X-plane / somewhat disapointed !

[paulbm]

Recently bought X-plane after reading the various reviews. Big disapointment however. To mention that frame rates are slow is an big understatement. The sim works really incredibly slow (for instance FS 2000 runs pretty fluent on my system on highest density / 1GHZ processor / RIVA TNT 32MB 3d accelator 30GB HD). Looks somewhat like what I would envision FS2000 to be on my old 100 Mhz PC or maybe even my 486SX. I am sorry (X-plane does seem to have some options , weather generation for instance , which do seem to be superior to MSFS) but I do not think that this is really acceptable for a decent flightsim. Just for the record I did try to run X-plane classic , runs at good frame rates , but looking at the planes makes me think of my C64 , so not really an option.

[mhl]

Are you using the correct (latest) OpenGL drivers for your video card? I had the same problem with very slow frame rates when I first installed X-Plane. Then I noticed that it had not detected OpenGL drivers in use. Once I installed these the frame rate was fine.

Mike

[paulbm]

Thanks,

Just downloaded update. Can't really believe the result. Frame rates have gone up incredibly. Am now somewhat afraid that sim might run too fast looking at the graphics. I have to admit that I take everything back from my previous e-mail (am really amazed!).

Paul

[majortom]

Regardless I'm having X-Plane 6.0.5/6 on a Mac (G4/500 - 100MHz bus and 2xAGP) instead than a PC (your case) there are some things you might know. I have 4 levels of rendering: Normal, High, Very High and Extreme Res. 'Till Very High everything is smooth (Radeon 32MByte). At Extreme Res everything is choppy (2-3 frames/sec). Another thing that can slow down a lot is the weather: setting a lot of clouds. If, with these settings, you still have a poor frame rate, I might consider a different video card (BTW, UI know nothing about tech specs of your video card...).

[Ridge_Runner_5]

LAST EDITED ON Dec-20-01 AT 07:02PM (EDT)[p]Here's an idea.....read the box. When I got it, I too, was dissapointed at the constant stuttering, with 32 megs of RAM. I discovered the problem. The box says you need 96 megs of RAM to play it. I updated to 160 megs, works fine, now.

Ridge

[Vector]

XP6 is far better than FS2002; I have both. FS2002 has mucho
add-ons though. But XP6 is awesome in flight modelling and
graphics. Maybe you have some settings to high on the graphics
menu in XP. Those settings are more demanding than FS2002 settings. XP auto-gen is more efficient too. I was using XP6
a little while ago and there where fireworks in it and is was
beautiful.

[Flyerr]

Well I bought X-plane v 5.40 And updated it to 5.66 and it works fine but lets say if you fly for a long time about 4-5 hours at normal altitude in a commercial aircraft or any aircraft when i come to land the runway shakes and the ground and the airplane and I don't know what causes that Help please!!!

[Boeing737400]

That is a general 5x problem. Austin says it is to do with how far you are from the reference point (the airport where you start)if you fly back to where you started the shaking stops!

[gaafanatic]

I agree, I just tried the latest demo and could not see what all the whoop-la is all about, the graphics are not up to what you would exspect at todays standards the scenery in not as accurate as FS02, in Xplane there are major mountains in my home town, there are none in real! I bought Xplane a couple of years ago and took it back dissapointed, it's gotten better but it's not even in the same "ballpark" as FS02, heck, it's not even in the same Galaxy!

[haldir15]

I just brought X-Plane today too - only £2.99 (about $5) in HMV. I was extremely dissappointed, not with the frame rate but the game overall. Compared to most modern games the graphics look like most of my games 5 or more years ago, and often sections will be missing out of aircraft in particular engine pods.

My second gripe is the flight model. After reading Austin's explanation on the flight model, although it makes sense its not real. Yes although forces do act on an aircraft they do not all act on an aircraft the same way, which seems to be the way X-Plane does it.

Finally updates. The boxed version is 5.52, however you cannot upgrade beyond 5.99 which you cannot download from the website so the promise on the box of "Free upgrades via the net..." is a lie. Unfortunately with this game £2.99 is about all it seems worth and yes it will be going back to the store tommorrow to get my money back.

FS2002 is still the best graphically and in terms of flight model and I'll never deviate again.

[XMech]

Probably too late, but you should look into what XP has to offer that MSFS doesn't. (Actually if you can return that older version, great!) Yes, of course there's the problem that you purchased an older version off the shelf. I threw my box away long ago, but did it not say free upgrades up to version 5.99? Fortunately for me, it was the current version at that time. I've seen FS98 on the shelves recently, but since it's so much more popular, everyone knows it's the old version and what they're getting. If one were fortunate enough to first find X-Plane on the internet, you can download a full trial version, (Limited by 5 minutes of joystick time each time you start, and only fly around southern California.) then if you like, order the current series disk to make the current version you just downloaded fully functional. I've been with XP a few years and I think v5.42 was the only boxed version there was.

