18 replies to this topic

[_haphadon_]

Ok I own FSX and FS204 but I am considring buying X Plane 9, I have enough memory to be fine with using up 60 GB. My question is though.

1:  Is it more realistic then FSX like I hear it is? And are the stock planes lets say as realistic as lets say PMDG or Level D. Or are they a bit worse but better then most FSX/FS2004 payware?

2:  Are there many aircraft for downloads oviously not as many as FSX or FS2004 but is there an ok amount.

3: Does it take a high end computer to run it like FSX or is it like FS2004 where it will run fine. (Check specs in sig)

4: Is it worth the $49.99? Please explain your awnser

5:  Is there already AI in the game? If so does it have real world airlines? Are there free packages like WOAI if not?

I just want to know if I should buy it and please awnser all these truthfully and do not base your awnser on how you hate X-Plane but love FSX/FS2004 ect...

Thanks in advanced,

_haphadon_

[Buziel-411_RED]

_haphadon_, on Oct 4 2008, 08:39 AM, said:

Ok I own FSX and FS204 but I am considring buying X Plane 9, I have enough memory to be fine with using up 60 GB. My question is though.

1:  Is it more realistic then FSX like I hear it is? And are the stock planes lets say as realistic as lets say PMDG or Level D. Or are they a bit worse but better then most FSX/FS2004 payware?

2:  Are there many aircraft for downloads oviously not as many as FSX or FS2004 but is there an ok amount.

3: Does it take a high end computer to run it like FSX or is it like FS2004 where it will run fine. (Check specs in sig)

4: Is it worth the $49.99? Please explain your awnser

5:  Is there already AI in the game? If so does it have real world airlines? Are there free packages like WOAI if not?

I just want to know if I should buy it and please awnser all these truthfully and do not base your awnser on how you hate X-Plane but love FSX/FS2004 ect...

Thanks in advanced,

_haphadon_

I don't know much about it, but I will answer what I can....

1. I think the default aircraft are similiar to default FSX aircraft, in quality and system-wise. From what I've seen they exteriors aren't that great but the VC's are quite decent.

3. I think X-Plane 9 is in between Fs9 and FSX when it comes to your specs.

5. When I messed around with the demo, I saw several Austrian Airlines aircraft parked at LOWI. I'm not sure if these were AI or static, but they were real airlines atleast.

Edited by Buizel-411 (RED), 04 October 2008 - 09:23 AM.

[_haphadon_]

Ok well I can run FS9 with max settings some secenery addons, 100% WOAI, level D 767 at CYYZ and get 30-40 FPS. Before I upgraded my proccesor and RAM. With FSX right now 100% AI no addons, normal planes and get 25-35 FPS. So I guess I will get good permormance with X plane. Thanks for all the help Also I have downloaded the demo and I find it pretty easy to use. Setting up controlls is hard but I already knew that still I can get a plane off the ground with normal controlls in the demo so after a while I should be fine

[CaptainTim]

X-plane is far more realistic in terms of the feel of flight. Most of the jets come with a simple FMC built in. The new x-plane requires I think the similar specs to FSX that it says n the box but does work better if you get me. Try the demo.

[dolbinau]

Believe it or not (well, you should) X-plane's airliner systems are very unrealistic in comparison to the PMDG 747 or LDS 767; there are just no add-ons (or default aircraft) that offer this.

This makes X-plane boring and simplistic for me (airliner flying wise).

Of course if you were just flying GA you may as well use X-plane for the flight model.

[xclusiv8]

The only thing that xplane does better than fs is that it actually simulates air under the wings. Lift and drag is all simulated from a complex physics model that uses vertex something something to calculate everything. Its all on theire webpage. Fs has all its planes preconfigured and fly according how the author thought it was best. While xplane looks at the model and calculats how it will fly making itt more realistic. but thats it. Rest sucks.

