X-plane looks much better than P3d and FSX!

I have just downloaded the demo version of X-plane. I decided to compare it against P3D. X-plane is just phenomenal. It looks infinitely better than P3D. It's a zillion times more realistic. Here are side by side comparisons of the base products together - no addons at all. All settings on both are maxed out. In X-plane I averaged 50FPS maxed out, in P3d however, only 25-30 FPS. Clearly there is no competition between the two. P3D looks absolutely terrible, while X-plane looks bright, clear, crisp and stunning - and is 64 bit. It loads much quicker on my system than FSX and P3D too. My only problem with X-plane is that while the scenary does look graphically better, I'm not sure ( I could be wrong) there is region appropriate buildings - those typical US neighbourhoods in the image may appear all over Europe too. I think there are addons that improve upon the texture resolution, but there is not yet any addons that improve upon the autogen. Why on Earth isn't PMDG making their products compatible with X-plane? Sure they have released one already, but if the 737 and 777 were compatible, I'd erase FSX and P3D junk from my system. FSX and P3D are relics now surely?

P3D (FSX)

http://i.imgur.com/LPowyfj.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8mB3hB7.jpg

X-Plane

http://i.imgur.com/NzB0x7f.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kKRAfsj.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/0xxEWJf.jpg

If it makes you happy, go for it. :)

I think I will buy X-plane! It also runs through steam which I find useful too. HOWEVER - I'm trying to find the best scenery addons for X-plane. I fly in Europe and would like to see European landscapes. I don't think X-plane has any addons like ORBX Open LC Europe for example. There is a load of freeware scenery and I'm not sure which is best for my tastes.

The payware aircraft aren't as graphically detailed as in FSX. The X-plane 777 exterior model is not as accurate as the PMDG model, which if it were, would mean X-plane would win hands down for me. It is a shame that ORBX does not support X-plane though, as ORBX+PMDG+X-plane would mean I'd never play FSX or P3D again. I only play tubeliners and from what I can see, X-plane has better scenery (to suit my tastes - it is subjective) while FSX has better aircraft. HOWEVER - X-plane engine heat distortion (the blur at the back of the engines) is very realistic and is not supported in FSX or P3D. This little eye candy is enough in itself to keep me playing X-plane for now.

If it makes you happy, go for it. :)

What he/she said!

I'm an X-Plane user.

The bad news is: making XP's sceneries look really good requires a lot of work, and you definitely need Andras Fabian's mesh scenery (http://www.alpilotx.net) and Simheaven OSM continent sceneries (simheaven.com)

The good news is: it's all free or donationware.

And for all those enjoying FSX and/or P3D: keep doing whatever makes you happy :)

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see Xplane as a zillion times better. Are the houses really a mile apart, only on the main streets with a HUGE field behind them? Not sure if it's just the region you're in but it looks bizarre to me with houses just along the streets in big squares. Not very realistic to me.

Also the cartoony planes in XPlane are a non-starter for me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'm an X-Plane user.

 

The bad news is: making XP's sceneries look really good requires a lot of work, and you definitely need Andras Fabian's mesh scenery (http://www.alpilotx.net) and Simheaven OSM continent sceneries (simheaven.com)

 

The good news is: it's all free or donationware.

 

And for all those enjoying FSX and/or P3D: keep doing whatever makes you happy :)

Wow! Actually providing site information in a meaningful way! I was started to worry written communication was becoming a lost art on the FSX Forum. You did no cut and paste and added no snarky comments to those who might misunderstand you. Thanks so much!

We all have questions and and get confused from time to time. Civility is never a bad alternative to snarkism.

I have just downloaded the demo version of X-plane. I decided to compare it against P3D. X-plane is just phenomenal. It looks infinitely better than P3D. It's a zillion times more realistic. Here are side by side comparisons of the base products together - no addons at all. All settings on both are maxed out. In X-plane I averaged 50FPS maxed out, in P3d however, only 25-30 FPS. Clearly there is no competition between the two. P3D looks absolutely terrible, while X-plane looks bright, clear, crisp and stunning - and is 64 bit. It loads much quicker on my system than FSX and P3D too. My only problem with X-plane is that while the scenary does look graphically better, I'm not sure ( I could be wrong) there is region appropriate buildings - those typical US neighbourhoods in the image may appear all over Europe too. I think there are addons that improve upon the texture resolution, but there is not yet any addons that improve upon the autogen. Why on Earth isn't PMDG making their products compatible with X-plane? Sure they have released one already, but if the 737 and 777 were compatible, I'd erase FSX and P3D junk from my system. FSX and P3D are relics now surely?

