242 replies to this topic

[THBatMan8]

TopDollar, on Jul 24 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

NWilkinson, on Jul 24 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

LDS and PMDG get around by using XML coding, programming, and external modules...  in reality it's actually all fake, which is why you can do panel merges...  

But X-Plane is a system based simulator with far superior engine used for flight dynamics...  it's another reason why the developers of XPlane sought for some of X-Plane's implementations to be certified as a flight training device by the FAA.  MSFS will never be a certified trainer.

An aircraft in FSX can be incredibly realistic.  In both looks, and flying characteristics.  It can perform and behave exactly as the real aircraft does.  It's really down to the developer.

Flight sim is all smoke and mirrors, but it still *simulates* all of those systems perfectly fine.  But I guess that's not the point of a simulator.

Just because xplane's game engine may be superior (which is debatable to begin with) doesn't mean the aircraft represented are.

Flight characteristics of PMDG and Level-D are good when everything is in working order (minus the rudder). But when you start simulating failures with different components then the faults really start to shine. This is why NWilkinson said MSFS is for eye candy as it doesn't implement multiple systems as in the complex addons. MSFS is built for the default planes which anyone can fly with little to no flight experience and don't model the complex systems.

[dolbinau]

NWilkinson, on Jul 25 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

dolbinau, on Jul 24 2009, 05:49 PM, said:

I just don't think it's fair to generalise MSFS as 'eye candy' and X-plane as 'realism', since the operation of aircraft in X-plane can be less realistic than MSFS.

And you're basing realism off of?  Are you a pilot in the real world and have experience on various types of aircraft?

Oh come on you know the modeled systems of the (e.g.) LDS 767 are far superior to anything available for X-plane, if following an AOM with X-plane the systems would just be absent, how is that 'realism'?

I'm not going to claim that overall flying an airliner on FS is more realistic than X-plane (though my opinion would be it is), but come on there is a very obvious hole in X-plane flying that should be taken into account when claiming that X-plane is 'realistic' and MSFS is 'eye candy'.

[THBatMan8]

dolbinau, on Jul 24 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

NWilkinson, on Jul 25 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

dolbinau, on Jul 24 2009, 05:49 PM, said:

I just don't think it's fair to generalise MSFS as 'eye candy' and X-plane as 'realism', since the operation of aircraft in X-plane can be less realistic than MSFS.

And you're basing realism off of?  Are you a pilot in the real world and have experience on various types of aircraft?

Oh come on you know the modeled systems of the (e.g.) LDS 767 are far superior to anything available for X-plane, if following an AOM with X-plane the systems would just be absent, how is that 'realism'?

I'm not going to claim that overall flying an airliner on FS is more realistic than X-plane (though my opinion would be it is), but come on there is a very obvious hole in X-plane flying that should be taken into account when claiming that X-plane is 'realistic' and MSFS is 'eye candy'.

Yes, I agree with that statement and that's why I haven't purchased X-Plane yet and probably won't. But if Level-D made the 767 for X-Plane instead of MSFS it would be a better simulation based platform than it's predecessor.

Edited by Da Bat Man, 24 July 2009 - 07:22 PM.

[CaptainG37]