Anyways, what does XP do that MSFS can't? Easier to create and modify aircraft and scenery. (Not easy, easier.) Less system demanding. Can simulate things MSFS can't; mother-ship launches, forest fire-fighting, fly to and back from outer space, tilt-rotors, vectored thrust, air 'puffers' (REALLY fly a Harrier, not a jet with souped-up flaps!) , Naval ops on Carriers and cruisers (for helos) on ships that are really travelling and rocking on the waves (Wave height user-set) and without an add-on, real sling loads for helos, gear retract on helos (LOL) ..... There's so much more. The planes are as good as you make them. If you DL one and you don't like something about it, you can change it quite easily. And look into X-Plane.org for a large helpfull group of guys, although I'm going to see if I can help get this place off the ground.

Yes the graphics aren't super, the ATC is addmittedly bad, but at least you can contact the developer and ask for new features, report bugs, etc. Being an XP user can be a roller coaster ride, but it's always getting higher.

And it just dawned on me. Why do people always seem to expect MSFS2k2 when they purchase X-Plane? It's a different sim. There's different things to do and enjoy. If you want to fly around in a super detailed plane and look at the scenery under detailed ATC, fire up MSFS, if you want to shoot a carrier approach at night in a thunderstorm in 20 foot seas (or even on a clear day), X-Plane's the way to go. I like 'em both for those reasons.

[abenson]

I just bought the new version of XP.6.51. It has not arrived yet but the demo seems much better than the boxed version I bought a couple of years ago. I like XP for different reasons than I do FS02. You can fly to and from space, you can shoot carrier approaches, you can set the sea weather, space weather, and one feature I like is to look at the graphical representation of what each piece of the airplane is doing in real time. Yes I agree at this point that MSFS02 is more detaaled when it comes to scenery but so what. Like the other guy said it is getting better all the time and it is a quality sim with less than a quarter of people working on it. I don't know the numbers for sure but its a good sim. Buy em both and see what you use more. If you don't want both sell one away to someone else.

[Boeing737400]

Personally, if you are a fan of airliners (especially Airbuses) then X-Plane is definitely not the sim for you. The ATC, and the complex systems, controls and instruments cannot be simulated in X-Plane. So what if the FS2002 planes fly to book value, all it means is that it handles like the real thing!

[dohcmark8]

So much hype surrouding X-Plane, your right it is utterly useless for commercial flight with such a primitive ATC system. I had it for awhile but deleted it because it became boring, flight were takeoff and land, use dumb ATC system. But FS02 has opened up a whole new world for me with proeject AI and a good atc system, winning in my book (MSFS). The reason X-Plane has hype, is because every X-Plane fan cringes onto every word said by Austin, the developer/creator of X-Plane and that stupid blade element theory crap.

[Boeing737300]

I could not agree more with the above statement.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e1a38025f0c9ef9.jpg

[XMech]

ROFL!!!!!Yes, you're right. I'm burning my X-Plane CD now! LOLOLOLOL!!!!

[XMech]

Oh, I almost forgot, what's 'proeject' and a 'virtual captain AND first officer'? Whew, you must have not met too many real pilots, to hold them in such regard.

Reminds me of a joke where an airline captain is waiting in a long line to the Pearly Gates of Heaven, and after getting impatient (not too long) steps out of line and goes to see St. Peter and says, 'Hey St Pete, you think you could slide me in here? I'm not used to having to wait like this, you know?' St. Peter shakes a finger at him and says "Oh, no! Just because you were a BIG, BAD, airline pilot on earth, that doesn't pull any weight around here! You get back in line and wait like everyone else!" Upset, but quieted, the captain gets back in line and isn't there but a few minutes when he sees another uniformed captain walk right by, wave at St. Peter, and walk right through the Pearly Gates. This infuriates the captain and he challenges St. Peter. "How come that captain got to go right in?" St. Peter replies "That was no captain, that was God, he just likes to believe he's an airline captain!"

Moderators.....sorry....

[TomXP]

THat's funny, because I've found that the MS simulators are slow, cumbersome, and the aircraft too often don't handle well at all.

I enjoy building a plane in Planemaker and then taking it up for a spin. It's fun to find an interesting plane in a magazine, spend a couple of hours in Plane Maker, and have a working, mostly complete model in the air. Not counting some fine tuning, I can build and skin a plane in a day. The last "complete" plane I built took me a weekend. Yes, a whole weekend!

To do the same thing in MSFS takes days. I spent nearly two weeks modelling an aircraft in MSFS and never quite got it done. What stumped me was the fact that even after I got the visual model finished, I couldn't get the flight model reasonably close to what I wanted.

Don't get me wrong: I love MSFS. I'll probably buy 2004 when it comes out (if it does). However, I still spend the majority of my time in the XP6 virtual cockpit.

[Yarddart152]

I just bought the x-plane 7 beta. The flight models in x-plane are outstanding as far as realism though. thats all i need. And everything is smooth, like the instruments and what not. Better for IFR profiency then MSFS anyday. Though the eye candy and ATC arent as good, but from what i understand, they are working on a sqauwkbox for x-plane. that should take care of the ATC. x-plane right now to me is better then MSFS, at least FS2002. We'll see about FS ACOF. The ATC sounds pretty promissing. FS2002 ATC pretty much sucks in my opinion, but u may have to be a real pilot to notice that. just my 2 cents