Simviation Forums

I was on PC AVIATOR website and saw X-PLANE 9 for $49.95. Which would you say has more to it. x-plane or fsx? such as graphics and realization and frame rate friendly.

Google... that'll answer.

I would say that FSX is much better. I've bought my X-plane 9 two weeks ago and was little dissapointed because FPS was horrible and landclas very unrealistic. Maybe I will be able to tweak this.. But I still can't find something that would be super cool,or just better in X-plane than in FSX,!!! BUT !!! X-plane and FSX is absolutely unique and I'm now playing both!

In FSX I like:

[quote]I would say that FSX is much better. I've bought my X-plane 9 two weeks ago and was little dissapointed because FPS was horrible and landclas very unrealistic. Maybe I will be able to tweak this.. But I still can't find something that would be super cool,or just better in X-plane than in FSX,!!! BUT !!! X-plane and FSX is absolutely unique and I'm now playing both!

In FSX I like:

They both have there advantages.

Xplane:

Flight dynamics take into the account the shape of the aircraft, so you could make a forward sweep flying wing and crash within 1/2 a second of lift off. You can then add artificial stability then it flies perfectly. Pretty amazing.

Thrust vectoring works, loading up the F-22 and doing Kulbits, Cobra turns, and so in is fantastic fun.

Orbital mechanics are simulated (Can actually fly a realistic handling X-15).

Photoscenery for the entire world (ONLY if you buy the photoscenery version, otherwise you'll get a dull world).

Flight dynamics handle many situations far more realistically than anything else. If you don't beleive me try stalling the Captain Sim C-130.

Weather simulation is fantastic.

Framerates are good if you know what you're doing. My 3 year old rig ran the XP 9 demo & X-plane 8 perfectly fine.

Tire physics.

Sloped runways.

FsX:

Multiplayer

Missions

Better graphics

Better avionics

Addons are better than X-plane addons.

Flight dynamics of rare addons exceed those of X-plane (PMDG).


___

I'd get both. http://www.x-plane.com/ I don't have X-plane, but I've tried the demo and plan on getting X-plane ASAP. To be honest I prefer the Lock On engine to both (Flight Dynamics for the SU-25T from Flaming Cliffs are some of the best I've ever experianced, Virtual cockpits are simulated in extreme depth yet are framerate friendly - pitty it's military only. But the weather simulation is terrible. )

I have flown both and definitely prefer FSX.
That's why I hang out here

Defo FSX......Trust me if you get x-plane9 you will soon get fedup with all its weird little bugs....why do you think austin releases so many patches....oh sorry cool upgrades ha!

Some aspects of xplane are ok but the overall package and lack of quality addons will leave you either disillusioned or simply bored...

HA,  X-Plane 9 looks like atari, it is absolutely awful.

Guys judging by your posts I say your being bias.

Anyway both have good advantages. But i'm kinda leaning towards FSX, I have both the are ptretty cool

can FSX be FAA certified and be able to log hours towards real world flying? last i checked no.

can X-plane be FAA certified and be able to log hours towards real world flying? with the proper setup YES!

that has to say something about the flight dynamics of the game

are some of you selling me this x plane ? ,the Few shot I have seen of it ,looks pretty much as Fs2002 ,..does it has a VC movement, Graphics like photos for the bump and specular maps Effects?

eventhough I don't know too much about xplane ,I dear to say

IT CAN NEVER BE COMPARE NEITHER WITH FS9

can FSX be FAA certified and be able to log hours towards real world flying? last i checked no.

can X-plane be FAA certified and be able to log hours towards real world flying? with the proper setup YES!

that has to say something about the flight dynamics of the game

The certification your speaking of, is for the 10 hours of instrument training that can be logged when supervised by a CFII.

Yes, FSX (or FS2004) can be certified for this training. It's just a little involved (an FAA guy has to inspect the installation), where X-Plane can be set up on approved hardware with liitle red-tape.

This is more political than it is anything about either simulator. I can tell you from personal experience, that FSX (FS2004) are better suited for this instrument training. That's pretty much a unanimous opinion from people and insructors who have used both.

The subtle, more realistic flight dynamics of X-Plane are pointless in that type of training. (and pointless altogether for day-to-day simming.. it's not noticeably different, and the difference is meaningless until the models a tweaked, and it's impossible to fly a desktop simulator accurately enough to take advantage of them.. unless you're drilling and praticing a certain aspect )..

I got to log some computer time in my instrument training, but it was neither Xplane or MS anything. It was one of those Sporty's Catalog systems, but I can't remember the name.

It was useful, as the CFII could set up situations that I'd have to figure out. They were cunning, crafty, and evil! But great training. The simulations were pretty horrible, zero eye candy, no real land just green with a grey strip for a runway. Ug-ly.

I got to log some computer time in my instrument training, but it was neither Xplane or MS anything. It was one of those Sporty's Catalog systems, but I can't remember the name.

It was useful, as the CFII could set up situations that I'd have to figure out. They were cunning, crafty, and evil! But great training. The simulations were pretty horrible, zero eye candy, no real land just green with a grey strip for a runway. Ug-ly.

That was probably, 'On Top'  ... It's been approved for several years.

MSFS (any version) is better  8-)

are some of you selling me this x plane ? ,the Few shot I have seen of it ,looks pretty much as Fs2002 ,..does it has a VC movement, Graphics like photos for the bump and specular maps Effects?

eventhough I don't know too much about xplane ,I dear to say

IT CAN NEVER BE COMPARE NEITHER WITH FS9

XP9 has things such as reflective water, 3d forests, volumetric clouds and fog, the weather affects the ocean causing big waves, bird strikes, birds on the runway, hot air balloons, there are a pair of plugins for vc and 2d pit movement. XP9 is much better looking than XP8.

Oh also, at least it is constantly being patched, that means the code is evolving. The way the patches work is they not only fix bugs, but tweak things and add new features. This way you may start off with one feature set out of the box, but when you patch it up, you get a ton of new features. One of the big new features they implemented in the latest patch is an enhanced electrical system and also g effects on oil and fuel flow, so now negative g forces cause your aircraft to lose power because of a lack of oil and fuel in the engine. Furthermore, X-Plane has barely any airport scenery out of the box, but you go to www.x-plane.org and they have tons of addons for X-Plane. X-Plane is more of a mod based community. FSX is good for just flat out out of the box flight, but X-Plane shines with the mods. Oh, also, I'd like to see microbursts in FSX, like there are in X-Plane 9.

in all, here is my evaluation: get both, FSX is good for the avionics simulation and the graphics, along with ease of use. X-Plane is made more to simulate the flight dynamics rather than be pretty. X-Plane has a lot of things modeled that MSFS can't touch.