You people are amazing.  Has anyone actually logged a decent amount of hours on X Plane to make these uninformed opinions?
The last post says if LDS make a 767 for X Plane, you would buy X Plane.  So you are assuming that X Plane CAN model a LDS level simulation of a 767?
I was a MSFS user since FS98 and I pretty much condemned X Plane.  I bought version 9 of X Plane and I will NEVER go back to MSFS.
Why is MSFS better to the majority?
I'll tell you.
User friendly interface.  (Microsoft selling point)
Microsoft has a marketting department that can rival almost any corporation in the world. X Plane has a marketing department of 1!
Yes, EYE CANDY.  Scenery APPEARS to look better in MSFS. I'll admit, it certainly is more colorful.  X Plane doesn't have repeating tiles like MSFS does and there is a program that has been made for free that will download over 500MB of scenery enhancements.  X Plane also casts cloud shadows PROPERLY and is part of the default installation.  It certainly is not free for MSFS.  Ground environment and activesky cost money.  
X Plane has BETTER  and more accurate REPRESENTATION OF THE WORLDS ELEVATIONS as DEFAULT.  
X Plane models the world as a SPHERE not a FLAT SURFACE.
Basic instruments????
Yes, for the DEFAULT gauges and panels, they are basic.  Austin was too busy making a realistic simulator to worry about highly complex gauges and panels so he made some generic ones that still work better and look better than MSFS default aircraft gauges.  Thats why we have developers.  To create highly detailed custom panels and gauges which X Plane can do BETTER than MSFS.
Have you seen the gauge animation in X Plane and compared it to MSFS?
It leaves MSFS gauge animation looking like a cartoon.
FS9 has a 65000 poly count limit on any add ons.  X Plane can run aircraft with over 1 million polys at 19+ fps.

I'm all for people making INFORMED opinions on something, but it seems to me that peoples experience in X Plane is just from watching short videos and word of mouth from other people who have watched short videos.
Download the demo, try it, read reviews.
As for add ons?
Well, since you all are into watching videos, have a look at this.

That's just 1 add on among many.
Please guys, it's negative opinions like this that spread over the simming community and turn people off buying a simulation that deserves more credit than it gets.
Goran

1 more thing.
How long did it take PMDG to make their MD-11?  8 years!!!!
How long would it take to make an MD-11 of the same quality.  not more than a year.  It's 10 times easier to make add ons in X Plane than it is in MSFS.

Edited by CaptainG37, 24 July 2009 - 07:46 PM.

[dolbinau]

I don't think you will be able to show me one "highly detailed custom panel" airliner panel which X-plane can do "BETTER" than what MSFS has to offer (LDS 767, PMDG 747, PMDG MD-11), so please show me and support your claim .

Edited by dolbinau, 24 July 2009 - 08:00 PM.

[CaptainG37]

http://www.eadt.eu/

PLEASE look at that 2D 737 panel!!
Also...
http://xplanefreewar...savancescf4.jpg

Now you tell me, the second link I put up, is the LDS panel BETTER looking than that panel??

Edited by CaptainG37, 24 July 2009 - 08:06 PM.

[AirX]

dolbinau, on Jul 24 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

I don't think you will be able to show me one "highly detailed custom panel" airliner panel which X-plane can do "BETTER" than what MSFS has to offer (LDS 767, PMDG 747, PMDG MD-11), so please show me and support your claim .

You are kidding me. Just look, search and research

http://forums.x-pilo...php?topic=46.0#

Edited by AirX, 24 July 2009 - 08:10 PM.

[AirX]

[CaptainG37]

AND the last shot is a Virtual Cockpit.  Show me screenshots of the LDS 767 Virtual Cockpit and we'll compare.  I do have the 767, by the way.
Not to mention the systems that have been modelled in that X Plane aircraft (Valkyrie).

[dolbinau]

AirX lol that 777 panel proves my point; very little systems simulation.  Similar case for that md panel CaptainG36. On iPhone so can't really look at 737 panel but I'd imagine it's a similar case.

It irritates me how you all talk about illinformed opinions and research but have you guys actually used the LDS 767? Those panels are almost default in comparison. Again, where are the systems :/?

I'm not sure if it is still an issue (from those Airliner panels it appears so), but I guess an issue contributing is having all gauges on a single panel window.

I don't have a vendetta against x plane or anything I just want to know the facts , and I'm almost 100% sure no x-plane airliner has the panel systems to compete with what MSFS aircraft often have. Those SS only support this point..

Edited by dolbinau, 24 July 2009 - 08:28 PM.

