X-Plane

[Sinkrate]

Does anyone else use X-Plane? I don't see a forum category for it and no one seems to mention it. Even the download pages for it are very small.

[FabioL]

Hi,
Yes, I use X-Plane 10, as well as FSX-SE (and FSX and P3D).
XPX is my sim of choice, principally because of the flight dynamics, and the excellent freeware that is available for it (donation-ware too).
What I like the most is that XP'ers are not being sold the whole world, cloud by cloud, mountain by mountain, texture by texture, tree by tree, leaf by leaf, airport by airport, and so on. It's nice that complex aircraft of exceptional quality are being developed for XP, as well as scenery areas that rival the MS FS platform.
I feel that the XP community is very strong, and its presence can mainly be found at X-Plane.Org.
Nothing at all wrong with FSX/P3D, and I have enjoyed it greatly for more years than most, and still do. There are so very many exceptional products available for it, and some are indeed seminal.
Just wish I'd discovered XP earlier than I did (Jan 2014).
Fabio

[clarenceover]

Yes, I use X-plane as much as FSX, sometimes I get confused between the two rather different ways of operating the views!
I very much wish that the two would combine the best aspects of both, sady that won't happen but suffice to say, it (X-plane) has much better looking terrain. A recent example being Skiathos (LGSK) where I've just discovered the 'over-beach' landing, rather like Princes Julianna! The terrain looks better in X-plane and if you can accept the standard X-plane practice of giving you nothing but runways and taxiways at each location, very very few exceptions to this, it's no problem to find scenery for wherever you wish to land on many of the excellent forums, the LGSK scenery being a case in point.
A major plus for MSFS over X-plane however is the quality of aircraft and panels. There are a few really good aircraft and even fewer good panels in X-plane but frankly the aircraft and panels available in MSFS are far, far better generally. It pays to go looking on the web for good aircraft for X-plane, there are some excellent 'big-jets' out there which is my preference, just be prepared to run the aircraft software through a 'Plane-maker' programme (part of X-plane) to make them compatible with the latest version of X-plane.
Weather in X-plane seems gloomier (more realistic), and the aircraft demand greater attention/accuracy to fly. You will also wait longer for the programme to load! No seasons in X-plane which is a minus!
With my comments above in mind, I think using and enjoying both is a good idea so you can appreciate both for their individual qualities,

[Flacke]

Austin Meyer , owner/developer of X-Plane is a great guy and a genius in just about everything. His mind is big, really big, and really active. When he introduces a truly intuitive and easy to learn user-interface for X-plane it will really gain market share and take off. One day in the future it will be something that every flight-simmer will have, just not now. For many simmers that I have been exposed to, the user-interface is so complex that they hate it. That holds x-plane back. They can't get their airplanes to fly realistically so they give up and x-plane just sits on their computer. Thats a shame. I know that the people at X-plane are aware of the problem and I hope more developments come soon , I can hardly wait.

[Sinkrate]

I agree with all your comments guys; you need FSX and XPX to get an all round flight sim experience. I think XPX has come on in leaps and bounds since XP9, and is definitely more user friendly. The world looks a whole lot bigger in XPX compared with FSX and the flying is a lot more realistic. Although the scenery is a bit sparse in places, the areas that have been covered look much more natural than FSX, which seems to have been splurged with an indiscriminate random pattern of default scenery items just to make it look pretty. I think FSX looks positively cartoon-like compared with XPX.

In terms of future development, XPX has a clear path to follow and one can be confident that it will be supported for many years to come. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for FSX (unless Microsoft is hiding something from us); their latest effort, “Flight”, seems to have gone down like the proverbial lead balloon.

I would encourage every user of FSX to give XPX a try, it’s not as expensive as FSX and there’s no activation limit B.S. to worry about; once you’ve bought it, it’s yours! It is a pity that advertising for XPX has not been more pro-active; it seems to be still regarded as something of a "curate’s egg" by many people. I hope that will change in future, and that sites like this will open it up to a wider audience.

[FabioL]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that once you have experienced runways with terrain gripping contours, there's literally no going back!

It reminds me of my PPL days at Biggin, sitting on RW29's threshold, wondering which of the bumps would launch me skywards....

You see, to sit at the end of the runway, and to witness the runway lights ahead of you showing antrue to life runway with subtle slopes that ebb and flow up and down, well, it's just perfect!