[Buziel-411_RED]

xclusiv8, on Oct 4 2008, 09:04 PM, said:

The only thing that xplane does better than fs is that it actually simulates air under the wings. Lift and drag is all simulated from a complex physics model that uses vertex something something to calculate everything. Its all on theire webpage. Fs has all its planes preconfigured and fly according how the author thought it was best. While xplane looks at the model and calculats how it will fly making itt more realistic. but thats it. Rest sucks.

I read an article on that. Basically, X-Plane makes the plane fly according to its shape. In MSFS, we could have 747's using C172's dynamics. Also think of all the Posky FDE problems that would be elemenated by using X-Plane, and every other issue. Only problem is, your not going to find Posky for X-Plane. There just isn't enough addons to support it like we have in MSFS.

[Jaggyroad Films]

X-Plane is alright, however it doesn't have the industry behind it... which severaly limits its potential. Many of the addons look FS2004 quality or lower while some of the systems are rather simplistic in nature. Some of the textures become rather repetitive fast as well unfortunately. Like FS2004, it often feels like a simulator on rails.

One nice thing is that it is easier to develop a planes flight characteristics because the program does it nearly all for you, but that also has some side effects. Like FS, it doesn't do a great job of certain flight envelopes like spins, slips, etc. It does do slips slightly better however by default.

I have used X-Plane several times, but I keep coming back to MSFS. Between the addons, better scenery (in my opinion) and my work, I have little choice.

[wazgiz]

Here's my 2 cents,

I have an iMac and don't have Windows on it. So I am using X-plane

When I fly in X-plane, I get more of a feel of real flight. The runways just have that perfect curves and bumps, the stick is very sensitive to movements.

Although it doesn't have super eye candy, I would much rather launch X-plane than I would FS2004.

Why that is, because I'm not a great fan of bloop-take off-VNAV/LNAV-and sit there

Weather scenarios are very real

You can fly in space and you get to feel how different characteristics are with no gravity, even there's the shuttle re-entry missions

There are addons, however, not nearly as many as FS2004!

There is one Airbus 340-600 on it though that pretty much as realistic as it gets. Exterior cameras, and everything. I can't find it right now for the life of me though.

You'll have a hard time switching as the key configurations are very different, and almost everything in the game is manual.

In my opinion, any body that's taking flight school for example or wants to get a head start on flying theory or just wants to practice controls or limits of an aircraft should give X-plane 9 a try.

Yes, certainly worth the 50 bux you're gonna spend on it. Better than spending it on some add on you might get bored of after a couple days or that sweater you want from American Eagle.

[Kosmo]

wazgiz, on Nov 4 2008, 02:23 AM, said:

There is one Airbus 340-600 on it though that pretty much as realistic as it gets. Exterior cameras, and everything.

?

So realism is about external cameras?

wazgiz, on Nov 4 2008, 02:23 AM, said:

In my opinion, any body that's taking flight school for example or wants to get a head start on flying theory or just wants to practice controls or limits of an aircraft should give X-plane 9 a try.

Flight sim are mostly used as procedure trainers, not flight feel/physics trainers cause they will never replicate the feel of a RL aircraft. And regarding training for procedures MSFS is far more suitable.

Edited by Kosmo, 04 November 2008 - 04:50 AM.

[wazgiz]

Kosmo, on Nov 4 2008, 04:48 AM, said:

wazgiz, on Nov 4 2008, 02:23 AM, said:

There is one Airbus 340-600 on it though that pretty much as realistic as it gets. Exterior cameras, and everything.

?

So realism is about external cameras?

wazgiz, on Nov 4 2008, 02:23 AM, said:

In my opinion, any body that's taking flight school for example or wants to get a head start on flying theory or just wants to practice controls or limits of an aircraft should give X-plane 9 a try.

Flight sim are mostly used as procedure trainers, not flight feel/physics trainers cause they will never replicate the feel of a RL aircraft. And regarding training for procedures MSFS is far more suitable.

Nope not only about external cameras. The flight dynamics are already in the game so it's pretty realistic.

From the couple of flight lessons I took, I figured X-plane just had that "feel" of a real aircraft for me. Then again I wouldn't know anything about flying an airliners "feel" relative to that.

