Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

ha!

I have the FSX demo, I've run it three times.

I like the way you have to hold space down to move your view around, or w/ever it was.

I also liked......... um...

No, that was all I liked.

That was a terrible thing to do with those FSX disks Jack! What a waste, they make great coasters or hang them over your vegie patch to scare away birds.

Posted

But.................... I like FSX, and FS9 too! Can I say that here?  ;D

I think Rodney King said, "Can we all get along... and fly all three sims"...  :)

LA

Posted

you aint missin' much :)

The best statement anyone could have made was done by FlyingJackal......words cant say enough about how frustrated he must have been but that image sums it up nicely :)

slainte,

Andy - PC user and ex MSFS pilot.

NZCH

Posted

Hey dont flame me (well can if you like, I can take it), I am pretty new at all this, started with FSX, then switched to X-Plane. FSX does look better out of the box, the airports do look like airports, all the taxi stuff, speech, real nice. Also you have air traffic flying about, hey and even I can land a plane without having my eyes open. Tutorials are also nice....

So lots of positive stuff to be honest, I really like it.

Dont get me wrong though, I am all X-Plane now, I like the feel, though still miss air traffic some of the other stuff...

Posted

My frustration with FSX is basically, yeah it looks good, but you take 5 minutes to load it up, another 5 minutes to get into the sim and onto vatsim and then it is still unstable as hell and about to crash on you any second. and if you switch to desktop it may as well stop running.

oh and when you do have it running, its not at any frame rate above 20 FPS at all.

all of this is not present in X-plane.

Posted

My frustration with FSX is basically, yeah it looks good, but you take 5 minutes to load it up, another 5 minutes to get into the sim and onto vatsim and then it is still unstable as hell and about to crash on you any second. and if you switch to desktop it may as well stop running.

oh and when you do have it running, its not at any frame rate above 20 FPS at all.

all of this is not present in X-plane.

I can get very good frame-rates out of FSX, however, as you point out, its "stability" is breathtakingly poor. It's pretty, though, and it does have some nice aircraft addons, which is why I finally bought it some weeks ago until the more detailed aircraft from here hits the digital shelves at X-Aviation.

Posted

My frustration with FSX is basically, yeah it looks good, but you take 5 minutes to load it up, another 5 minutes to get into the sim and onto vatsim and then it is still unstable as hell and about to crash on you any second. and if you switch to desktop it may as well stop running.

oh and when you do have it running, its not at any frame rate above 20 FPS at all.

all of this is not present in X-plane.

I never have these problems with FSX.  You could always try tweaking FSX, check out the various tweak posts on AVSIM.    Maybe try defragging your hard disk too.

Posted

I can get very good frame-rates out of FSX, however, as you point out, its "stability" is breathtakingly poor. It's pretty, though, and it does have some nice aircraft addons, which is why I finally bought it some weeks ago until the more detailed aircraft from here hits the digital shelves at X-Aviation.

Absolutely true re addons! Try anything by PMDG or even the LDS 767 or FSL Concorde.  Not to forget the upcoming A320 by Aerosoft!

Posted

I've been flying FS9 for something like 2-3 years and at first I wanted to upgrade it to FSX, after all the advertising and happy customers relations and screenshots. But, by a miraculous twist of fate, at the exact moment I was ready to make a purchase, X-Plane 9 was released. I've read about it and was more and more intrigued by what I've seen. So I've downloaded demos of both in order to finally make my mind.

FSX went first. What?! But that's old FS9 with better graphics at 10-15 fps or with worse graphics, than my modded FS9, while at 20fps. And flight model is so awfully wrong, you marketing cheaters... And this cartoonish colours... And loading time like if it was Atari 65XE with a magnetic tape player, instead of floppy 3,5" disks drive... Forget it!!

Then I've tried XP9. Wow, check out that water and scenery! And 50-120 framerate, woohoo! Default planes could be better, but hey - C172 is OK, B206 also, Avanti, MD500, and there are tons of downloads so it's really OK in that matter. I won't fly them all at the same moment anyway ;) Flight model close to perfection, torque, stalls, NEEDLES ON GAUGES MOVING FLUIDLY, without distinctive "steps" - that's what tigers really like! Aww, and what's that? A plane maker? Oh boy, oh boy :)

After a month of testing a whole bunch of outlandish flying creations, over vast and never ending oceans of X-Plane Demo, I had no doubt, which sim to choose :) 10 minutes limit was getting on my nerves :D

And FSX demo? That Fatal Simulation of X-plane? Never launched it again and soon forever removed from HDD and never looked back. With the newest addons, plugins and mods, my current experience in X-Plane is just like with FS9 (which I really liked back then) only much better! It means, that all I loved is here, with even much more and better goodies, experiences and memories.

Posted

FSX went first. What?! But that's old FS9 with better graphics at 10-15 fps or with worse graphics, than my modded FS9, while at 20fps. And flight model is so awfully wrong, you marketing cheaters... And this cartoonish colours... And loading time like if it was Atari 65XE with a magnetic tape player, instead of floppy 3,5" disks drive... Forget it!!

I've become much more receptive to X-Plane lately, and actually make favorable comments about it these days. Have even bought an addon lately..........the Falco.

But.................and it's a big but........,,,,,,,,,,, the flight model in FS9/FSX isn't awfully wrong. I'd rather push X-Plane on it's positive merits rather than a flight model showdown between blade element theory and lookup tables. At the end of the day, they pretty much do the same thing, if the programmer knows what they're doing. And for defaults, the stock 172 in either sim does a respectable job of getting from point A to B with real pilot inputs. I do prefer the X-Plane 172's VC though. At least the version of it in 9.45.

As to my own thoughts, it's because I keep a high performance airplane at the airport next door, and fly reguarly. It's certainly a good method of comparing flight models. It's along the lines of the Falco with a 180 HP Lycoming and constant speed prop. But all metal and rivited like another relative to the Falco.........the Marchetti SF260. I've flown the SF2650 in real life too.  So there you have it. It's just impossible for me to cut the FS9/FSX models, because some are actually quite authentic and believable. I split flight simming about 50/50 these days.

LA

Posted

Maybe I was a bit unclear, sorry :)

What I had in mind, was that it wasn't that much upgraded since FS9, but that was promised, and I felt kind of disappointed by that fact. On the other hand was X-Plane, with it's smoothness of movement (with regards to both aircraft and needles on gauges), distinctive simulation of additional effects like propeller torque and P-factor, more believable stalls and aerobatic capabilities and so on. Also I fly helicopters a lot and certainly X-Plane is much better in that area - not 100% true to RL and perfect, but a lot better, complete and believable. Suddenly I got many "aerodynamic" features, that I knew they existed, but FS9 never fully reproduced them, and that's why I feel X-Plane being better.

Another thing is, that at the time I was testing X-Plane, I bought a book with a detailed description of a certain plane. So I've entered all the dimensions and numbers into the Plane Maker, even recreated airfoils from the original wind tunnel polars I had in that book. To my astonishment, the plane hit all the performance numbers in it's first flight! The error margin wasn't bigger than 5%, maybe 10% in some areas, because I had to use some default or estimated values. Even engine weight, calculated by sim itself and found in output file, was close to the real specs. My enthusiasm for X-Plane was boosted sky high!

And that's my story. In FS9 I was just flying, in X-Plane I feel, I'm flying. I'm fully aware, that no simulation can replace real experience, but I prefer using sim that has the possibility to be FAA certified, that just a sim :)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...