Please comfort me that I did not lose money by buying xplane

Any body can let me know what is Xplane good for?

 

Right now I consider myself donating to the company for future simulation development :)

>what is Xplane good for?

 

for fun? -))

I bought X-Plane10 last year but don't like the way propeller planes keep slowly developing a roll, they won't keep their wings level no matter how carefully you try to trim them.

According to their forum it's a longstanding issue that has never been fixed, although jet planes seem okay.

But I'm a propeller nut so I'm sticking to FSX..;)

What were you expecting and then we can tell you if XP can meet those expectations and how.

I bought X-Plane10 last year but don't like the way propeller planes keep slowly developing a roll, they won't keep their wings level no matter how carefully you try to trim them.

According to their forum it's a longstanding issue that has never been fixed, although jet planes seem okay.

But I'm a propeller nut so I'm sticking to FSX..;)

 

On top of this annoying roll, I quite often experience a sudden roll combined with a dive I can't recover from.

I got X Plane Global last month cost me $56 buck from England. I got it because I saw this video comparing X Plane with FSX and the graphics looked pretty nice out of the box. But when I got it, I found it had no seasons ... no airport buildings or VASI lights during the day so the small airports are very hard to find. The scenery wasn't nearly as nice as the area shown in the video.

 

I fly helicopters and the default Bell is difficult to fly because of the stick sensitivity. It has no heading compass like the default Bell in FSX ... there is no heading info at all except for what I see in the cab. After flying the default Bell in X Plane ... flying the Bell in FSX is like a dream ... nice and smooth. There is no overhead panel in the X Plane Bell and it is not very realistic ... I can do level flight of 87 knts with the torque at 38%. Can't do that in FSX.

 

Another bad thing about X Plane is in FSX I can use 3 monitors to see out my side windows ... but in X Plane the only way you can have the same affect is to have 3 separate computers. Who can do that? Not many I bet.

 

When I am flying the screen saver comes on ... I don't have that problem in FSX.

 

But like I mention earlier ... X Plane has really nice detailed roads. I like seeing the trains, cars and other vehicles. I like seeing the high voltage wires on the towers. I like the Tracker XP that you can get for $15 so you can see everything in the cab and outside and you only need a webcam to do it. Guy by the name of Bob will help you with any problems you have with it. Since I can't have the three screen the Tracker XP is the next best thing.

 

You didn't loose any more money than I did. I use FSX for training but X Plane is just for fun. That's how I look at it. Something different to fly in.

 

Don't say you like FSX better than X Plane at X Plane org ... you will never hear the end of it.

Yup, we all learn the lessons the hard way some times man. You gotta know when to say somethin' and when not to say somethin'. :) I've been trying to just get off the ground the past couple of days in X-Plane 10 Global since I bought it. I basically am sticking with FSX I think. I don't know why I bought X-Plane. I guess curiosity finally got the best of me.

I don't know why I bought X-Plane. I guess curiosity finally got the best of me.

 

It's a steep learning curve from FSX to XP10, and X-Plane requires a fair amount of work before it looks like anything you see in (some) videos.

Perhaps the biggest challenge for diehard FSX users are XP's idiosyncrasies, including a user-interface that most seem to find very challenging.

 

Anyway, happy flying, in whatever sim you prefer !

It is very challenging Ratrace. I'm not giving up on it man. I intend to learn both, but I am still having trouble getting in the air in X-Plane.

 

I'm not quitting, just keeping things default for now until I get proficient at it like I am FSX. I like the interiors of the planes in it, I have to just get used to everything else and set up properly.

Hi everyone.

While I am not the greatest fan of the sim, I do think it's worth purchasing and learning, getting involved with suggestions, etc. It is one of our few different / new / still active factory developments that we have.

It is frustrating, at times, but it is better than not having it, if for no other reason than to compare.

I, typically, update it, see if any of the what I consider issues got resolved, if not, it goes in the background, until the next release. I keep hoping. TV

I agree with all of the comments above.

