FSX Vs X-Plane

I've had FSX for years however I've reinstalled my operating systems and have lost my desk. Before I buy another copy I'm wonder if I should get X-Plane or FSX.

Is either FSX or X-Place still being developed or a replacement being developed?

I X-Plane easy? I had Captain Sim software for FSX and was too time consuming to learn. Prefer the easier flight.

Does X-Plane have easy free and cheap add-on software? (scenery additional aircraft?)

Does X-Plane has ATC?

I have X-plane 10, the graphics are great, but it has some bugs, and the controls are complicated, I have trouble flying anything in that sim, so I would recommend FSX.

HD

There's a free X-Plane 10 demo you can download

http://www.x-plane.com/downloads/x-plane_10_demo/

Out of the box XP might disappoint you, but so might FSX.

That said, FSX users find the XP interface somewhat perplexing, and truth be told, XP needs some tinkering. On the other hand, most of what you need / want in XP is free or donationware. And XP is still in development, whereas FSX:SE is basically FSX, and will remain so.

It all depends on what you expect from a sim. There's nothing wrong with FSX - a lot of simmers enjoy it to this day, and there are plenty of add-ons available. XP is catching up in this area, but as mentioned previously, X-Plane may require more effort to set it up to your likings.

And yes, ATC isn't exactly XP's strong point.

I bought X-Plane 10 out of curiosity last year but was disappointed to see single-engine prop planes keep slowly developing a bank as if they're balanced on the point of a pin with no natural stability.

And no matter how carefully I kept trying to trim the wings to stay level, a bank kept developing, so I gave it away and went back to dear old FSX..:)

It's a longstanding issue with all the X-Plane series, here's what a Moderator said over at 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 bought X-Plane 10 out of curiosity last year but was disappointed to see single-engine prop planes keep slowly developing a bank as if they're balanced on the point of a pin with no natural stability.

And no matter how carefully I kept trying to trim the wings to stay level, a bank kept developing, so I gave it away and went back to dear old FSX..:)

It's a longstanding issue with all the X-Plane series, here's what a Moderator said over at 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 think you'll find that neither flight model is 100% accurate, hence the importance of using both.

Is either FSX or X-Place still being developed or a replacement being developed?

Several years ago, Lockheed Martin acquired a license to continue development of FSX (for training purposes) under the name Prepar3d (P3D). It's now on version 2.X. They've introduced some strange bugs since they've been fiddling with it, but it shows promise. It has much improved default scenery. They have a 30-day money back guarantee.

I have have FSX, P3D, and XP 10. None of them are perfect, but I do find myself still using FSX most of the time.

X-Plane remains under active development.

I have all three of them - FSX deluxe, FSX Steam, and X-Plane 10 point whatever the newest stable version is. I fully agree with the comments above regarding stability - XPlane seems to be a bit too twitchy especially in roll, compared to the real thing. But with a bit of study and perhaps a lot of help in the forums you can tweak the thing, just like you can tweak FSX.

FSX has always cornered the market on add-ons, mostly payware but also many of them excellent. XPlane is catching up on quality add-ons, and some of these have pretty realistic flight models (I can speak to the B757 and B727 in particular) and are beginning to compare with the best of what is available for FSX. Scenery is also coming along, with add-ons to bring realism to the airports in particular, which was always a very weak point in XPlane.

Both FSX and XPlane require some pretty heavy hitting hardware to run smoothly with a lot of detail in the "world", especially XPlane, which is surprising since it takes advantage of multi core processors and is available in a 64 bit version. My middle of the road Dell XPS slows to a crawl when approaching a detailed airport in XPlane - much worse than the same situation in FSX. FSX has payware products that automate much of the tweaking that has always been necessary to get any of these things to really run well, but that sort of thing has yet to hit the market for XPlane as far as I can see. The XPlane fans seem to be willing to do the due diligence and roll up their sleeves to a greater extent than I am willing to do!

That said, if you can afford a machine that can run either of them reasonably well you can afford to get both! Too bad we don't have the "all of the above" choice in politics! But here, we do so have at it and you can write your own review comparing the two from your own perspective. America - what a country!

I think you'll find that neither flight model is 100% accurate, hence the importance of using both.

Yes, I've owned a string of flight sims over the past 30 years and none of them have been 100% accurate, we just have to live with their little quirks.

For example there are two longstanding issues in FSX that have never been fixed, namely-

1- Rudder effect in a bank with most FSX planes is weird, some planes are worse than others such as the hot Extra Racer.

Go into a tight fast bank with it, pull back the stick to turn while applying rudder to push the nose down onto the horizon and the whole plane will unrealistically slide upwards. You can see it best from tower view or flyby view with smoketrail on.

2- Runways (including grass ones) in FSX are slippery like ice, aircraft tyres have very little grip on them when you try to turn slightly at highish speed to stay on the centreline.

Re the FSX vs X-Plane debate, the main reason I stick with FSX is because I'm too lazy to learn all the new keys and clicks and stuff in X-Plane.

However in X-Planes favour, i found it was much easier to install and get working than tantrum-prone FSX..:)

It really all depends what you are looking for in a sim as both satisfy different markets. FSX in my view has better realistic flight dynamics, and enough freeware to keep anyone busy for years. The default scenery is a little plain, but some high quality add-ons soon fix that.

