons.If I want a fm that feels and reacts like my Baron, instrumentation that matches that is still unavailable in the fs world (stormscope for instance), practice reading both the stormscope and radar and then seeing matching weather conditions, realistic prop sounds-I can sync an engine by sound like rw,sloping runways and cloud shadows, more realistic looking water and for sure streams/rivers for the most part, great icing simulation including seeing it , and better more realistic ground handling-I'll be using xplane.If I want some great visuals including hi res textures, a plethora of adds ins, mission capability (I am more interested in training missions -not the game like ones), ease of doing things-I'll take fsx.Like all sims they both have their plus and minus parts-the only trouble now is I find myself somewhat unsatisfied with both sims now that I can compare what each is lacking. :( Yes-I had trouble importing some scenery-but it is my understanding with every upgrade of xplane something breaks (just like fsx). Since I am using the beta version the conversion scenery utilities probably have not caught up yet.

Geofa,The way you explain this is spot on. I agree wholeheartedly, and wish to combine the best of both products into one. I particularly like the sloped runway capabilities of X-Plane, though as a terrain designer in FSX (hobbyist at least...) I wish X-Plane's method of doing things were a bit different. FSX interpolates the mesh as you fly from the height data, X-Plane has already turned the elevation data into a triangle polygon based mesh (which explains some of those strange edges). But because of the way MeshTool handles data, I have yet to find a way to fine tune small defined bit of land to create an accurate looking runway in some areas.