which one is better, fsx or x-plane

[holtvg]

Hey, i've heard of this other flight simulator program called x-plane, i was just wondering which one is better, if any of you have played that one.

[RitterKreuz]

i have never played a version of X plane that i liked, but thats just me.  :-/

[john_uk]

from my experiences FSX

[Felix/FFDS]

Both have their good points.  Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference.  If for eye candy, FS(n) wins, hands down.

THe May-June 2007 issue of PC Pilot, for that matter, has a article comparing the two.  (FS-X and X-plane 8.6).

From a flight dynamics point of view, X-plane is the "better" simulation in that HOW you build the model (with the native Xplane modeller) actually affects how it "flies".  FS, as you know, depends on a separate file, so that you can have a 747 fly like a Cessna.

At least with X-plane you can fly into space (the X-15, for example) and even in "Mars")

[a1]

Are you kidding? FSX is so much better.

[holtvg]

With fsx you can fly into space or technically high altitude low orbit, the max height you can fly to in fs9 is 100,000 ft. fsx 500,000 ft. and in x-plane 1,000,000 ft. But i've never seen an aircraft in fsx that could do that.

[Brett_Henderson]

Unless you're sitting with performance tables on your lap... checking pitch/power against airspeed and vertical speed and it matters to you that X-Plane will be slightly closer to real numbers (an insignificant discrepancy unless it makes you feel better that an X-Plane C172 will go into an acclerated stall at 60kias instead of FSX's 58kias (which is kinda moot, because any two REAL C172's will vary by more than that))... X-Plane has no edge over FSX for your every-day flying (and not much of one unless you like spins).

When you look at the whole package, FSX is a far superior simulator  :)

[an-225]

FS, for sure. I own X-Plane, and let me be the first to say, I hate the flight models. In X-Plane, the default C-172, pitches up and down wildly at the slightest of yoke movements. It also stalls alot, at a speed of 60 knots, which is the speed my C-152 flew at (WITHOUT stalling) in real life. No matter WHAT I do, everything stalls. I kick the Blackbird up to full a/b, and pull back gently on the stick and I end up stalling and falling back down to the runway. Same goes for the B-1B Lancer, except, I have never had a SINGLE flight into the air with it, as it keeps stalling. The default C-172, also had incorrect left turn tendencies. On takeoff. In the air. On landing. That did not happen on my flight with a Cessna. The 747, also behaves like a fighter jet in terms of roll, pitch and yaw.

Well, time for me to stop ranting and raving. FS has MUCH better flight dynamics. Therefore, FS=win.

EDIT: It has occured to me, that this is my 777th post. I now have...HOW many wheels?!?!?

[DizZa]

Depends.

FsX system wise.
X-plane Flight dynamics.
Lock On for both (If you could fly anywhere in the world with Lock On with the programibility of fsX it would be VASTLY superior to fsX and X-plane in my opinion).

[ATI_7500]

X-Plane.


Only because I'm in a "I hate FSX" mood today.

[GreaseMonkey]

X-Plane.


Only because I'm in a "I hate FSX" mood today.

lol!  :D

i cant realy say much about x-plane because i dont realy know an awful lot about it, but judging by what you have all wrote, FSX seems to win hands down  ;D

[SubZer0]

I've seen and heard of X-plane.. can't be arsed about it. FSX wins my vote