 

I actually started with XP9, which I bought at Oshkosh at a good sale price. Thank goodness for that, because I found XP9 to be around the level, overall, of FS2000, except that the airplane handling and performance were below even that, and the images of the airplanes and cockpits were also well behind MS.

 

XP10 was supposed to have corrected much of that, and indeed it did, but as far as the way it comes out of the box I think it is not up to FSX standards. Most of the "default" airplanes are sorely lacking in realism, both in imagery and in handling. Some cockpits have instruments that have never even appeared in the real world - like the airspeed indicator in the F-4 that has two hands, like an altimeter! Honestly, I think some of the developers involved had never been inside an airplane before, or at least inside an F-4, which is surprising considering how many of them are freely available at museums or Oshkosh.

 

The aspect of XP10 that is getting to be exciting is the interest in the platform by third party developers, and some of the payware airliners coming out these days rival their counterparts over at FSX. There is even going to be an XP10 DC-6, by PMDG, that looks superb, so the platform appears to be vibrant and growing for third party development.

 

However, and this is a BIG however, for reasons unknown to me (more surprising since it is actually a 64bit program) XP10 makes FSX look like a frame rate champion! I was totally unprepared for the hit that the add-on airport sceneries, in particular, make on the framerates in XP. Whereas I can, with the help of Xtreme FSX PC, get frame rates in the mid teens even in Manhattan with that fantastic New York scenery from Drazweicki (hope I spelled that right!), and likewise with their NY airports, the JFK add-on scenery for XP10 (which is great, make no mistake) slows things down well into the mid single digits. This is an apples to apples comparison on my only-mid-level machine (apparently the GT620 is not the scorcher I thought it might be when I got my machine cheap!) but it is a valid comparison. To get performance with a level of detail like the screenshots you may see, you will need a very fast computer with a lot of RAM and the very latest graphics cards. In my experience FSX performs better.

 

Another thing that happened to me was that when I originally set up XP10, most of the airplanes, including a few add-ons I bought, were almost uncontrollable, as some here seem to be experiencing. It turned out, for me, that my old joystick was rather arthritic, and that makes for many more problems in XP than in FSX from all appearances. When Santa was good this year and a new HOTAS T made its way under my tree, my flying with XP improved 1000%, and I now find that it handles just about as well as FSX does.

 

Some of the new add-ons, in particular the 757, have mouse wheel functionality to control dial positions and the like on the panels, so advancements are being made in the admittedly difficult user interface area. But of course, in the beginning it took awhile to master the MSFS interface too, and XP is just different, not really all that much more difficult. We're just used to doing things a certain way.

 

So it's Chevy versus Ford, Bud versus Miller, Cessna versus Piper. You say tomatoe........

 

Play with it and have fun. If we are indeed funding development, well thats a good thing.

.... If we are indeed funding development, well thats a good thing.

 

Thanks for sharing that, captain Vallillo !

 

X-plane is under constant development, but it's a (very) small team, and Austin Meyers very much has a mind of his own :)

 

And as you say, for a large part the future of XP lies in the hands of third party developers ...

 

BTW, it's Drzewiecki, but to be perfectly honest, I had to copy-paste that :D

$60.00 just be aggravated by unfinished software? No Thanks! Maybe if they finish it and fix the existing development issues I might buy it. It is the responsibility of the developer to provide a turn key product to their customers, not the other way around. Yes, I would like some newer (Complete) simulation software to fly with, but X Plane is not it. (Microsoft Flight) was not it either. We waited on that sim for five years! They gave us an arcade game with expensive DLC nobody cared for. They closed the code we had been working with for fifteen years and blew the entire community out of the water. I am hoping for a young smart group of code writers that will develop the next generation simulator. Price it at $100.00...no problem, but make sure it's (flyable) before you release it.

 

Rant Over!

Cheers,

Aaron

What did I tell you guys ... this is how they can be at X Plane .org. Check out this thread when I ask about XPlane wanted 3 GB and crashing on me.

