Explain X-Plane

[Wing Nut]

I'm sure this has been brought up countless times ... but somebody recently said to me that X-Plane blew the socks off MS in many ways such as graphics, stability, for starters.

Asking for any (unbiased) opinions.
Thank you

[MCDesigns]

LOL, it has it's strengths and issues, just like FSX. Visually, it has a way to go still IMO.

We have an Xplane forum here, check it out.

[Lionheart]

In a nutshell;

* Its a totally different sim compared with FS. It does not have certain things that FS has, and it has certain things that FS does not have. Examples;

1. Does have cloud shadows
2. Can add photo real scenery
3. Does have weapons systems
4. Does have actual aerodynamics through sophisticated seperate aero models that interact in a true aero virtual environment, great for engineers.
5. Does not have realistic ATC control (sound is like a robot instead of a humans voice)
6. No AI planes
7. Has cars and trains as ground traffic
8. Has tons of Autogen Scenery, perhaps double of FSX
9. Does not have buildings at airports like FS has


One thing that keeps XP9 people from coming to FS, and FS people from going to XP9, is the controls (keyboard inputs). The two sims are so totally different, that the people that start on one sim, who migrate to the other, simply give up (most of them) concerning being able to learn the new sim.

A for instance on this is the S key in FS. It goes to 4 different locations; VC, 2D Panel, Exterior, and Tower views. Thats 4. In XP9, they have a button for each of those, not a 4 way button. That alone is a big 'crevice' for FS pilots to deal with in going to XP9.

Setting up buttons in XP9 is a bit timely and crude compared with FS. FS is laid out much nicer in setting up buttons. XP9 looks a bit old world, though you can do a 1,000 things more with the settings in XP9. XP9 is an amazing and flexible sim, but can be difficult to new-commers. Very difficult. In fact, like I said, most just uninstall it and put it on the shelf instead of figuring out how things are set up.

Also, with ATC and AI traffic, and buildings on the airports, FS 'appears' to be more advanced and so others will think, why go backwards....



That is a in-a-nutshell on them, in a basic comparison.


I really like the sim, but my work is in FS and it cannot be converted to XP9, so I am stuck in FS, so I rarely get time to fly in XP9.

Also, I think XP9 looks far more realistic by way of ground terrain and sky and water and Autogen then FSX does. And..... It runs smoother with moderate settings, while FSX cannot run on 98% of the computers in the world at moderate settings.

But... FSX has things that XP9 does not have, and also, its easier to run as we have already learned FS...



Bill

[spotlope]

As an airport scenery designer, you won't catch me saying that X-Plane blows the socks off of FSX graphically in any way. There's almost no high-quality airport scenery, and most of the techniques we use for FSX don't work at all in X-Plane. Maybe someday. For right now, I'm not ready to give XP the edge in very many categories.

[Wing Nut]

From three of the most admired and respected members of our community, gentlemen I thank you for your humble and knowledgable opinions.

[JIMJAM]

Who is this "somebody"? The X-plane developer?

Twice I have bought X-plane and twice I have been disapointed.
If X-plane under goes a BIG makeover I will as always support any aviation related program and buy it. It will be a LOOOOONG time before anybody can match FS9 or FSX much less if you factor in the hundreds of addons,mods,tweaks available for them.
I say buy a copy off ebay for a few bucks and you will see. I have 2 copies here collecting dust.

[Overshoe]

Twice I have bought X-plane and twice I have been disapointed.

Me too.

It blows the sox off FS95

[Gibbage]

FM wise, XP wins. Even I admit that. It spends a lot of time processing aero's, and less time processing graphics. XP is also a LOT harder to develop for. Thats a reason you see less 3rd party stuff for it. A big reason for that is the FM. I havent tried developing anything for XP, but have "tried" to play it a few times. I didnt get far. Reminded me a lot of Flight Sim 95 with the flat green landscape. I tried the demo's but it took me more then the alloted 10 mins just to figure out how to start the aircraft, let alone take off and fly.

[Lionheart]

Me too.

It blows the sox off FS95

lololol.....



FM wise, XP wins. Even I admit that. It spends a lot of time processing aero's, and less time processing graphics. XP is also a LOT harder to develop for. Thats a reason you see less 3rd party stuff for it. A big reason for that is the FM. I havent tried developing anything for XP, but have "tried" to play it a few times. I didnt get far. Reminded me a lot of Flight Sim 95 with the flat green landscape. I tried the demo's but it took me more then the alloted 10 mins just to figure out how to start the aircraft, let alone take off and fly.
Yesterday 22:31

Gibbage


Yep.. The controls for it are so totally different from FS. And how on Earth do normal people make a aerodynamics model (in 3D no less) that has 'exact' flight parameters?

Personally, I think they should make a second version of XP and have it user friendly and developer friendly. Have a new system of settings that is laid out more easier to follow, perhaps similar to FS, and get rid of the aerodynamics model section. That alone kills it for alot of designers. Its a sim for the masses, not a University science lab for examining flight characteristics for a prototype 'actual' aerodynamics model.

Thats my humble two cents on it. It is an awesome sim with alot of work put into it.

If you have been reading articles in Computer Pilot magazine, you'll note about 1/3rd of the articles are with XP now, doing flights and all in it. There are a ton of planes you can get now for it at the XP website, both freeware and payware. Airport scenery as well. They do look dated though compared with FS. Like FS2000 era, FS2002, about the time we went to VC's.



Bill

[MudMarine]

It's a great alternitive the the endless FSX bugs! Two completely diffrent sims which I enjoy. Compairing the two doesn't make much sense to me........? Rather than supporting the idea of competition some people feel the need to bash the other guys sim. I think we need to be more supportive of ALL aircraft sims before we run out of them altogether!!!

[GT182]

So true Mud. Each sim is a learning curve unto it's self. Mix and match isn't in the equation.

[Kiwikat]

I won't even try X-Plain (pun very much intended). If I want an old-looking sim, I'll use FS9 or the previously mentioned FS95.

FSX does it for me because its immersion factor- beautiful scenery, great performance, and excellent aircraft. :medals:

[MudMarine]

So true Mud. Each sim is a learning curve unto it's self. Mix and match isn't in the equation.

Thank you! I'm glad someone else can see the big picture!