 

[ ]

And Ferrari is better than Lamborghini, and Ford is better than Chevy, and Coke is better than Pepsi. And I love Cindy Crawford. We've been down this trail a hundred times before. What's you point?

And Ferrari is better than Lamborghini, and Ford is better than Chevy, and Coke is better than Pepsi. And I love Cindy Crawford. We've been down this trail a hundred times before. What's you point?

My point is why aren't there more people playing X-plane and why aren't there more addons for it? Then again, I heard that the maker of X-plane got sued $1.5 million for using a patented piece of technology for the X-plane app. Surely this will have delayed the development of X-plane 11?

And Ferrari is better than Lamborghini, and Ford is better than Chevy, and Coke is better than Pepsi. And I love Cindy Crawford. We've been down this trail a hundred times before. What's you point?

The OP kinda looks new in the forum (only 65 posts) give him a break

Blithering him is not necessary.

The OP kinda looks new in the forum (only 65 posts) give him a break

Blithering him is not necessary.

I come and go on this forum. I stop by and read the posts but rarely do I reply unless I have question I'd like answering. In this case, why does ORBX NOT support X-plane and why do people think X-plane is dead - or at least not as popular as the other two platforms. Is there something fundamentally flawed with X-plane that I am yet to discover? Everything I've experienced with X-plane has been positive - then again I will be running it with a GTX Titan X shortly and an I7 5600K processor @ 4.4GHZ. I'm looking forward to seeing how smoothly it will run, as I've already maxed it out with my old i5 2320 3GHZ processor and GTX 970 - though I have read that, unlike FSX which relies on CPU more than GPU, X-plane replies more on the GPU. When I install some addons, will I experience CTD and other bugs within X-plane? Is this why it's not so popular? The autogen is very realistic - It looks a lot like a city builder game like Cities XL.

I haven't got P3D but I bought X-Plane 10 last year and didn't like it, so I gave it away.

The default XP 10 city scenery is terrible, but what really killed the sim for me is that single-engine prop planes have no natural stablity and will slowly start to roll as if they're balanced on a pin no matter how carefully you trim them.

It's a longstanding X-Plane issue that's never been fixed, here's what a moderator says in their forum-

"One of the longest and hottest debate subjects in X-Plane is its handling of directional stability, in particular, roll response to changes in engine power in prop airplanes. Many, including experienced pilots, have accused X-Plane aircraft models of being unrealistically unstable in roll...

...X-Plane does not correctly model the yaw effects that in real life cover up the roll effect"

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=81200

I haven't got P3D but I bought X-Plane 10 last year and didn't like it, so I gave it away.

The default XP 10 city scenery is terrible, but what really killed the sim for me is that single-engine prop planes have no natural stablity and will slowly start to roll as if they're balanced on a pin no matter how carefully you trim them.

It's a longstanding X-Plane issue that's never been fixed, here's what a moderator says in their forum-

"One of the longest and hottest debate subjects in X-Plane is its handling of directional stability, in particular, roll response to changes in engine power in prop airplanes. Many, including experienced pilots, have accused X-Plane aircraft models of being unrealistically unstable in roll...

...X-Plane does not correctly model the yaw effects that in real life cover up the roll effect"

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=81200

Really? As I've already said, I think the default X-plane scenery is way better than anything FSX/P3D has to offer - even with ORBX FTX Global/Open LC and the latest ORBX trees! The reason is because in FSX/P3D, after a certain radius from my plane, the scenery blurs into a horrible mess as I have shown in the images in the original post. In X-plane, the landscape is rendered up to the horizon and blurs out realistically. Whether this is because at the time you played X-plane, you couldn't play it on max settings and see what I'm seeing with the GTX970, so it's possible you thought it looked terrible. I don't care how accurate the autogen is - as long as it's plausible and graphically realistic (in X-plane, it is). FSX is like a mix of different melted ice-cream. It's all blurry and muddy at a distance. I'm sure you can change this in the config, but changing it would probably bring even the best of systems to its knees. I can't be bothered tweaking this and that anymore. X-plane is in my opinion, visually better than both FSX and P3D, but maybe that's because it resembles the city building games I'm used to playing. The entire world looks like FSX fly tampa dubai quality autogen - at least maxed out anyway.