 

Troll alert

 

Say something bad about XPlane over there and you are a troll.

Wow... New here and am a little taken aback.

 

I used to fly an older version of MS FS. Cannot remember the version but it was about 6 years ago or so. It was TOO easy for me to fly. I mean, let go of the stick and walk away and all was well when I came back. Not that it was bad, it just didn't seem very realistic.

 

Anyhow, I built a new PC with a lot of good hardware for other reasons and decided to try x-plane. I am MUCH more pleased with it that I was MS FS. It requires some skill to fly, seems in my humble opinion to be more realistic in flight. To be sure it takes some tweaking to get things the way you want, but there is SO much free stuff around to make it even better. Not again, that MS product was bad, I just like X-plane better. I guess I am in the minority here. :-)

 

One of the things I hear people complaining about is the left turn on single prop planes. I used to fly a lot of RC planes and they did exactly the same thing unless you put offset in the motor or did other "tricks" to them. A little rudder control and some smooth applications of throttle solve this for me in xp. The default twins in xp do not seem to do that to me, so I am mystified as to where the real problem is. Maybe I am lucky.

 

I have a honking graphics card, so frame rates seem fine to me even with HD scenery and maxish settings. I get around 50fps most of the time. I don;t remember what was happening in MS FS, but it was many computer generations ago so hard for me to compare.

 

Anyhow... just wanted to get a happy x-planers opinion in here and say Hi!!

I own X-Plane 8,9,and 10. Been using all forms of MSFS also. I've certainly made my X-Plane complaints on this forum, in the past years. But, with a new high powered computer system, I'm enjoying X-Plane 10 & FSX very close to a 50/50 time split. X-Plane does a beautiful job of recreating mountain mesh. Being a real life mountain flyer, as I was, I prefer X-Plane for the look of distant mountains, such as approaching the Jackson Hole, Teton area, or southern Utah, as examples. At dusk, they look fantastic!

 

On the other hand, should I fly over the Tetons into Idaho, the X-Plane look can become bland and repetitive, and this is where Orbx FTX and some additional addons make FSX come alive, and look far better. Its really a case of just one sim looking better than the other, depending, when & where.

 

As to flight modeling, both sims can recreate the left drift, just fine. X-Plane still has a problem with left roll. It simulates torque just fine, but doesn't simulate all of the forces that over-ride this left torque, once you lift off from the runway. Carenado airplanes for X-Plane, have been reprogrammed, from their FSX counterparts. The designer, who is very experienced with X-Plane, uses some coding to eliminate some of the torque, as a temporary fix. I, as well as some others, think that the Carenados fly better in X-Plane, than FSX. Yet, I still prefer third party FSX RealAir airplanes, over anything. I flew a good number of real airplanes over the years, as well as owning and building high performance models. As far as I'm concerned, neither sim has some great advantage when it comes to airplane flight dynamics.

I think some here are selling X-Plane short of its capabilities. Just a couple of days ago I participated in VATSIM CTP Westbound 2015 (callsign DAL315) and I was on the Vattastic chat side-by-side. Everyone there (or at least everyone with FSX), by the time they had reached (or were approaching) the East coast of the U.S, were worried about a out-of-memory crash, and sure enough, several of them did experience a crash and started swearing. :rolleyes:

 

Some others began to worry once their framerates dipped to 25. Mine dipped to 25 too, once I had reached Boston with its heavy scenery and thick cloud cover, but I changed the cloud detail settings and boom - 35 FPS. Never once did I worry about crashing throughout my flight. If I had lower FPS (i.e.

 

This is possible only because X-Plane is 64-bit. It was 64-bit 3 years ago.

 

Note - Laminar Research itself says that X-Plane is a giant resource hog - if your computer has eight cores and a really powerful GPU, it would use every ounce of computing power possible. Hence the target frame-rate is 30 FPS. Anyone showing off their running X-Plane at 55-60 FPS with heavy cloud cover and with heavy scenery either has a REALLY powerful computer, or have set their graphics detail to be too low.