And then, when in approach during short finals, you see the very same uneven and anything but flat runway lighting and perspective effect, you can't help but think to yourself that THIS is as real as it gets. Going back to Billiard table flat FSX/P3D runways just doesn't cut it any more, and that's sad it true.

I agree with the sentiments about the XP interface, but I'm not convinced that transforming this will win over customers, as once you get to know it, I find that it's perfectly useable, plus it reveals its technicological origins, and I quite like that; making it more of an entirely user friendly GUI would for me take it into the realms of something that it isn't.

What it would benefit from is a menu system severe tidying up, with the implementation of more thought out settings and configuration screens, including livery previews and sensible AI, and a cancel/close option at the quick flight setup screen (how often have you fired up XP forgetting to update your plugin?...

XP can have winter textures, though it takes a bit of setting up, and it already has the best mesh available anywhere, plus it has been readied for seasonal change, and all this beats by a country mile the most expensive payware FTX-compatible mesh that money can buy for FSX/P3D. How do I know? I've invested hugely in it, and wish I hadn't.

XP takes time to setup and it takes time to learn how to get the best out of it; it's not intuitive, but it's also not impossible, for if you are an experienced FSX'er, you'll know that editing CFG's is part and parcel of the experience, and where moving files and folders around is part of it too, as well as navigating to the depths of hidden Windows User folders, whereas in XP, none of that is needed. You install an aeroplane , scenery, or plugin, by dropping entire folders into XP, and the only necessary file editing if the scenery packs INI (equivalent to scenery CFG). All in all, it's way simpler to manage, so this offsets the menu geekiness.

It's my sim of choice, and for good reason, but mainly because I feel as if I'm flying. And in some ways, I'm glad that FTX isn't onboard with XP, else if be buying the whole world strip by strip, leaf by leaf, region by region, tree by tree, and so on.

[OldAirmail]

Originally, I tried FSX & X-Plane 10 side by side.

After almost a years time I deleted X-Plane in favor of FSX.

I won't get into a flame war about whose sim is better, but that's what happened on a couple of X-Plane sites where I voiced minor complaints about X-Plane.

The reaction was uncalled for, and the experience put me completely off X-Plane.


If anyone does want to try it, you can download the free X-Plane 10 demo.

[Sinkrate]

I won't get into a flame war about whose sim is better, but that's what happened on a couple of X-Plane sites where I voiced minor complaints about X-Plane.

I joined this site because it looked like one of the friendliest and most civilized of them all. I’m sure you can say what you like here! I use FSX, FS9 and XPX; they all have their good bad points. I also run truck, train and farm sims (any one else do that?), which is off topic I know, but I have always been able to find a sensible forum for each of them. You did the right thing to ditch the bad forum; I hate sites like that! If you have any particular problems/solutions regarding XPX, I for one, would be interested to hear about it.

[clarenceover]

Ah, yes, I'd quite forgotten the lumpy bumpy runways that give X-Plane a real advantage over the 'billiard-tables' of MSFS. I could not believe the smallest of the three runways at KSEA (forget the numbers), available in the free demo, both undulating and seeming to slope sideways alarmingly.

Like fabiol above, I learned about flying from 29 at Biggin, never knew if you were going to land on the down-slope, at the bottom of the dip, or horror-of-horrors, coming up the other side. That said, my best landing ever was on 11, the other end, absolute greaser, and never flew again as a qualified PPL.

[pete]

About 1 year ago or so some guy contacted me about why we didn't seem to support x-plane.

I told him that simply we didn't have a section for it and possibly hense got no uploads. He told me he had a whole pile of files and would happily upload them if I created a section -- which I did.

Over the next month or so I got really nasty emails from x-plane guys asking me to remove their repaints, etc (textures guys not model creators if I remember correctly) .. and a few other files. Accusing simviation of piracy etc.

The whole experience made me feel the whol x-plane community is populated by pinheads and small thinkers. Life is too short. If they want to restrict their user base it's their loss. Not ours.

Don't forget FSX and P3D is still alive and well and way bigger than xplane. (& wouldn't it be cool if someone came up with a way to have unlevel runways!!!)

[FabioL]

Well said, life is too short!

All sims are good, and most sim communities are good too, though there are exceptions to every rule.

My enjoyment, as much as anything, comes from helping others, and I have good sound knowledge on many sims from many years spent at various joysticks and keyboards, and I hope that others share this amicable and constructive approach.

Just look back at how flight sims were in the mid-80's: Hercules generated wire frames made of green lines on black, so in comparison to the lush realism we have in front of us today, we have much to be grateful for.