X-plane after all is FAA approved

[Jaggyroad Films]

X-Plane is indeed FAA approved in certain circumstances, however things are a'changin. ESP is a prime example of that. The FAA is already seriously looking at MSFS addon developers to help provide simulations and ESP is already having commercial success with other government bodies outside the US for simulation purposes. Some cases are already in play now as I type.

X-Plane suffers from the same problems however as FSX, as that when the flight envelope goes to its extremes, the system breaks down. Stalls, edges, spins, slips etc are all done poorly. The simulation is also a bit clunkier when attempting to use. It also doesn't offer the kind of in game learning tutorials that FSX contains.

X-Plane creates aerodynamics on the fly based upon the shape of the wing, etc, but there are issues even there. Designers will put hidden wings, etc inside the fusalage to adjust for drag or other performance factors for particular planes. In FSX, it comes down to the developer to how well the flight modelling is made. Accusim is a great example of that. The 377 from A2A simulations with Accusim actually accounts for airflow through the cowling, the temperature and weather effects along with oil temperatures, barometric pressure etc to determine a final output. Even the airflow over the wing as the flaps are raised and the amount of cowling flaps present makes a big difference in how the plane flies. Even something as simple as the drag produced by the landing light is simulated.  These are things that both simulations struggle with, but the code has been cracked in FSX for such features.

In many cases, governments actually have combined computers to develop aerodynamics for planes to work around the in game aerodynamics. In some cases, such as in Australia, they have put FSX in slew mode and had computers calculate the aerodynamics independantly in order to produce an accurate simulation of helicoptor flight for the military.

Anything is possible in either sim, but MSFS has a MUCH stronger backing, more advanced developers and a stronger community of experts.

[CaptainTim]

Valkyrie321, on Nov 4 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

a stronger community of experts.

I hope you don't include FSW. Half the Kids I see posting about MSFS seem to be talking out of their arses about how its better than anything else...but then I suppose there on every FS forum.

[Jaggyroad Films]

Tim - BAW821, on Nov 4 2008, 12:25 PM, said:

Valkyrie321, on Nov 4 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

a stronger community of experts.

I hope you don't include FSW. Half the Kids I see posting about MSFS seem to be talking out of their arses about how its better than anything else...but then I suppose there on every FS forum.

I will admit I find the FSW folks to be a bit younger. Passing judgement aside, I am mostly referring to my clients in the professional FS development world.

[_haphadon_]

Well I got the game a few days after I posted this. I have to admit the graphics aren't like what I saw from others who had it for some reason but aside from that it is pretty good. The thing that makes me incapable of playing it is since I have a logitech joystick even when I do a slight command to the elvators it sends the aircraft20 degress in the direction I do it. This even happens in the big aircraft such as 747 and 777 it seem's like an F-18 most the time. But when I plugged in my friends joystick not logitech it was fine I know I should get a yoke but at the time can;t affoard anything So for those with a logitech joystick don't get it otherswise it all depends on if you think the demo is good because there is not a massive change between the two in my eyes atleast.

Sincerly,

_haphadon_

[wazgiz]

There's a way you can calibrate it in, in the settings

[_haphadon_]

wazgiz, on Nov 4 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

There's a way you can calibrate it in, in the settings

I tryed I made it the most un sensitive thing and it didn;t matter it is something with logitech joysticks.

Edited by _haphadon_, 05 November 2008 - 07:45 AM.

[Reckoner]

I think if you mainly fly GA, you'll probably like XPlane.

[ThrottleUp]

Hello, I bought X-Plane 9 some time ago. Waste of money for me as I realized very fast that it was not for me. The only thing that impressed me was its excellent terrain. I had taken these screenshots and thought Id post them for you to get an idea. This terrain is straight out of the box - no addons. I personally found it superior to FSX but opinions obviously will differ. Anyways here they are:

Edited by ThrottleUp, 06 November 2008 - 04:17 PM.