When I was younger I had a train set that had three main tracks with electric switches and three trains that I could run all at one time. I had to figure out how to lay out and operate the trains. To me this is the way the flight simulators are. UT2 is what brought me to this web site. I'm trying to build the traffic the way I want it at the airports. I've got a good grip on X-plane also with the help of all the developers hard work. I expect completeness from PlayStation or Nintendo. This is my PC. There is million different variables to make the experience enjoyable. Find what you want.

Any body can let me know what is Xplane good for?

 

Right now I consider myself donating to the company for future simulation development :)

 

I can comfort you that you didn't lose your money :)

 

As simple as the next few lines.

 

Being 'under development' is not a bad thing. It's a very good thing.

 

Take for example one of the finest aircraft ever built: The F-16.

Since the late 70' (F-16A/B) you have:

 

F-16 A/B

F-16 A/B Blocks 1/5/10/15/20

(we are now at the 90')

F-16 C/D

F-16 C/D Blocks 25/30/32/40/42/50/52

(we are at the 2000')

F-16 I (52+)

 

So...

 

'Under development' means that someone is out there, making sure that the product is not out-dated. So it will catch up with any improvements in the new technology, warfare...etc.

 

Being a flight simulator pilot, like a real-life pilot, you always have a learning curve. It's good.

 

:)

You can kill the roll to the left on accelleration or climb with some right rudder. Keep the ball centred. :-)

Hi all,

 

New member here, just wanted to chime in on this based on my own experience.

I've recently come back to flight sims and decided to try out X-Plane since I now have a more powerful PC.

 

The sim definitely has a steeper learning curve in getting it looking great. I actually almost gave up on XPlane, especially after being spoiled with OrbX sceneries but I did stick with it and now haven't looked back, X-Plane runs much better maxed out with all the add ons/eye candy.

 

Since I have a buttload of RAM, I use the UHD Mesh from alpilotx, plus with most settings set to extreme, flying around Innsbruk or Yosemite for eg, is simply breath taking! Nothing comes close IMHO.

The sim definitely has a steeper learning curve in getting it looking great. I actually almost gave up on XPlane, especially after being spoiled with OrbX sceneries but I did stick with it and now haven't looked back, X-Plane runs much better maxed out with all the add ons/eye candy.

 

Agreed. 3PD like OrbX are squeezing every last drop out of FSX, but X-Plane still has a lot of potential.

Prepar3D is a different matter, also under development, but me thinks LM are targeting a different audience.

The common denominator here appears to be that X-plane needs an even faster more cutting-edge computer than FSX does. If you happen to have such a beast (and if you do you are probably either a.) a computer pro (or serious computer hobbyist) of some sort who can build your own, or b.) somehow well enough off that you can afford the $4000 Alienware offering) you will enjoy X-plane as much or more than FSX. Provided that you are happy with the way it "handles".

 

In truth, it would probably take a real pilot, who has actually flown the airplane in question at some length, to really make a valid comparison of how XP and FSX "fly". My own experience is similar to some of the opinions expressed here and elsewhere - XP is a bit too unstable, particularly in the roll axis, compared to the real airplane in question. Not all that much, but just a bit. This may not be a completely bad thing, especially if mastery of flying in XP gives one a greater sense of accomplishment, as well it may. But that does not necessarily mean that it is more realistic, just more challenging.

 

Large Level D FAA approved simulators are all (in my not inconsiderable experience) at least a bit more difficult to "fly" than the real airplane. Some of this is by design, and some of it relates to the degree to which it is possible, at a reasonable price, to duplicate something as fluid and dynamic as flight.

