FSX vs. X-Plane (the new war begins)

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
O-F staff note: posts moved here from 'Avsim hacked!' thread.

--------------------

Compared to FSX, X-Plane was a huge disappointment for me. FSX has many years of life left in it yet.

Especially when you begin talking about payware stuff--the options for X-Plane are extremely limited compared to the options for MSFS.

In the long term X-Plane is going to be the basic flight simulator for a lot of people who are interested in physical accurate general aviation stuff, if there won't be a proper (and better) FSX replacement which is not going to happen for now.

What makes me changing over to X-Plane 9.3 is the graphical environment, which looks closer to reality than FSX (especially the water and the sky). Clouds and smoke cast shadows on the terrain (while you can estimate the wind direction by observing smoke). Also the daylight looks more real. But the most important fact is the more realistical physics model and that there is runway slope and surface irregularities. And you can run all that with high settings much better, almost perfectly, while FSX has (as almost any MSFS had) performance problems on the same hardware.

If we forget the professional aircraft addons for a second, FSX is just a toy compared to X-Plane. Especially since it uses almost comic-style graphics.

The final "go" to change over to X-Plane for me also is the fact that it runs in Linux as well and that professional aircraft addons are available finally. So for now I can dispense with AI traffic and ATC, which for sure is going to be available not too long in the future anymore.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6iDl4-5HQ"]YouTube - SIM X-PLANE 757 EPKK[/ame]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
If we forget the professional aircraft addons for a second, FSX is just a toy compared to X-Plane. Especially since it uses almost comic-style graphics.
I need to disagree with you there. To me, X-Plane felt much less professional than FSX--the cockpits are sparse, unrealistic, and poorly done. There is no ability to smoothly pan the view using the joystick hat. One of the default planes, the B-52, has a giant and very obvious kink in its wing. The planes, compared to the FSX default planes, are poorly done and feel more like FSX freeware addons than anything else.

So for now I can dispense with AI traffic and ATC, which for sure is going to be available not too long in the future anymore.
I cannot dispense with AI traffic and ATC, since without them it feels significantly less realistic than FSX. If I want to fly around and look at pretty maps, I can use Google Earth. If I want the feeling of actually flying a plane in the modern world, X-Plane doesn't cut it.

Moreover, the multiplayer experience (the normal multiplayer experience, not VATSIM) in FSX is excellent (once you defeat the Gamespy monster), while that in X-Plane is nonexistant.

X-Plane has been making great progress, and it's strong in some things that FSX was lacking in, but it's lacking in some things that FSX is strong in. Hopefully X-Plane can pick up where FSX left off and fully fill the gap.
 
Last edited:

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
1,254
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
In the long term X-Plane is going to be the basic flight simulator for a lot of people who are interested in physical accurate general aviation stuff, if there won't be a proper (and better) FSX replacement which is not going to happen for now.

What makes me changing over to X-Plane 9.3 is the graphical environment, which looks closer to reality than FSX (especially the water and the sky). Clouds and smoke cast shadows on the terrain (while you can estimate the wind direction by observing smoke). Also the daylight looks more real. But the most important fact is the more realistical physics model and that there is runway slope and surface irregularities. And you can run all that with high settings much better, almost perfectly, while FSX has (as almost any MSFS had) performance problems on the same hardware.

If we forget the professional aircraft addons for a second, FSX is just a toy compared to X-Plane. Especially since it uses almost comic-style graphics.

The final "go" to change over to X-Plane for me also is the fact that it runs in Linux as well and that professional aircraft addons are available finally. So for now I can dispense with AI traffic and ATC, which for sure is going to be available not too long in the future anymore.

What distro? I tried downloading the demo installer for version 9 to see if the graphics fritzed less badly under Linux than they did under Windows with my card, and to see if it was worth spending money on, but I couldn't even get the installer to run. Clicking on it gave no perceptible reaction at all. This was in Ubuntu.

---------- Post added at 01:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 AM ----------

I need to disagree with you there. To me, X-Plane felt much less professional than FSX--the cockpits are sparse, unrealistic, and poorly done. There is no ability to smoothly pan the view using the joystick hat. One of the default planes, the B-52, has a giant and very obvious kink in its wing. The planes, compared to the FSX default planes, are poorly done and feel more like FSX freeware addons than anything else.


I cannot dispense with AI traffic and ATC, since without them it feels significantly less realistic than FSX. If I want to fly around and look at pretty maps, I can use Google Earth. If I want the feeling of actually flying a plane in the modern world, X-Plane doesn't cut it.

