How many flight simmers are we?

[jeffv01]

Last night i was in my rocking chair near my kitchen window, watching squirrels who tries to piercing my garbage bags and suddenly i asked myself a question... The question... How many flight simmers are we? (FS/P3D)

[Bjoern]

Steam has some nifty statistics for the Steam Edition of FSX:
http://steamspy.com/app/314160

Around 85000 active users in the past two weeks, about three times more than X-Plane 11 or DCS World and ten times more than Flight Sim World (on Steam).


I figure the P3D crowd is larger by now.

[jeffv01]

Steam has some nifty statistics for the Steam Edition of FSX:
http://steamspy.com/app/314160

Around 85000 active users in the past two weeks, about three times more than X-Plane 11 or DCS World and ten times more than Flight Sim World (on Steam).


I figure the P3D crowd is larger by now.

Interesting, thanks for sharing Bjoern.

[warchild]

I have to question those numbers as they come from a single source. Yes of course Steam is a very populated distribution point for a multitude of games and software titles, but, although it does distribute X-Plane I believe youll find that the great majority of X-Plane users, purchase their copies directly from Laminar research. In total at this time, and including sales of X-plane 11 on Steam, there are over 100000 copies of X-Plane 11 having been purchased, far outstripping any of the other simulators currently being offered. This is supported by a recent poll on Flight Sim Economy which demonstrated that over 73% of the FSE user base, used X-Plane as their preferred simulation.. One must wonder, with the age old and continuing hostilities towards X-Plane, what factors exist that garner so much enthusiasm and loyalty from it's fan base..

[Penzoil3]

In a word Quality.

[warchild]

In a word Quality.

Well, Not to get off topic, FSX and P3D have a ton of high quality and detailed addons that in many ways, and in some few ways equal or surpass X-plane. No, Xplane i believe has two things working for it that currently allow it to outshine all others.. The first is the "shiny new toy" aspect of X-plane 11, and the second is that its new user interface is so user friendly and instictual, that even a five year old could use it.. I'm quite certain it took its inspiration from FSX, but there, the comparison ends as X-Planes user interface simplifies everything from joystick assignments to weather and even exactly which gate or ramp you wish to start your flight at, via its interactive airport diagrams.. In time, I'm certain all the hullaballoo will settle and people will realize we are all flight enthusiasts and thats the only thing that counts. Then perhaps we can start finding ways for all these platforms to communicate with each other so that we could all get online so to speak and revel in each others company..

[expat]

So, Pam, your opinion is valued, X-Plane is better than P3Dv4?

I never thought it was that serious a contender (even to FSX) but I stand to be corrected.

[WhiskeyEcho]

Use JoinFS

[Bjoern]

One must wonder, with the age old and continuing hostilities towards X-Plane, what factors exist that garner so much enthusiasm and loyalty from it's fan base..

Money for add-ons and no need for good ATC and an efficient AI system.

[warchild]

So, Pam, your opinion is valued, X-Plane is better than P3Dv4?

I never thought it was that serious a contender (even to FSX) but I stand to be corrected.

(Sigh:: An hours worth of work responding to your query and my cat stepped on a key and deleted it all.. I love my cat,, but you couldnt tell it right now. )

Lets try this again..

To start with, better is the wrong term, because its 100% subjective.. Its "better" for you if you get an infection, to get a penicillin shot.. That shot would kill me, which some might argue is better for the world over all, but i happen to like my little life so its not better too me.. I will do my best here to provide you with as objective of an opinion ( oxymoron i know ) as I can. Bear with me..