Mustn't complain, and quite right to not flame o e sim against another, but it's fine to acknowledge ones own preference.

All sims are good, and long may it last.

[OldAirmail]

I won't get into a flame war about whose sim is better, but that's what happened on a couple of X-Plane sites where I voiced minor complaints about X-Plane.

I joined this site because it looked like one of the friendliest and most civilized of them all. I’m sure you can say what you like here! I use FSX, FS9 and XPX; they all have their good bad points. I also run truck, train and farm sims (any one else do that?), which is off topic I know, but I have always been able to find a sensible forum for each of them. You did the right thing to ditch the bad forum; I hate sites like that! If you have any particular problems/solutions regarding XPX, I for one, would be interested to hear about it.

I too find this one of the more friendly sites.

People (me) get cranky from time to time.

But you don't often get the "My sim is the BEST sim" types.


Even though I'm only using Prepar3d now, I can easily recommend FSX or X-Plane to others. Even the older flight sims have their place and their supporters.

And EVERYTHING beats what I tried in the '80s.





My experience with X-Plane 10 started when it was first released.

At that time there was little available, both commercially and freeware.

My Saitek panels wouldn't work, although some said that they could get them to work. Sometimes.

But time passes. Things change.


The one thing that I don't think has, or will, changed is that none of them are perfect. And they don't have to be.

If you want REAL, get in an airplane.

For the rest of us, we're holding plastic yokes or joysticks, and watching the results in a monitor.

Some are learning, some are having a good time.

And a REAL good time at that.

[Sinkrate]

Don't forget FSX and P3D is still alive and well and way bigger than xplane.

Guys, you’ve piqued my interest in P3D as that’s one I haven’t tried yet. I notice it’s only available on download, but cannot find out how big a file it is. I only have ADSL connection with a 10GB/month limit. I’m thinking about the cheapest one (academic license) but I’m not a trainer or a student on an official training course; I only want it for entertainment, which Lockheed Martin seems to be dead set against. Would there be any problems with that. I realize this should probably go in the P3D section and I could re post it there if necessary.

Any comments would be most welcome.

[FabioL]

Hi,

I seem to remember that the download is 10Gb, though it's clearly marked.

I would like to add to this my P3D experience on my i5 o/c'd to 4.4Ghz, and after an overall satisfying experience with nice graphics using FTX bells and whistles and GA types.

However, thus sublime performance became seriously degraded when using high complexity airliners, and poorer overall in comparison to my old FSX/Acceleration installation, this to the point where AI became banished and weather settings reduced.

In fact, after having deleted my FSX/Acceleration installation, I picked up FSX:SE, and I'm so glad that I did. I have returned to FSX:SE (yes, XP is still my No.1, but I have nice goodies for FSX!), and I am again able to run my older aeroplanes without the worry of licensing and T&C's that seem always to hang over P3D, or having to buy P3D only versions of favoured PMDG and Captain Sim workhorses.

Using FSX:SE and a GA aeroplane, I am seeing momentary FPS of 200, so that's very nice.

What's my message? Think twice before going P3D, as licensing is an issue, performance for me is an issue, and product licensing and comparability is a bone of contention. Some of my older preferred FSX airports won't show, taxiways have a habit of disappearing, and AFCAD's don't always work.

Yes, P3D can be very nice, but for me, there are aggravating features that appear insurmountable. When both FSX:SE and P3D are dressed in FTX clothing, there is no appreciable difference as they appear identical, except that is in terms of performance.

I am expressing my experience, and I am not flaming any product, just urging caution as going P3D is an expensive route to follow.

Fabio

[Sinkrate]

I seem to remember that the download is 10Gb, though it's clearly marked.

Thanks for that Fabio. Yeah, 10gig is my whole months allowance so that would be a problem. On reflection, I think I’ll stick with FSX until Microsoft decides to sabotage it, and then look around again. As OldAirmail says, there’s no such thing as a perfect sim, (great pic by the way; is it from Win 3.1? I used to love that thing!) but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to achieve as much realism as possible. I’m looking to build a dedicated “cockpit” on my new comp when funds permit, with multiple monitors and top quality HID’s. Sure, I could take flying lessons in a real aircraft, but what would it lead to? I’ll never be rich enough to own an aircraft and I’m far too old to get a job as a pilot. I’d rather invest the money in something I can use any day, any time I want, for a few minutes, or several hours, as the mood takes me.

Has anyone else made a dedicated cockpit? It would be great to see some examples to get ideas from.