Moreover, the multiplayer experience (the normal multiplayer experience, not VATSIM) in FSX is excellent (once you defeat the Gamespy monster), while that in X-Plane is nonexistant.

X-Plane has been making great progress, and it's strong in some things that FSX was lacking in, but it's lacking in some things that FSX is strong in. Hopefully X-Plane can pick up where FSX left off and fully fill the gap.

As far as default planes, any Orbiteer should know that default craft do not the sim make.

That said, while X-Plane improved in many ways between versions 5 and 7 (the two versions I have), I did find that 7 did show some shoddy workmanship compared to 5. A sparser selection of planes (though as I said, if I found that too important, I wouldn't have touched Orbiter), far less terrain coverage in the default package (though I understand that has been remedied in 9, perhaps going a bit too far in the other direction), and some really annoying bugs that weren't there in 5 (such as the fact that ships continue moving when the sim is paused). I fear that if this trend has continued, version 9 may be a collection of absolutely wonderful features tied together by an engine that's a total piece of crap.
 

howitzer

New member
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
arkavision.com
Linguofreak, this might mean you are missing a library. Try running it in console to see if you get a meaningful response.

I have X Plane 9 as well. I agree the graphics are a little dated, but just a little. I got it for $20 something bucks so I'm not complaining, plus you can make your own planes and scenery, which is pretty cool.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
As far as default planes, any Orbiteer should know that default craft do not the sim make.

Correct. Default airplanes are anyway crap, no matter if we look at MSFS or X-Plane (while the default cessna 172 of x-plane is better than the default cessna of MSFS). I NEVER use a flight simulator because of its default airplanes. If I would intend to do so, I could fly in Google Earth indeed.

As I said before, there is professional detailed aircraft addons already for X-Plane. And more importantly the physics engine, runway slope and more is what made the FAA decide to approve X-Plane for pilot training.
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Correct. Default airplanes are anyway crap, no matter if we look at MSFS or X-Plane (while the default cessna 172 of x-plane is better than the default cessna of MSFS). I NEVER use a flight simulator because of its default airplanes. If I would intend to do so, I could fly in Google Earth indeed.
Clearly then you have never flown the Acceleration F/A-18, which with the exception of a few minor issues is as good if not better than many of the professional addon airplanes.

FSX has a wide choice of very good default airplanes with fully-functional 3d cockpits or 2d panels. The X-Plane default planes are definitely crap--I mean seriously, a B-52 with a wing section completely missing? How do you miss that in testing? (Answer: you don't do testing...) The FSX ones are not crap.

As I said before, there is professional detailed aircraft addons already for X-Plane.
The selection is far smaller than that for FSX. By an order of magnitude at least.

And more importantly the physics engine, runway slope and more is what made the FAA decide to approve X-Plane for pilot training.
Yes, if you pay several thousand dollars for them to send you the usb key to activate it. Moreover:
...the FAA doesn't approve flight simulation software. It approves flight training devices (FTDs) and simulators, devices that include software and displays, controls, and other features. (Almost all of the requirements for approval of FTDs focus on the displays and physical controls, not the flight modeling. Many levels of FTD require only a generic flight model, which may be based on fictitious data; a Level 4 FTD doesn't require any type of flight model.) Microsoft Flight Simulator meets the requirements for use in an FTD, but it can't be "approved" separately by the FAA.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hielor: I know the differences between MSFS (each since 3.0) and X-Plane. As said, default airplanes do not make a simulator. Neither in X-Plane, nor in MSFS. The FSX F/A-18 you mentioned is part of a payware expansion by the way, it is not a default aircraft, while flying "fighter" jets in MSFS actually is useless anyway in my point of view. For that I stick with a real fighter simulation (Open Falcon) in combination with the Hotas Cougar.

PS: That the FAA doesn't approve flight simulation software alone is not a news. But other than MSFS, X-Plane is approved for various FAA certification levels.
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Haha, we got our own thread. Let's try to keep the "war" out of it.

Hielor: I know the differences between MSFS (each since 3.0) and X-Plane. As said, default airplanes do not make a simulator. Neither in X-Plane, nor in MSFS.
We discussed this in another thread. Default airplanes make a simulator to the casual fliers who don't buy lots of payware add-ons, and I imagine that the majority of players don't own more than one or two payware add-ons (myself, I own none).

Moreover, the default airplanes need to not suck to some degree in order for the person to enjoy the sim to start with. Odds are you're not going to buy payware planes until you've played with the sim for a little while (to see if it's worth investing the additional money into). If all of the default airplanes are trash (as many of the X-Plane ones are), most people will conclude that the simulator itself is trash and move on.