P3D or X-Plane?? The question would seem easy to answer wouldnt it?? Both have a hit they place on the computers, both have their own unique user interfaces, both fly airplanes..
P3D is based on the ESP technology. The reason it took Lockheed Martin ( as in Martin Marietta ) so long to convert it to 64 bit is because its antique. When ESP was invented 32 bit was cutting edge.. But! This is not a bad thing..
X-Plane 11 is its own beast. Bold, brash and with a user interface that makes the FSX user interface look like a study in alien calculus as applied to sub atomic theory.
But theyre both so much more than that, and sadly, so much less..
Until 12 days ago, I was running a 2011 version of a Phenom II six core cpu with 24 gigs of ram, and it ran P3D very nicely thank you.. Today, I'm running a Ryzen 5 1600 ( low end ryzen ) with 16 gigs of ddr4 ram, and i run both simulators smooth as glass.. Smoother even.. Incredible what multi threading architecture can do. I run 12 threads. I7's cant touch me..
And therein lies the crux of the situation.
X-Plane requires a machine that is significantly more powerful than the machine required to run P3D. I have been looking at the fact that my little Phenom II was old and in need of replacing due to improvements ( ? ) in software for a long long time, AND i was in a position almost to make the sacrifice and spend 400 bucks upgrading my machine. I may eat beans for a week, but heh, i've had much much worse..
SO, which is better is going to depend on the persons machine ( and therefore their financial ability ) as much as anything else..
P3D, uses FSX based scenery and graphics. It works right out of the box. It ISNT the prettiest though, and much time and effort needs to be spent acquiring mods and addons that improve everything from the way the software uses the cpu to specific scenery packages. weather, or you name it.. Thanks too the fact that its based on nearly twenty year old technology, anyone can run it..
X-Plane, not so much..
X-Plane comes out of the box once you have a hardware platform that can run it, but if you do have that machine, its bold, brash and smoother than being catapulted across a sea of chocolaty cream.. It's incredible.
If you dont have a high end machine, and cant afford one, then yeah, P3D as an initial investment with a plan for addons as you go is definitely the best option. It can look and perform amazingly well..
IF you have a high end machine, then X-Plane is most assuredly the best you can get. High quality scenery is free, moost plugins are free, and the payware is to die for..
I very recently compared my X-Plane 777 World Liner ( a study level addon ) to PMDGs 777. I'm sorry, the PMDG came off like a toy, but, it was easier to fly than the study level xplane job.. I suppose thats to be expected though..
P3D capitalizes on its strong point, which is environmental depiction which it does extremely well.. Out of the box, you cant beat it..
XPlanes strong point is it blade theory flight model and the handling of the aircraft far surpasses anything that can be developed in any microsoft based simulator.. For environment though, your gonna need XEnviro or Sky Maxx. Out of the box, XPlane doesnt do that great on environment..
P3D uses the standard Microsoft developed ATC that we are all so familiar with..
Ummm, We dont use XPlane and ATC in the same sentence together.. its abominable, but HEY, there's Vatsim ..
XPlane gives you a 3D modeling program ( Plane Maker ) to model your own planes in and update older planes from previous releases..
P3D gives you nothing..
P3D lets you easily reconfigure your flight model to your needs and wishes.
XPlane gives you a page of the most archaic and confusing malarkey i have ever seen or tried to use.. All in 12 point fonts..
XPlane Scenery is outstanding, and mostly free..
P3D has 10 year old basic scenery that looked outdated five years ago. BUT, theres always OrbX..

You see, "Better" is a subjective phrase..
For "me" I currently work in fsx and P3D, I "play" in Xplane. But I'm very fortunate and had the money to upgrade. Others may not be in a position to run XPlane.. If thats the case, then P3D is the "better" choice. After all, In time, you can make P3D look incredible. I've seen it with my own eyes..
If you have or can afford a machine capable of running it, then XPlane is the better choice hands down.

Now, I'm going to post some pictures from both sims.. In Xplane, two images use the freeware san francisco scenery, and one pic uses Sky Maxx Pro. In P3D I'm using some scenery developed by our own Roger Wilco and Active Sky..
The rest is up to you..

XPlane

[warchild]

p3dV4

[txnetcop]

Very succinct and to the point Pam! That is exactly why I am personally moving into X-Plane instead of P3Dv4. It is its own beast and Austin and team have done a fine job with it. There are a lot of features I think he garnered from FSX and P3D. However, I do agree that they are both excellent simulators and will build for both. I also am becoming a fan of the Ryzen 1600 and 1700 CPUs because of the number or threads they can run simultaneously at a high rate of speed, but still not yet a fan of the AMD video cards. However, if you mention building with a Ryzen processor most gamers still scream INTEL or nothing. I build both and like both but AMD has come a long way from the old FX days.
Ted

[warchild]

Very succinct and to the point Pam! That is exactly why I am personally moving into X-Plane instead of P3Dv4. It is its own beast and Austin and team have done a fine job with it. There are a lot of features I think he garnered from FSX and P3D. However, I do agree that they are both excellent simulators and will build for both. I also am becoming a fan of the Ryzen 1600 and 1700 CPUs because of the number or threads they can run simultaneously at a high rate of speed, but still not yet a fan of the AMD video cards. However, if you mention building with a Ryzen processor most gamers still scream INTEL or nothing. I build both and like both but AMD has come a long way from the old FX days.
Ted

Oh hey, I hear ya.. I'm actually an Intel phanatic myself.. And then Ryzen came along.. Larger, cooler, more capable than any comparitively priced I7 or I5.. And then you have the AMD Ryzen ThreadRipper, with its six inch foot print and 24 thread capability.
I'm not neccessarily sold on AMD, but my machine runs 24 hours a day seven days a week and ive yet to see that cpu go over 40 degrees, using the cheap little cooler supplied with the chip..
Graphics are another matter.. I'm running an Nvidia 1070 seahawk from MSI that just kicks butt.. I Hear Intel and AMD have teamed up to produce a graphics chip set designed to put NVidia in its place, but rumors are rumors so we'll see what that does or doesnt bring..

[warchild]

Money for add-ons and no need for good ATC and an efficient AI system.

:ROFLMAO:: Touche' Bjoern ..