So how is FSX compared to Xplane 9? Any real pilots tried both?

[Aiden327]

When not comparing realism, you can compare traffic, Atc, and Graphics.

FSX has traffic and Full atc of all traffic. With mods like radar contact it can be made extremely realistic. X-plane has hours of pre-recorded atc but the user interface is hard to use. I honestly have to give it a try again and see If I can figure it out.

Graphics are odd. They use Fields per second not frames per second. So if the GPU can't keep up with the world time slows down so the graphics card can spit out 30 frames per second to match the fields per second setting.

This is similar to how the human brain works with its senses. Ex. When your life is in danger your 5 senses spit out 60 frames but the mind plays them back at 30fps giving you extra time to think.

Also I haven't figured out how to start at a gate or parking space, I can only select runways.

last thing I want to say is X-Plane 9 is NOT FAA certified! The loading menu says the real version is a special version of x-plane 8 and the website it gives says its not available to the public and very expensive.

Also the fact that x-plane 9 has anime gundam space ships was kinda funny and fun but disappointing as I fell for the marketing on the box which said it was the most realistic flight simulator.

My first impression was not very good but I will try it again later today and hope I was just stubborn. I did read the manual too which is why I was so frustrated.

- Aiden

[FridayChild]

How does XPlane compare to FS9? Look at my signature for my computer specifications, tell me if switching from FS9 to Xplane 9 would be a good idea in my case.
Thanks!

[Slotback]

FSX and FS9 is generally better than X-Plane 9 in my opinion. I still find X-Plane fun at times so I think it's worth picking up cheap off ebay or something.

[Formula_1]

Short answer;

They are both entertainment software, neither one is all that realistic.
Use the one you feel most comfortable with

[Thud]

Well. That's a tough question. I have around 20 hours in a 172 and 152 in real life.
Generally I would say FSX is better. Even though they advertise X-Plane being more realistic, it doesn't feel natural.
But FSX is much more of a resource hog.

Also to what Aiden said, it's not too nice when you first start (X-plane) but you can learn to love it.

I would say get FSX.

[flaminghotsauce]

I've only flown a Cessna 172 in real life, so I base my comparison on this aircraft alone.

In my opinion the FSX version feels far more realistic as to handling, turns, etc. X-Plane has always felt to jittery on the controls. Rolls seem too fast, elevator effectiveness a little too responsive. I can't really put a mathmatical finger on it, it's all feel to me.

Plus, FSX looks good. Visually, both have drawbacks. FSX world is too cartoony on a clear day, X-Plane is too dark.

FSX = Win. But I'm glad I have both to compare. I love the Cirrus Jet in Xplane. That alone is worth the price of admission.

[U4EA]

In my humble, yet very noobian, opinion, I'll toss in my $0.02 worth.

I got X-Plane last year 'cause I couldn't find anything else to burn a GameStop giftcard on.

My take on it is that it's sorta like what make of auto do you like, after all, they all do basically the same thing.

But my preference is FSX by far!

[Slotback]

^^ Agreed.

One thing, however, I do love about X-Plane is the flight dynamics in certain situations and aircraft. For example, the X-15, Sr-71, V-22, F-22, and X-35B have flight dynamics that are way beyond anything FS9 or FSX could accomplish. Then there's Lock On Flaming Cliffs 2.0, which kicks ass also. If you only fly general aviation, then stick with FS9 / FSX.

[Fozzer]

A little gem I have had for many years, and quite enjoy now and again, for something "different"....>>>

Micro Flight

Quite realistic flight dynamics especially with the little Cessna 152... ...!

Old, but fun!

Paul...G-BPLF...FS 2004...FS Navigator... 8-)...!

..just given it a try...(my original purchased copy)... works wonderfully!... ....!

[Papafox]

Some problems with the FSX flight modeling occur regularly, and so I can understand the frustration of some sim pilots. My pet peeves:

1) The need to hold rudder while in a turn to maintain ball-in-center coodinated flight. If the plane is trimmed properly in level flight, a moderate bank should not require continued rudder input. Rudder should only be required to counteract the adverse yaw of aileron deployment in such conditions. This trait is so common I wonder if it is possible to get rid of it.

2) Slipping- Most FSX aircraft do not slip in a reasonable fashion. They don't substantially gain drag during a slip, and heading control is unrealistic. As a positive note, the Extra 300L in the Acceleration add-on slips much more realistically than the previous Extra 300L.

3) Stalls and spins- Much work remains to be done here.

[Formula_1]

4) Knife Edge flight is lacking too.

Pretty much off topic, but Rise of Flight has about the best flight/weather model of any current flight sim for the pc. While it is a combat sim, there will be a SDK coming sometime in the rather near future. So anything is possible once it is released. But for anyone that doesn't want to fly and fight, it has a huge map of the France Front. It is a pure pleasure to simply fly around and enjoy the planes, if nothing else.

[Rocket_Bird]

Well, I have a bit of flying experience in real-life plus a maintenance engineering background.

[snippyfsxer]

Some problems with the FSX flight modeling occur regularly, and so I can understand the frustration of some sim pilots. My pet peeves:

1) The need to hold rudder while in a turn to maintain ball-in-center coodinated flight. If the plane is trimmed properly in level flight, a moderate bank should not require continued rudder input. Rudder should only be required to counteract the adverse yaw of aileron deployment in such conditions. This trait is so common I wonder if it is possible to get rid of it.

interesting that you say this:

[Solid]

They are very different, neither totally realistic, and both are fun...

[Papafox]

Snippyfsxer- Thanks for the suggestion. I'll tweak some files and see if I can make things more realistic that way.

Formula_1- I found the Acceleration Extra 300 to do better knife edge than the previous Extra 300, but the sliipping issue of FSX seems to constrain just how realistic rudder use can become for aerobatic flight. I only have an hour in the Extra 300 and so it is hard to judge the fine points, but at the Reno Air Races I watched an Extra do a wings level 360 degree turn using rudder and the lift off the fuselage to turn the plane. It was pretty impressive and such a maneuver is not presently possible with FSX.