[CaptainG37]

LOL.
Ok.  
You keep flying the low poly, systems limited add ons.
Yes, I do have the LDS 767, and ALL of PMDG's add ons except the MD-11 not mention countless other add ons for MSFS and they can't be modelled as accurately as X-Plane add ons.  X Plane models MORE systems than  MSFS.  It's a fact.  visit X-plane.com and all systems are there.
Nuff said.
Oh yeah, if you think the LDS 767 VC is better than the Valkyrie VC, then you need to see an optometrist.  THAT is not a photo but a 3D modelled Virtual Cockpit.
Wait, 1 more quick addition.
I didn't like taking off from 100% flat and level runways all over the world with no slope to them.
Something X-Plane models very well.

I said it in my first post and I'll say it again.  It's fine to have an opinion about something, but don't make uninformed opinions on something if you haven't even tried it.

Edited by CaptainG37, 24 July 2009 - 08:39 PM.

[AirX]

Quote

AirX lol that 777 panel proves my point; very little systems simulation

Judging by a screen shot doesn't prove a point.
http://forums.x-plan...showtopic=39360

[dolbinau]

Well the screenshot, judging by the overhead switches gives an indication of what systems are modelled (or more appropriately not modelled), AirX. Again on Iphone so I'll have to wait until I get home to continue this.

I think someone should just post a SS of the PMDG 747 Overhead and close the case.

[THBatMan8]

CaptainG37, on Jul 24 2009, 08:44 PM, said:

You people are amazing.  Has anyone actually logged a decent amount of hours on X Plane to make these uninformed opinions?
The last post says if LDS make a 767 for X Plane, you would buy X Plane.  So you are assuming that X Plane CAN model a LDS level simulation of a 767?
I was a MSFS user since FS98 and I pretty much condemned X Plane.  I bought version 9 of X Plane and I will NEVER go back to MSFS.
Why is MSFS better to the majority?
I'll tell you.
User friendly interface.  (Microsoft selling point)
Microsoft has a marketting department that can rival almost any corporation in the world. X Plane has a marketing department of 1!
Yes, EYE CANDY.  Scenery APPEARS to look better in MSFS. I'll admit, it certainly is more colorful.  X Plane doesn't have repeating tiles like MSFS does and there is a program that has been made for free that will download over 500MB of scenery enhancements.  X Plane also casts cloud shadows PROPERLY and is part of the default installation.  It certainly is not free for MSFS.  Ground environment and activesky cost money.  
X Plane has BETTER  and more accurate REPRESENTATION OF THE WORLDS ELEVATIONS as DEFAULT.  
X Plane models the world as a SPHERE not a FLAT SURFACE.
Basic instruments????
Yes, for the DEFAULT gauges and panels, they are basic.  Austin was too busy making a realistic simulator to worry about highly complex gauges and panels so he made some generic ones that still work better and look better than MSFS default aircraft gauges.  Thats why we have developers.  To create highly detailed custom panels and gauges which X Plane can do BETTER than MSFS.
Have you seen the gauge animation in X Plane and compared it to MSFS?
It leaves MSFS gauge animation looking like a cartoon.
FS9 has a 65000 poly count limit on any add ons.  X Plane can run aircraft with over 1 million polys at 19+ fps.

I'm all for people making INFORMED opinions on something, but it seems to me that peoples experience in X Plane is just from watching short videos and word of mouth from other people who have watched short videos.
Download the demo, try it, read reviews.
As for add ons?
Well, since you all are into watching videos, have a look at this.

That's just 1 add on among many.
Please guys, it's negative opinions like this that spread over the simming community and turn people off buying a simulation that deserves more credit than it gets.
Goran

1 more thing.
How long did it take PMDG to make their MD-11?  8 years!!!!
How long would it take to make an MD-11 of the same quality.  not more than a year.  It's 10 times easier to make add ons in X Plane than it is in MSFS.

You misread my point. I said if Level-D makes the 767 for X-Plane it will be a better simulation based platform then MSFS.