 

XP apparently uses a different method of calculating the fight dynamics than FS. FS is said to use essentially the same method as the big sims - performance data from tables or databases, which at the FAA level come from data out of the flight test program. XP apparently calculates the flying based upon the actual shape of the structure of the "airplane" in question, which if true would make it extremely important for a software designer to get the shape absolutely correct down to a gnat's behind, something not important in FS since the shape only affects the visual image. Again, if all of this is true, then XP is more of an engineering test simulator, like the ones Boeing builds before they have flight tested the actual airplane, based on wind tunnel data and fluid dynamics computations.

 

With good computers and good input devices both XP and FS can be quite satisfying; but of the two, out of the box FS is a bit more realistic and requires less fiddling, in my experience. Also, and potentially important to those of us who approach this from a flying and not a computing standpoint, there are products for FS that do the "tweaks" for you. I have not seen this sort of thing migrate over to XP yet. When it does, many of us will be better off.

 

There is, for many of us, value in a product that does not require an advanced degree in computer science to use effectively. And we do have to respect the limits. My own attention span precludes flights longer than about 30 minutes (I had my fill of the long ones before I retired!) so I have not encountered the problems many are reporting on long flights, but I imagine that could be settled by dialing down some of the eye candy and concentrating on flying the airplane, or perhaps watching the autopilot fly it.

 

As for P3D, it is what it is - a version of FSX aimed deliberately at the professional end of the market and under constraint of licensing agreements. We are glad it is available, and more power to them as they figure out what to do with it!

 

As I said in another post: Flight Simulation - what a hobby! How delightful it is to be able to compare and contrast things like this, and even to complain about them.

I too am a real world pilot, who can appreciate the intent of X-Plane... but I have to be honest, the overall package does not fulfill the full sensory perception of real world flight. It battles with FSX stating that it's approach is far more scientific, but the ultimate result is not so convincing. As others have commented, I also keep a copy, updated... , to see what the new version brings. But will continue to spend most of my sim time in FSX, or P3D...

 

Ps: Just a side note... Profile indicates I am a Junior Member since 2010, with 4 posts... I have been in this group and contributing projects since 2003 or before... Don't believe everything you see on the web, or here...

 

Robert Christopher

I agree with all of the comments above.

 

I found XP9 to be around the level, overall, of FS2000, except that the airplane handling and performance were below even that, and the images of the airplanes and cockpits were also well behind MS.

 

That is an extraordinary statement. I used FS2000 and it cannot be compared to X-Plane 9. Did you ever update to version 9.7? With regards to FPS/performance of either sim, how can it be argued that XP which can run 64bit and use multiple cores need a 4K alienware system? That is not accurate information. I've personally ran XP10 on as little as a Core2Duo and a 9600GT and not only does it run okay, but better than FSX ever did on that same system. It's actually the other way around. You're going to have a more fluid simulator with XP10. I'm not going to get into the particulars of the MSFS or XP platform, but X-Plane 9 is somewhere between FS2004 and FSX. That said, if you're into FSX' eye candy where you want to see the exterior models and things like that, XP will not have much of that, but it does have some extremely strong points that you will discover if you use the simulator long enough. In X-Plane you're going to sacrifice things like seasons, although that has to some degree been resolved by community developers, ATC, etc but you have things that FSX doesn't or that XP does in a better way, and enough of them in my opinion. With regards to scenery and complaints thereof, users should find their way to where all the XP scenery is. I'm not going to advertise their forum here. You will find free payware quality stuff that will blow your mind away, like that newest LAX scenery.

 

That said, in my line of work, I've discussed XP with several airline pilots who use it and would never go back to FSX. I hear two things from them frequently......flight dynamics and simulation of icing.

 

I myself once years ago fired up XP9, played around for a few flights and went back to my MSFS2004. It wasn't until I actually put an honest effort into taking my vanilla copy and figuring out where and what to download that brought the simulator to life as would be the case for any other simulator. Neither FS2004 or FSX are breathtaking out the box. You have to REX them, seed them with Flytampa, Megascenery them, WOAI them until they look good. XP is no different except you have to look towards the community's offerings. If you have any doubts about what XP can look like, take at least a minute to watch the video below,