XP has better scenery but I think the flight dynamics are lacking, to me its more of a console type game than a hard out sim. It does suffer from a lack of add-ons. I think with the advent of FSX Steam FSX has had a new lease on life and a new market, which bodes well for the constant flow of freeware and payware add-ons.

Good day,

Now that I have read the comments I will give my own, I to have used both FSX and X-Plane there is a plus and minus on both simulators and I have to go with X-Plane and the Apple products that make operating the X-plane simulator and using the hi-end graphics very easy.

Nevertheless, there are bugs in both the FSX and X-Plane but using the X-Plane forums you can get a quick response to resolve the issue and be flying your aircraft in no time.

X-plane has plugins to enhance the experience of the flight simulator, which gives you the chance to use your programming skills.

Finally, the scenery you can develop yourself with a program called World Editor "WED", with the program you design your own airports and surrounding scenery using "Goole street maps" or the USGS since you want to be as accurate on the detail.

Wow, I almost forgot to tell you you can also design your own aircraft using "Plane maker", so if you want a flight simulator you can expand and do your own work on then X-Plane but if you want to just get in and go and don't have a computer that can handle hi-end graphics then I say you are better with FSX-X "Flight simulator X-Acceleration" ...

captbullett

Apple Developer

Incidentally the wings of one of the big jet airliners in XP 10 incorrectly flex downwards under positive G-load when they should flex upwards (and vice-versa with negative G), it's a glaring error that's never been fixed.

It also happens in the demo, I wonder how many potential buyers it's put off?..;)

so if you want a flight simulator you can expand and do your own work on then X-Plane but if you want to just get in and go and don't have a computer that can handle hi-end graphics then I say you are better with FSX-X "Flight simulator X-Acceleration" ...

I think maybe you have it the wrong way around. While FSX and X10 uses the computer in different ways, I don't believe that you are ever going to get anywhere near a satisfying experience out of FSX with a average machine. This has been and continues to be in my experience the major complaint with FSX and one in which new people to the sim market should be aware of when deciding between the two. All of what you said about X10 is also true of FSX.

I think saying that if you don't have a high end machine you should go for FSX is just blatantly wrong. Having used both sim's on my machines I found FSX the more taxing on them, requiring me to upgrade them. This I didn't have with X10 but the flight dynamics, the lack of add-ons across all fields, the ATC and the AI was what put me off X10.

I think maybe you have it the wrong way around. While FSX and X10 uses the computer in different ways, I don't believe that you are ever going to get anywhere near a satisfying experience out of FSX with a average machine. This has been and continues to be in my experience the major complaint with FSX and one in which new people to the sim market should be aware of when deciding between the two. All of what you said about X10 is also true of FSX.

I think saying that if you don't have a high end machine you should go for FSX is just blatantly wrong. Having used both sim's on my machines I found FSX the more taxing on them, requiring me to upgrade them. This I didn't have with X10 but the flight dynamics, the lack of add-ons across all fields, the ATC and the AI was what put me off X10.

Some very interesting points you make there.

Cheers

Dom

Incidentally, does X-Plane still have animated crashes where heavy landings are liable to make wheels and things snap off, and dust and sparks fly as the plane scrapes and bounces along on its belly?

If so, that's a big plus over FSX, because in FSX the screen freezes and you simply get a boring message saying "Crash" with no animations whatsoever.

It really all depends what you are looking for in a sim as both satisfy different markets. FSX in my view has better realistic flight dynamics, and enough freeware to keep anyone busy for years. The default scenery is a little plain, but some high quality add-ons soon fix that.

XP has better scenery but I think the flight dynamics are lacking, to me its more of a console type game than a hard out sim. It does suffer from a lack of add-ons. I think with the advent of FSX Steam FSX has had a new lease on life and a new market, which bodes well for the constant flow of freeware and payware add-ons.

I find it the exact opposite - FSX (with payware) has the better scenery, X-Plane has the more accurate flight modelling.

If I'm after good weather, scenery and ATC, I fly FSX, if all I'm after is boring some holes in the sky I jump into X-Plane - I spend a lot more time in X-Plane:)

I'll put in my 2 cents, and yes, 2 cents doesn't go anywhere these days, so take it for what it's worth. My only extensive experience with XP has been with the old XP7, which I found to be quite stable on my old laptop... at least as stable as FS9... and this was my go to sim in 2009 and the first part of 2010.

With XP you can choose your own airfoils. The shapes of the wings. change them out, and it affects the flight! You don't tinker with the geometry in any aircraft.cfg file... they are their own airfoil file packs. Don't like one, try another. It's highly experimental, but very fun.

My only reason for finally switching to FS9 in 2010, was the eye candy and the detail in towns and airports, fresh out of the box. I just thought that detail was better than stock XP7, so I chose not to look back, but that was my personal choice. That choice said nothing of XP's deficiency as flight simulator, as a whole. I think there's lots going for both, but maybe for entirely different reasons.

Just, I don't recall ever seeing any aspect in FS9 or FSX where you could switch out airfoils, or include airfoil files as part of the folder package that make up an aircraft. MS code was just not set up to do that... whereas I guess Laminar made accommodations for it.

Just also bare that in mind.

-- John