This image looks wonderful - as this is just the base game. I have 60FPS - tied with my monitor refresh rate. As you can see, the autogen renders right up to the horizon and doesn't disappear completely after a particular distance as it does in FSX. The atmospheric scattering is great too. Notice the reflections cast by the terrain in the water as well. The autogen - while not accurate - looks organised and like anything you'd see in North America. There is a clear grid system at work - unlike in FSX, where the autogen is placed randomly and the roads/highways are without any kind of definition.

http://i.imgur.com/eMOWG6m.jpg

The same image but at night time - The lights are better than ORBX FTX in my opinion and this is nearly as good as any payware night scenery for FSX.

http://i.imgur.com/UKKXEiG.png

This is at around 6AM in the morning - Still the base game - no filters here

http://i.imgur.com/lfaaYIg.jpg

^^So you've said. There is a dedicated Xplane forum here. Some of us prefer FSX, and that's me. And no amount of "XPlane is better because" threads will change that. Peace....

I'm not trying to force X-plane onto people. I just don't understand why it receives such little attention compared with FSX/P3D. Unless I'm missing something blatantly obvious, I think it's it got great potential to be the successor of FSX. I don't understand why ORBX do not support it, and why PMDG are taking so long to make their 777/737 compatible with it. On top of that, the flight dynamics are more realistic than FSX. It seems like there is a lot of hate for X-plane, and I don't exactly know why. Maybe if I buy the game, I'll eventually stumble across all of the bugs that have kept people from using it. I guess people just don't want to let go of FSX because of the money and time they've invested into it.

I'm not trying to force X-plane onto people. I just don't understand why it receives such little attention compared with FSX/P3D. Unless I'm missing something blatantly obvious, I think it's it got great potential to be the successor of FSX. I don't understand why ORBX do not support it, and why PMDG are taking so long to make their 777/737 compatible with it. On top of that, the flight dynamics are more realistic than FSX. It seems like there is a lot of hate for X-plane, and I don't exactly know why. Maybe if I buy the game, I'll eventually stumble across all of the bugs that have kept people from using it. I guess people just don't want to let go of FSX because of the money and time they've invested into it.

FSX has been a stable platform for quite some time, and has a large customer base, which makes development somewhat easier and more likely to be profitable. X-plane tended to change more often and had fewer users, causing issues for developers. This in turn lead many to not bother in the past, but is slowly changing.

As for the flight modelling, X-plane isn't automatically better. It comes down in large part to the aircraft designer as to how accurate the plane flies. Then there are issues with things like prop planes wanting to roll unrealistically, as has been mentioned, and one or two other similar issues.

When it comes to scenery, many people do want accurate scenery, not just plausible. If it isn't in FSX, there is probably a download available somewhere. Again, X-plane is catching up, but still has some way to go. Does X-plane have textures for the different seasons included in the default install yet?

Historically the X-plane UI has put people off too. Personally I think if they cleaned it up, it would go a long to improving impressions of the sim.

Hi 757,

I don't see hate for X-plane. There is none with me anyway. (I use fsx only.)

The thing is, you are asking questions about X-plane. Why this, why not that, why does ORBX do such and such....

I really wouldn't know the answers to that.

For the ORBX Q I would say, If they are developing something they may want to keep it under wraps. To guard themselves agiainst the othere companies. If they can't develop something, they may not like to say.

All you can do is ask ORBX (email), but I doubt they will answer the question.

For your other questions about X-plane. There is an X-plane forum, right here on flightsim.com. Have a look at the main forum page. I suggest going there to ask those questions. They will be better at answering them.

The discussion here, "which is better" has a clear answer. -personal taste-.

No need to get in a fight over it. Let everyone choose for themselves I say.:)

By the way, those screenshots do look mighty nice I think, love the night shots in particular. (one sim is more then enough for me though.)

happy flights, enjoy!

il88pp.

My point is why aren't there more people playing X-plane and why aren't there more addons for it?

Probably because there aren't as many folks who think it's great as there are for FS. I, for one, have not seen the wonder in it the way you have, so we have different opinions. That's fine with me, and you need to do whatever works best for you, so enjoy XP.

My point is why aren't there more people playing X-plane

I think that the reason a lot of people aren't switching is because they've already invested time and money into tweaking and buying addons for FSX/FS2004. There simply aren't enough advantages to justify moving to X-Plane and leaving what they invested in FSX. That said if X-Plane is what you want, go for it.