And you mentioned X-Plane's C172 being better than FSX's...I remembered where I had heard something similar before. I read somewhere (don't have time for the source now, but you can look it up) people discouraging the use of the X-Plane C172 for training due to its...something. Yeah, I don't know there.

The FSX F/A-18 you mentioned is part of a payware expansion by the way, it is not a default aircraft, while flying "fighter" jets in MSFS actually is useless anyway in my point of view.
It is a default aircraft in the expansion produced by the same people who made the original game. That expansion is ~$20, and gets you far more than $20 spent on any of the ripoff 3rd party payware planes will.

For that I stick with a real fighter simulation (Open Falcon) in combination with the Hotas Cougar.
On that note, I'm looking into getting the TM HOTAS Cougar for my simpit--what do you think of it from a pilot's perspective? Have you had any issues with it? What pedals would you recommend with it? I'm looking at the Saitek pedals, but they're USB not gameport so they wouldn't plug into the Cougar directly.
 

Zatnikitelman

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA, North America
Frankly I can see both having lots of Merit. FS2004 (only "recent" sim I have experience with) is very realistic to me and all I fly is default plus some freeware off of Avsim and Simviation just to spice up my inverted loop-de-loops under the Golden Gate Bridge! :p
In all seriousness, X plane seems to have the more realistic physics whereas FS seems to have realistic-enough physics for realistic flight (seriously, who's going to be pushing the bleeding edge in the real world?) but a superb feeling of immersion with ATC and traffic out-of-the-box. Fact is right now, I'm in the middle of a series of VOR-VOR VFR flights from KRYY down into Florida and back up the other side using the default Mooney! I will admit, I've only played with X Plane for a few minutes total, so I'm probably missing something, but those are my two-cents.
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Frankly I can see both having lots of Merit. FS2004 (only "recent" sim I have experience with) is very realistic to me and all I fly is default plus some freeware off of Avsim and Simviation just to spice up my inverted loop-de-loops under the Golden Gate Bridge! :p
In all seriousness, X plane seems to have the more realistic physics whereas FS seems to have realistic-enough physics for realistic flight (seriously, who's going to be pushing the bleeding edge in the real world?) but a superb feeling of immersion with ATC and traffic out-of-the-box. Fact is right now, I'm in the middle of a series of VOR-VOR VFR flights from KRYY down into Florida and back up the other side using the default Mooney! I will admit, I've only played with X Plane for a few minutes total, so I'm probably missing something, but those are my two-cents.
For those just joining at home, here's basically what's been established so far in terms of what each sim has going for it:

FSX:

  • Very good (relative to X-Plane) default planes
  • 3D Cockpits
  • Excellent single-player ATC
  • AI Traffic
  • Better realistic building coverage (I think something like 40+ cities have actual buildings modelled, not just generic ones, and a very large number of airports have their buildings laid out realistically
  • Missions and lessons, great for beginners or people who prefer to play a more traditional "go here, do that" game rather than a sandbox
  • Better built-in multiplayer (can play as ATC, and also has many more players available at any point)
  • Better existing add-on infrastructure (by far)
X-Plane:
  • Hyper-realistic flight model (build a plane in the editor and it will fly the way that shape of plane would fly in reality)
  • Sloped runways
  • Better built-in terrain (both mesh and texture) (but to be fair, this is by virtue of the fact that it comes on several DVDs). The default X-Plane terrain is as good or better than most 3rd party terrain addons for MSFS.
  • Development has not stopped
On that note, I'd like to point out, Moonwalker: If default airplanes matter, then FSX wins. If default airplanes are "worthless" and payware addon planes make the sim...FSX still wins due to the huge variety of payware addons available for it.
 

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
1,254
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
Haha, we got our own thread. Let's try to keep the "war" out of it.


We discussed this in another thread. Default airplanes make a simulator to the casual fliers who don't buy lots of payware add-ons, and I imagine that the majority of players don't own more than one or two payware add-ons (myself, I own none).

Meet the casual flier who doesn't buy lots of payware addons and doesn't think default planes make the sim.

Just because people don't buy payware addons doesn't mean they can't download (or make) freeware addons. Thus, as with Orbiter, the default planes do not make the sim. In fact, in my case, I'll pay money for a sim, and maybe for an expansion pack if it actually provides new features, as opposed to just a new pack of planes or terrain, but I'll never pay money for a general addon like a plane. There are lots of freeware addons out there, and if I really want a plane and can't find it available as freeware, I can find some drawings and technical data and put it together myself in Plane Maker. Why do I need to pay? Especially when X-Plane uses a blade element flight model that makes building a realistic aircraft addon much, much easier.

