Any X-plane users?

F

fcfcfc

Guest
I am wondering if there is any experience here with X-Plane 9, good or bad.

Sorry to put this post in the FSX area, it's just that I have not figured out how to put it elsewhere as an independent thread... apologies
 
bought, installed, played, deleted. The graphics are ok but really show an ugly side when you get low, plus NO autogen lines up on the scenery, also to me it just didnt feel right. Also i have been with MSFS since FS5 so this is my comfort zone.

Ill sell it to ya cheap :kilroy:
 
Pretty much the same story. I didn't delete it because there is some Alaskan scenery that helps redeem the lousy payware World Scenery where none the roads are where they should be, nor the buildings where they should be, artificial towns are rampant and I never saw so many TJMax and IKEA stores in my whole life. Trains appear and disappear inside of buildings that aren't terminals. The aircraft feel like you are flying them while they are attached to a surveyor's plumb bob...that said, it is fast becoming a threat to M$ with the latest 9.20 version. Aircraft models are being operated on and more scenery from developers is gettting into X-Plane. It is worth the purchase price if your expectation levels are reasonable. FS9 and FSX still rule though:ernae:

Awesome scenery and worth the price:
http://www.xplanefreeware.net/tom/InsidePassage/Home.html
Ted

http://x-plane.org/home/tdavis/scenery8/xp8scenery.html
http://fb-artwork.de/MBA/mada.html
www.x-plane.org
 
Totally opposed to the above. I installed this weekend and was very well surprised at the sim. Beautiful graphics, runs smooth and some neat planes. I just added Canada since din´t have time to load the 60 Gig of earth......It Is Totally different than FSX allright so you have to full around with it a while but everything works!!!!...I set up my joystick and pedals to it in a Jiffy and went out to fly with some freeware planes and I did buy others which are real nice and cheap......I am very happy I bought it and now can start looking at some of the tools its got to make scenery.....real nice, go for it!!!:applause:------mountain country up in Canada is incredible!!!!, will send some pics so you can see for yourself.
 
I have it, I like it. You only get a couple of planes with VC's but the scenery and Autogen is amazing. Trains, cars, trees, buildings, and it runs smoothly.

It isnt easy to set up like FS is. You cant zoom out your view very well in VC mode (inside the cockpit, its like you are too close to the panel), but aside from that its a smooth and fair sim. It is a bit behind FS, but its a sim that runs well.

Alot of famous air schools will only use X-Plane, such as the famed University of North Dakota. The sim uses alot of actual aerodynamic theories in the flight models and virtual environment, so its more to the package then just being a sim.

Being that I develop mostly in FS, I havent had the luxury to spend more time with mine to learn more on it. One thing I have been doing though with mine is switching out the keyboard key commands with FS keys so that I can jump into X-Plane without having a list of the commands. (That is the real bugger is all the controls are different.. if they were the exact same, I think alot of people would feel different about XP9).

Also, there are alot of new addons for it now, planes, scenery, etc. Its growing into a huge following. (And if you decide to jump ship from MS to get away from forced vista 'invasion', you can run XP9 in Apple just fine.. even on your iPod Touch or iPhone.... :d ).



Bill
 
Both sims have plus points and minus points, but however nice it looks, I have more problems with X-Plane than it is worth. I downloaded it, tried it, deleted it. Again. I've done it a number of times now.

It's fun to play with, but that's about all. For all the talk of "real flight dynamics" and how much better its fans say it is that MSFS, I didn't find it so. I felt totally disconnected from the "flight" experience, had all sorts of control problems then finally it decided it didn't like my graphics settings when I tried to change them and locked me out totally.

It's also worth noting that while it is reasonable for GA flying, there is no system depth whatsoever, anywhere. You won't be seeing a RealityXP GNS unit, a PMDG B744 or an A2A Accu-Sim for X-Plane because the ability to do that amount of background programming just isn't there.

Ian P.
 
The main reason why it caught my attention is that most (if not all) of the more serious commercial simulators (such as Precision Flight Control) use a version of X-Plane. They claim that actual flight dynamics are more accurately modelled. Being new to simulation (other than hours on a Frasca), I have only tried FSX on an inadequate PC and briefly the demo version of X-Plane. I have not had enough hours and scenarios on either to compare, but found power-on stall recovery less unrealistic on XP.

Do you find XP less hardware and resource demanding?
 
X-Plane is considerably less hardware intensive, but it is for a reason - as I said before, there's a lot less going on in the background.

Regarding how things fly between the two sims, as a pure numbers sim X-Plane is probably better. If real world calculations on an airframe say it will stall at 53.28KIAS, that's what it will stall at in X-Plane. However, I've always found that it is too "clinical" - real aircraft don't stall at exactly the calculated airspeed because it differs in surrounding air conditions.

Are the flight conditions "more accurately modelled"? My answer would be no. They are differently modelled. You can still do impossible things in X-Plane and, in particular, rotary wing and mixed-mode aircraft (eg BB609, Osprey) are exceptionally unrealistic in X-Plane. Sometimes, in both FS9 and FSX, I've got very tied up in controlling the aircraft, particularly doing bad weather approaches or hand flying blind. I never felt that in X-Plane. I was always playing with a simulator, it seemed a lot less intuitive and had a lot less "draw in".

Given a choice of sim, if I couldn't use FSX, I would recommend FS9 over X-Plane still. X-Plane is developing well, but I don't think it will ever catch, let alone pass, what the far bigger team employed by Microsoft achieve.