I'm not trying to force X-plane onto people. I just don't understand why it receives such little attention compared with FSX/P3D. Unless I'm missing something blatantly obvious, I think it's it got great potential to be the successor of FSX. I don't understand why ORBX do not support it, and why PMDG are taking so long to make their 777/737 compatible with it. On top of that, the flight dynamics are more realistic than FSX. It seems like there is a lot of hate for X-plane, and I don't exactly know why. Maybe if I buy the game, I'll eventually stumble across all of the bugs that have kept people from using it. I guess people just don't want to let go of FSX because of the money and time they've invested into it.

Scenery is just a small part of a flight simulator. And for me, it's one of the lesser

worried about aspects, being I'm more worried about the flight dynamics, cockpit

fidelity and such. You also have to consider the real weather programs, which I

haven't looked into for Xplane, being as I don't run it. But as an example, I don't

recall ASN being able to run under Xplane. Xplane has built in WX, but I don't know

how accurate it is. How good is the ATC and such in Xplane?

It's taking PMDG a long time to develop planes for it because it's a totally different

animal than FSX/P3D. But they are developing them. The DC-7 will be the first PMDG

plane to run under Xplane.

And I don't really agree with the statement that the flight dynamics are more realistic

in Xplane than the other sims. Both platforms can be good or bad. It just depends on

how well the individual planes are set up and modeled.

IE: I bet the present PMDG 777 or 737 are likely just as or more accurate under FSX

than any of the large jets currently being run under Xplane.

I bet the A2A Cessna's are just as or more accurate under FSX than the ones being

run under Xplane. I've always felt the accuracy was more dependent on the individual

modeling of the planes, than the platform they are run on.

I'm not too dazzled by Austin's "blade element theory". It all sounds good on paper,

but I feel it's just as possible to churn out a bad flying artificial aircraft using it, as

it is with the methods used by FSX/P3D.

How is the user interface? I've heard some claim it's a tad clunky to get around as

far as views and such vs FSX, but being I don't use it, I couldn't say...

Myself, I have nothing against Xplane, and certainly no hate for it.

The main reason I've never used it is because I remember when he first started

the Xplane sim, and how far ahead the MS sim was when he did. MS had many years

head start on him, and as long as MS kept in the sim business, he had little realistic

chance of catching up. And it showed when comparing the two sims through the years.

It's only been in the last few years since MS bailed out, that he's caught up a little bit.

Has Xplane caught up? Some think so. Some think no, not yet. Particularly when you

consider the recent 3rd party stuff for FSX/P3D.

It's come down to user preference at this stage. Myself, I'm mostly worried about

airplane fidelity, and being I fly the artificial 737 a lot, at this point, FSX/P3D have

the most advanced and accurate 737's. Ditto for the 777, and some others.

So it's pretty much a no brainer which sim I'm going to stick with at this time.

Could that change in the future? Yes.. But being FSX is no longer stagnant with

Lockheed upgrading it, who knows what I will end up with after I finally ditch FSX.

This is the same reason why I never went to P3D after it came out. My usual PMDG

aircraft wouldn't run under it. They will now, but it will cost me three arms and a leg

to fully convert over to P3D, with the pro license needed to be legal, and then I have

to pay for the aircraft all over again. So I'm in no big rush to switch to P3D either.

And to be honest, I still don't see a large enough difference between FSX and P3D to

make it worth spending all that dough to change over. I'll still be running the exact

same airplanes with the exact same cockpits. Any graphic improvements is just minor

eye candy to me.

Anyway, it's just user preference these days. If you like Xplane, go for it.

BTW, this is a lot like the Windows vs Linux deal.. I have a friend of mine who

constantly pesters me about running Windows when I could be running his beloved

Linux.. :p

But I don't choose my OS first, and then the apps.. I choose the apps first, and then

run whatever OS is required to run them. Basically the same deal as the sim scenario

these days.

I apologize for my previous post if I came across like an ass. I should learn not to post on a forum when I haven't had adequate sleep...Lol.

Whichever version you prefer is fine. I've been a MSFS user since 2002 so that's where my loyalty lies..

I'm still relatively new to flight sims. April 2012 I downloaded MS Flight one Saturday morning and became hooked. After a thousand hours on MS Flight and its discontinuation I needed to move on. The first thing I downloaded was the XPlane Demo....after an hour I deleted it and order a boxed edition of FSX. 2000 hrs later ... I also have P3dV2.5 on another HDD which I'm still waiting for Nvidia to make a user profile for.

XPlane was by far the worst of the four. Probably bottom of the five after Dovetail releases their next one.