EDIT: Deleted a paragraph that covered something you had covered yourself.
 
E

ex-orbinaut

Guest
Altimeter test request...

.....

FSX:

  • Very good (relative to X-Plane) default planes
  • 3D Cockpits
  • Excellent single-player ATC
  • AI Traffic
  • Better realistic building coverage (I think something like 40+ cities have actual buildings modelled, not just generic ones, and a very large number of airports have their buildings laid out realistically
  • Missions and lessons, great for beginners or people who prefer to play a more traditional "go here, do that" game rather than a sandbox
  • Better built-in multiplayer (can play as ATC, and also has many more players available at any point)
  • Better existing add-on infrastructure (by far)
X-Plane:
  • Hyper-realistic flight model (build a plane in the editor and it will fly the way that shape of plane would fly in reality)
  • Sloped runways
  • Better built-in terrain (both mesh and texture) (but to be fair, this is by virtue of the fact that it comes on several DVDs). The default X-Plane terrain is as good or better than most 3rd party terrain addons for MSFS.
  • Development has not stopped
......


Hi,

These realism points are good. I have not touched aircraft sims for sometime now (FS 2000). I do not know how much they may have improved, but there was one thing I found a bit unsatisfactory with all:

None up to that point ever simulated temperature on pressure gradient effects on the altimeter (indicated airspeed, yes, altimeter NO). Could one of you please look into this on these two simulators?

The simple way to test it:

Stick your aircraft on the ground at a high elevation aerodrome (preferably over 6,000 ft amsl). Set your QNH correctly so the altimeter reads the correct true altitude. Then go to weather configuration and RAISE the ambient temperature. The altimeter should then INDICATE LESS than true altitude. If it doesn't, it is not doing the temperature to pressure gradient calculation.

This "innocuous" little trait causes all sorts of confusion for students who supplement their flight training with sims.
 

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
1,254
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
BTW, Addon designability is also one of my big beefs with Orbiter. Even a simple *.cfg ship is much harder to put together than a basic plane in X-Plane. And forget playing around with the design of an existing DLL ship unless you want to wade neck deep into C++ (which I keep telling myself I'll do, but then putting it off). Fortunately, Orbiter has enough freeware addons and feats of skill to try to have a much better cost/(things to do) ratio than a whole lot of other games I have. Plus, it's free.

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

Hi,

These realism points are good. I have not touched aircraft sims for sometime now (FS 2000). I do not know how much they may have improved, but there was one thing I found a bit unsatisfactory with all:

None up to that point ever simulated temperature on pressure gradient effects on the altimeter (indicated airspeed, yes, altimeter NO). Could one of you please look into this on these two simulators?

The simple way to test it:

Stick your aircraft on the ground at a high elevation aerodrome (preferably over 6,000 ft amsl). Set your QNH correctly so the altimeter reads the correct true altitude. Then go to weather configuration and RAISE the ambient temperature. The altimeter should then INDICATE LESS than true altitude. If it doesn't, it is not doing the temperature to pressure gradient calculation.

This "innocuous" little trait causes all sorts of confusion for students who supplement their flight training with sims.

One thing I've noticed with X-Plane 7 is that, if you change the mass of the planet it the evironmental properties dialog so that the gravity changes, the rate at which pressure falls off with altitude fails to change.
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Meet the casual flier who doesn't buy lots of payware addons and doesn't think default planes make the sim.

Just because people don't buy payware addons doesn't mean they can't download (or make) freeware addons. Thus, as with Orbiter, the default planes do not make the sim. In fact, in my case, I'll pay money for a sim, and maybe for an expansion pack if it actually provides new features, as opposed to just a new pack of planes or terrain, but I'll never pay money for a general addon like a plane. There are lots of freeware addons out there, and if I really want a plane and can't find it available as freeware, I can find some drawings and technical data and put it together myself in Plane Maker. Why do I need to pay? Especially when X-Plane uses a blade element flight model that makes building a realistic aircraft addon much, much easier.

EDIT: Deleted a paragraph that covered something you had covered yourself.
Most freeware addons are far worse than the default planes in FSX, in my experience. Every freeware plane I've downloaded for FSX has been uninstalled within a week. I'm sure there's great ones out there...but I have yet to find them (on that note, if you have suggestions for good freeware planes that don't suck, 3d cockpit a must, I'd love to know about them...)

---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------

None up to that point ever simulated temperature on pressure gradient effects on the altimeter (indicated airspeed, yes, altimeter NO). Could one of you please look into this on these two simulators?