[CaptainG37]

D, I HAVE THE PMDG 747!
Please read my posts properly.  I have ALL PMDG aircraft except the MD-11.  But I have flown the MD-11 on FS9 at a friends place.
The PMDG 747.  It sure is pretty.  Has almost all systems modelled and I have a very large respect and admiration for R. Randazzo and the entire team.  BUT, if they made a 747 for X-Plane, it will definitely behave better and more realistically, be completed quicker, and have MORE systems modelled.  Not to mention having higher framerates.
Again, I love it if people have opinions.  Opinions help others make decisions.  But they must be INFORMED OPINIONS. it is a known fact among the x plane community and it has been said by Austin Meyer himself, whatever MSFS can do, X Plane can do and then some.  WE JUST NEED THE DEVELOPERS TO GO THE X PLANE ROAD.  Developers are staying with Microsoft because it has a much larger customer base.  More customers means MORE MONEY.

Edited by CaptainG37, 24 July 2009 - 08:48 PM.

[THBatMan8]

CaptainG37, on Jul 24 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

D, I HAVE THE PMDG 747!
Please read my posts properly.  I have ALL PMDG aircraft except the MD-11.  But I have flown the MD-11 on FS9 at a friends place.
The PMDG 747.  It sure is pretty.  Has almost all systems modelled and I have a very large respect and admiration for R. Randazzo and the entire team.  BUT, if they made a 747 for X-Plane, it will definitely behave better and more realistically, be completed quicker, and have MORE systems modelled.  Not to mention having higher framerates.
Again, I love it if people have opinions.  Opinions help others make decisions.  But they must be INFORMED OPINIONS. it is a known fact among the x plane community and it has been said by Austin Meyer himself, whatever MSFS can do, X Plane can do and then some.  WE JUST NEED THE DEVELOPERS TO GO THE X PLANE ROAD.  Developers are staying with Microsoft because it has a much larger customer base.  More customers means MORE MONEY.

You just basically said the same thing I was saying throughout this thread.  

@ Buziel,

I already noted the Level-D and PMDG planes are good models when everything is operational. When you start simulating failures of components, that's when Microsoft's issues begin to manifest.

Edited by Da Bat Man, 24 July 2009 - 08:52 PM.

[CaptainG37]

No, I joined  because I was reading reviews by unqualified reviewers about something these back seat reviewers HAVEN'T EVEN TRIED for 10 minutes.  They are reviewing YOU TUBE VIDEOS for gods sake!

And the screenshots of the 747 and 767 you posted.  I'm comparing those to the screenshot of the Valkyrie.
Hmmmm, which one is better?
Tough decision.  High poly model that runs at a minimum of 19fps by default or the low poly FS9 version that, in the VC, has absolutely NO CHAMFERED edges on anything.
No, I'm not a troll.  Far from it.  If you classify someone who comes here to help make people make informed opinions on something rather than just talking about what they see in screenshots and videos, a troll, then your definition of a troll is waaaay different to mine.
Like I said, I was PRO FS for 11 years.  I tried the demo of X-Plane, bought it because I liked what I saw, tried it some more, and I do not regret my decision 1 bit.  
You can always have an opinion on MSFS, but please try x plane before you make opinions.

What I WILL listen to or read in this case, is someones experience in X Plane when they fly a high quality add on, equivalent to a PMDG or LDS add on over a long haul flight totalling no less than 2000nm and to FULLY EXPERIENCE what this sim has to offer.
But who am I kidding?  That's not going to happen.  It seems that everyone here is for MSFS no matter how good X Plane gets modelled.

Edited by CaptainG37, 24 July 2009 - 09:08 PM.

[dolbinau]

So you're basically saying yes, x-plane has airliners with full systems including overheads? The problem is you can't show anything that does..I just don't understand can't you just take a SS of a functionally complete overhead?

The 777 that someone showed is a prime example of where xplane IS lacking IMO