The version of X-Plane that is used in serious simulators (not commercial ones - they'll be GA sims as X-Plane really doesn't simulate airliners at all well) is not the "publicly available" one either. It's more like the difference between FSX and ESP, where the version of X-Plane you'll be getting is FSX.

Ian P.
 
Thanks Ian for a very clear explanation, particularly the point about precise stall speed.

Yes, when I said "commercial" I actually meant off-the-shelf devices for flight schools as to custom-built vocational devices.

You raised a very good point which I never thought about: the Frasca and a static 737 vocational device I have flown had only passable cartoon style scenery.

To date, I have found flying simulators, all of them, much harder than the real thing.
 
Just one point, which I should have put in before - a lot of real world experimental aircraft developers use X-Plane to put their aircraft's geometry in and play with it, test changes or watch airflow effects. For that, apparently, it works very well.

FSX is utterly unsuitable for doing this, because of the way flight dynamics have to be kicked and hammered into behaving how you want them to, so X-Plane is the only tool really available for that function outside building and flying the aircraft in the real world.

Ian P.
 
There are chatters about MS changing the simulation engine/algorithm for version 11. I wonder if that includes changing the way flight dynamics and fluid dynamics are modelled perhaps XP style...
 
What´s the use trashing X-Plane or FSX or whatever?.....For less than 100 Baloogas you can have both which will give you lots of hours of enjoyment. I now keep my favorite "FSX" for my adventures and scenery and have started collecting the necessary tools to do the same in X-Plane. Have joined X-Plane forums like this one and everyone has been cortious and friendly----all this is about engaging new friendships, having fun and learning something new everyday........two sims for me are better than one.......Yes Sir!!!!!!:applause::applause::applause:...................will take some pictures tonight of some of the best graphics I have seen in an off the shelf sim....................:kilroy:
 
fcfcfc said:
There are chatters about MS changing the simulation engine/algorithm for version 11. I wonder if that includes changing the way flight dynamics and fluid dynamics are modelled perhaps XP style...
Click to expand...
That´s been around since FSX pics started to show up, and yes, i´m sure that´s the next leap forward, ESP is actually a step forward in that direction, but don´t hold your horses if you think it will have any comp with former sim iterations (mainly..FS9)but FSX, the FSX engine is here to stay, and what we´ll see in the coming years are different evolutions of it, we are only scratching the surface in what can be done with FSX..just take a peak at FSX ESP and you´ll know what i´m talking about.It´s an incredible powerfull development,FSX is a developer´s sandbox(provided you master coding) hampered only by the fact it had to be FS9 compatible..

Best regards
Prowler
 
I haven't gotten one hour of enjoyment out of X9. For some reason it won't recognize my CH controlers? No one seems to be able to give me an answer? So because I like to fly online I'm still using FS9 more than FSX. I just don't have the time or will to put into X8 or 9 anymore.
 
I have all kinds of fun with X-plane9. Im about one third way complete with my cuba scenery and have successfully converted some FSX scenery to X-plane. It definatley a intresting Sim from a R+D standpoint. I'm keeping her installed as my third sim. Nothing beats the winter blues by having Fs9, FSX, X-plane.:applause::applause::applause: I just wish there was a way to port over FSX AC to X-plane. I'd be having a fun time with the Epic Lt.
 
Trans_1007 said:
I have all kinds of fun with X-plane9. Im about one third way complete with my cuba scenery and have successfully converted some FSX scenery to X-plane. It definatley a intresting Sim from a R+D standpoint. I'm keeping her installed as my third sim. Nothing beats the winter blues by having Fs9, FSX, X-plane.:applause::applause::applause: I just wish there was a way to port over FSX AC to X-plane. I'd be having a fun time with the Epic Lt.
Click to expand...

Have you tried the port over of FSX scenery to X-Plane?...I just downloaded it last night and will try it soon.....looks interesting.:running:
 
Trans_1007 said:
I have all kinds of fun with X-plane9. Im about one third way complete with my cuba scenery and have successfully converted some FSX scenery to X-plane. It definatley a intresting Sim from a R+D standpoint. I'm keeping her installed as my third sim. Nothing beats the winter blues by having Fs9, FSX, X-plane.:applause::applause::applause: I just wish there was a way to port over FSX AC to X-plane. I'd be having a fun time with the Epic Lt.
Click to expand...

Trans,

What are you using to compile your work into XP9? I would be interested to know. I heard that I need Blender to compile to XP9 format. That would mean making a mesh export that would somehow get into Blender.

Also, can you make textures 2048 in size? This would enable me to put 4 textures per sheet and might enable this FS to XP9 thing to happen, keeping map/graphics quality up there.

Can you show us some screenshots of your FSX scenery in XP9? I would like to see this.

They could sure use some planes over there. I see Aerosoft are now making addons for XP9.



Bill
 
:redf: umm.... what is ESP? Is it just a development tool? Are there actual FS and/or devices in the market?

I too joined the X-plane forum and they are also a very friendly/helpful bunch. I saw a thread there about wake turbulence and asked if your own wake turbulence is modelled and thus can be "felt" in a steep turn. Apparently, this is not done in XP9. is this done in FSX?
 
ESP is, indeed, a development platform. Put simplistically, it is the "back office" of FSX, allowing a developer more control over what functionality they put on top. It's a base rather than a fully functional simulator and there was a joke flying around earlier in its life that the only thing you couldn't do with it was scuba diving simulator...

...at this version anyway. :)

Wake turbulence is not included by default in any version of MSFS, the same as XP9. There are, however, tools available such as ActiveSky X which include the addition of wake turbulence as part of their new toys.

Ian P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top