The simple way to test it:

Stick your aircraft on the ground at a high elevation aerodrome (preferably over 6,000 ft amsl). Set your QNH correctly so the altimeter reads the correct true altitude. Then go to weather configuration and RAISE the ambient temperature. The altimeter should then INDICATE LESS than true altitude. If it doesn't, it is not doing the temperature to pressure gradient calculation.

This "innocuous" little trait causes all sorts of confusion for students who supplement their flight training with sims.
I'll check on this for both X-Plane and FSX when I get home
 

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
1,254
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
Most freeware addons are far worse than the default planes in FSX, in my experience. Every freeware plane I've downloaded for FSX has been uninstalled within a week. I'm sure there's great ones out there...but I have yet to find them (on that note, if you have suggestions for good freeware planes that don't suck, 3d cockpit a must, I'd love to know about them...)


That may be one issue here. I hate 3d cockpits, they tend to involve resource hogging high-poly meshes (although that isn't such a concern on my latest machine), and I also find it easier to interact with a 2D panel than a 3D one. A freeware addon with a 2D cockpit is fine for me. In any case, the latest X-Plane version I have is 7, and I don't think that has 3D cockpits, so I couldn't really recommend anything to you.

Plus, you specified the interests of the casual simmer, and 3D cockpits don't strike me as very "casual".
 

Pilot7893

Epik spaec mishun!
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Beverly, MA
FSX is best for Eye candy (if your PC can handle it). X-plane is best for realism. Now can we all just get along?
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
That may be one issue here. I hate 3d cockpits, they tend to involve resource hogging high-poly meshes (although that isn't such a concern on my latest machine), and I also find it easier to interact with a 2D panel than a 3D one. A freeware addon with a 2D cockpit is fine for me. In any case, the latest X-Plane version I have is 7, and I don't think that has 3D cockpits, so I couldn't really recommend anything to you.

Plus, you specified the interests of the casual simmer, and 3D cockpits don't strike me as very "casual".
Well-done 2D cockpits aren't bad either. The only reason I prefer 3D to 2D at this point is because I have a TrackIR. Yeah, I guess that's not very "casual," eh? Still, I haven't paid for any addons, and I have no intention to do so any time soon...

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 PM ----------

FSX is best for Eye candy (if your PC can handle it). X-plane is best for realism. Now can we all just get along?
Not really. X-Plane has better terrain meshes and textures by default...
 

Linguofreak

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
5,017
Reaction score
1,254
Points
188
Location
Dallas, TX
Well-done 2D cockpits aren't bad either. The only reason I prefer 3D to 2D at this point is because I have a TrackIR. Yeah, I guess that's not very "casual," eh? Still, I haven't paid for any addons, and I have no intention to do so any time soon...

As far as I'm concerned, paying for addons goes beyond "casual" and even "dedicated," and straight on to "obsessed." And even then, you can be obsessed and still stick with freeware addons.
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
As far as I'm concerned, paying for addons goes beyond "casual" and even "dedicated," and straight on to "obsessed." And even then, you can be obsessed and still stick with freeware addons.
just because I've spent the last three hours tweaking for better performance doesn't mean I'm obsessed!

---------- Post added at 01:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

Stick your aircraft on the ground at a high elevation aerodrome (preferably over 6,000 ft amsl). Set your QNH correctly so the altimeter reads the correct true altitude. Then go to weather configuration and RAISE the ambient temperature. The altimeter should then INDICATE LESS than true altitude. If it doesn't, it is not doing the temperature to pressure gradient calculation.
In FSX: Yes. At KDEN, I set the weather to "Heavy Snow," adjusted the altimeter correctly (29.56). I then set the weather to "Clear Skies" (which presumably is a higher temp than "heavy snow"--there's no way to set the temp directly) and the altimeter was reading several hundred feet below my actual altitude. As far as can tell it just changed the MSL reference pressure, though (back to 29.92), does that count for what you want?

In X-Plane: No. Changing the temperature has no effect on the altimeter.

Also, just working through X-Plane, I can't see how anyone would be able to use this instead of FSX:
-It always loads a flight on start. Well that's great, what if that's not the flight I want?
-The ATC window, the text is off the left (widescreen 1680x1050)
-Hat switch doesn't work on the diagonals, I can't use it to smoothly pan around the airplane. So much for realism, how am I supposed to do my pre-flight walkaround?
-2d cockpits are only 4:3 resolution, and there's blank spaces in widescreen

As I've mentioned before. X-Plane has some great stuff...but it also has a lot of not-so-great stuff. It needs work, and a lot of it, before it will be able to fully dethrone FSX.
 
Top