X-plane looks much better than P3d and FSX!

[ladamson]

Assuming you tried payware in both sims. And you weren't comparing FSX payware to X-Plane default.

I'm sure we'd all be interested in what add ons you used in X-Plane.

 

I'm not Bob of course, but I must agree that these A2A planes ( I have the Cherokee 180 & Cessna 182)....................have to be some of the best over all flight dynamics, and sounds, that I've ever used, in my several decades of flight simming. In the meantime, I've still been using, as well as purchasing new addon planes for XP-10. I like the option of jumping around between sims.

[ricardo_NY1]

After almost 30 years flying flight sims and a licensed pilot, I tried x plane and was sadly disappointed. especially if you like flying GA planes with the quality of the A2A C 172 or Cherokee. Nothing in X plane comes close. I just switched to P3D and really like the stability of this program, pretty good scenery, airports that look like airports, and a good choice of excellent flying aircraft.

 

Did you try the Carenado Archer? I don't have A2A products to compare but the Carenado planes are pretty nice. As for airports, don't sell yourself short, look around and you will find lots of good stuff, particularly with GA airports. Is there an airport or area of interest for you?

[ladamson]

I think Bob just got back into simming. I have the X-Plane version of the Carenado F33 single engine Beech, and the Cessna 206. The flight dynamics are done by Dan Klue (spelling?), and they do much better than the FSX counterparts, just because the FSX versions don't have A2A or RealAir type programmers. I do like these Carenados.

 

I just won't agree with the title of this thread......................because I've sim flown to so many places, in which X-Plane or FSX is the better looking one. Just depends where, and who has done some third party additions, in addition to the default sims themselves.

 

I'm personally tired of the generalizations on all of these forums. Someone would have to fly every aircraft to every place, and use every add-on to really know. And then it would still be just their opinion anyway.

[stevae]

after using both sims for a while now, i can't say that i agree with the title either. xplane has better flight dynamics, absolutely. but it is still far behind fsx in the scenery and aircraft departments. sorry. but real is real, and xplane really has not caught up to fsx when it comes to graphics of your surroundings. fly to chicago on stock software on both sims, and xplane looks like a game, where fsx looks like chicago. xplane even has a building in downtown chicago named for the game. cartoon like.

now, i have switched to xplane for one reason, and one reason only, 64bit architecture. the ceiling on xplane is much higher than fsx. so as time goes by, and xplane has more people dev. for them, it will eventually pass fsx in all categories. xplane can take advantage of the newer computer hardware, where fsx will forever be stuck in an antiquated infrastructure.

[ladamson]

I disagree on the flight dynamics issue. I started flying in 1968, and owned a semi high performance, and semi aerobatic airplane. I think I've flown at least 30 different types, including the Pitts and Marchetti SF260. I made a list once, but lost count. Lot's of time in the Piper Cherokee series (Warrior, Archer, Arrow, and Cessnas. Those A2A's and RealAirs (FSX, P3D) we're talking about, have exceptional flight dynamics for GA airplanes. I don't know of any others, that beat them. As of now, I run a I7 3960x with a Geforce 980. Both sims run very fluid.

[ricardo_NY1]

I'm no expert to gauge flight physics performance between X-Plane and MSFS, but my train of thought is who is better...........the guy with a quality yoke and rudder pedals flying the default C-172 using a projector or me flying a Carenado Cessna with my joystick and keyboard on a 21" ? When it comes down to it, unless you have a fairly good hardware setup, you're not going to reap the full benefits of using a model with good flight physics on either sim.

[RatRace]

The discussion on "flight dynamics" is an old one with a very long beard.

It's a complex interplay between software, hardware and 'humanware'.

 

FSX and XP10 use very different approaches, but one is not intrinsically better than the other. The main problem with XP's blade element model IMO is that it's still too coarsely grained - something that probably won't get resolved before the advent of quantum computers. :) But at least I understand how it works (it's in all the textbooks), and XP allows a lot of tweaking. The issue with the FSX's "flight dynamics engine" aka FDE is not that we don't know the principles or that we can't tweak it, but adjusting the FDE has always been a dark art and the realm of magicians (remember Ron Freimuth anyone?). There's also the matter of software settings. My experience with FSX was that a slight movement of the "realism sliders" could sometimes give totally different (and unexpected) results. But sure, Rob Young and others tell you where to put the sliders, except ...

 

Enter hardware ! What good is the best software and FDE with inadequate hardware? And by hardware I'm not just referring to CPU, GPU and corresponding framerates ("fluidity"), but controls. Without a good yoke (and pedals) the results will always be a joke.

 

But by far the most important factor is the user ! If you have never flown the real thing, there is no way of telling whether or not the "flight dynamics" are any good. Period ! But even if you are an experienced real world pilot, your appreciation of the flight dynamics will still be and always remain something very subjective. There are plenty of rw pilots who prefer XP, as there are plenty who prefer FSX, and some of us may like both. As I have stated many times before on these forums, simulation will always be just that, simulation. And the "feel of flying" will depend much more on the state of mind of the simmer, than on anything else (including hardware and software issues).

 

Now, that said, I do have to admit that in terms of "flying realism" A2A for P3D is the best the market currently has on offer.

[ladamson]

Yes, I do remember Ron Freimuth. He'd send me files all the time to test out. I remember working on aerobatic type rolls. That's been quite a while ago, since it's been years since he passed away. I loose track of time now, because it seems to go so fast.

 

I'm also one of those RW pilots who likes both. Probably because I've used flight sims for so many years, and have become very use to the feel of it. Much of that feel, is what my pilot brain puts in there to fill the gaps.

[ricardo_NY1]

One screenshot of Chicago with a converted scenery from MSFS.

[gizmosells]

X-plane not bad nor is FSX I use both of them. In terms of modding Xplane is easier to move runways and navdata. I think vector scenery is better than FSX has even with Payware. Still, FSX takes all but 5 seconds to load with dx10 and active sky next, Rex clouds, and base scenery. Just overall you know what your getting with FSX and if you accept can't max FSX, and more selection of planes and add ons for FSX.

[darryl737]

Having tried both I thought FSX was better for me. I preferred the flight dynamics of FSX over X-Plane. We all look for different things in a sim that we deem more important than others. With out exception most of my colleagues who also enjoy sims prefer and use FSX for the same flight dynamics reason, it really comes down to what spins your wheels. I doubt Orbix will do anything for X-Plane being that they are financially invested with FSX.