FSX vs. X-Plane (the new war begins)

[Overmind5000]

I have both games, and I am not a fan of X-plane since when I tried to fly an F-22, the controls were all confusing, I pulled up, part of the engines were draggind into the ground, Where in God's name am I supposed to change the realism settings? Plus it gets lonely in X-plane.

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, it is a rumor that there are either no 3D cockpits or bad 3D cockpits in X-Plane (there are bad 3D cockpits, but not on the whole). If we talk about the default cessna, X-Plane does it better than FSX in my point of view (especially the 2D panel), while there are many freeware and some payware addons for X-Plane that include 3D cockpits with the same quality like in MSFS.

That's the default Cessna 172 of X-Plane:

That's the Eurocopter 120 Colibri (freeware) for X-Plane:

That's the Mitsubishi MU-2 which I'm going to buy:

Default airplanes make a simulator to the casual fliers who don't buy lots of payware add-ons, and I imagine that the majority of players don't own more than one or two payware add-ons (myself, I own none).

Both communities, X-Plane and MSFS, basically consist of people who like professional detailed aircraft. The casual flier makes only a very small part of flight simulator communities. The same for Orbiter by the way. It is all the addons and advanced aircraft/spacecraft who make a simulator.

On that note, I'm looking into getting the TM HOTAS Cougar for my simpit--what do you think of it from a pilot's perspective? Have you had any issues with it? What pedals would you recommend with it? I'm looking at the Saitek pedals, but they're USB not gameport so they wouldn't plug into the Cougar directly.

The TM Hotas Cougar is one of the best flight simulator hardware I know of. I never had any issues with it (but it is a very complex thing, which requires some configuration). My brother even got a 400€ update for it, which removes the movability of the stick and adds real behavior (the real one also can't be "moved" actually). I don't use it very often at the moment because I'm waiting for the new Falcon which includes an updated graphics engine.

I sadly don't have any experiences with pedals.

 

[jrriss]

Has anyone tried Flightgear with the A-10 or F-14?

 

[Urwumpe]

Has anyone tried Flightgear with the A-10 or F-14?

I did. Despite the cockpit allowing more options, I felt the Lock-On! A-10 model was much better. It flew a bit strange.

 

[Linguofreak]

Linguofreak, this might mean you are missing a library. Try running it in console to see if you get a meaningful response.

jon@Ubuntu:/usr/bin$ sudo 'X-Plane Demo Installer Linux'
[sudo] password for jon:
sudo: unable to execute /usr/bin/X-Plane Demo Installer Linux: No such file or directory

After renaming the file:

jon@Ubuntu:/usr/bin$ sudo XPlaneDemoInstallerLinux
sudo: unable to execute /usr/bin/XPlaneDemoInstallerLinux: No such file or directory

This despite the fact that I moved the extracted installer into /usr/bin.

 

[ex-orbinaut]

Thank so much you for your replies!

One thing I've noticed with X-Plane 7 is that, if you change the mass of the planet it the evironmental properties dialog so that the gravity changes, the rate at which pressure falls off with altitude fails to change.

This is indicative that it is not doing much with the atmospheric parameters. Surely, one of the main reasons for allowing a change of a planet's gravity in a sim would be to study the effects of altered air density as well as how the aircraft behaves with a higher or lower "weight" as a result of the altered gravity field. Seems to be a bit of an omission here. That said, the screen shots you are all putting up of X-Plane 9 are beautiful. Very aesthetic!

In FSX: Yes. At KDEN, I set the weather to "Heavy Snow," adjusted the altimeter correctly (29.56). I then set the weather to "Clear Skies" (which presumably is a higher temp than "heavy snow"--there's no way to set the temp directly) and the altimeter was reading several hundred feet below my actual altitude. As far as can tell it just changed the MSL reference pressure, though (back to 29.92), does that count for what you want?

In X-Plane: No. Changing the temperature has no effect on the altimeter.

This, on the the other hand DOES seem right, for FSX. If you cannot set temperatures directly then obviously the program handles enviornmental lapse rates for itself, as well as vertical pressure to temperature gradients. Heilor, from what you report it appears correct, even in the magnitude of the alteration (how many feet was the indicated drop?). ADDED EDIT: And a thought; did you check if the true pressure at sea level in both temperature cases was 29.92" Hg? The issue is station adjusted QNH for high elevation aerodromes, not the actual sea level pressure, which would stay constant in both examples for control purposes.

Thanks a million for your help!

One of the drawbacks of the earlier FS series was that you could set very unrealistic inversions, which percluded any chance of the program actually being ABLE to compute the temperature effect on vertical gradient.

 

[jrriss]

It flew a bit strange.

How so?

 

[Hielor]

Well, it is a rumor that there are either no 3D cockpits or bad 3D cockpits in X-Plane (there are bad 3D cockpits, but not on the whole). If we talk about the default cessna, X-Plane does it better than FSX in my point of view (especially the 2D panel), while there are many freeware and some payware addons for X-Plane that include 3D cockpits with the same quality like in MSFS.

That's the default Cessna 172 of X-Plane:


That's the Eurocopter 120 Colibri (freeware) for X-Plane:


That's the Mitsubishi MU-2 which I'm going to buy:

The normal 3d cockpit view in X-Plane (as far as I can tell) is all but impossible to use without a TrackIR, since mouse look is always on. I don't want the cockpit moving around while I'm trying to get to a button.

It requires the CD to be in the drive--annoying but not uncommon. FSX doesn't do that, though.

Overmind also pointed out things like the default F-22, which when standing still on the ground will dig its tail into the ground if you pull back on the stick....

If I can boot up X-Plane and find a half-dozen very obvious and very annoying bugs in the first five minutes, it's not ready to be sold. Apparently I paid $40 for the privilege of being a beta tester. Yeah, no thanks.

Both communities, X-Plane and MSFS, basically consist of people who like professional detailed aircraft. The casual flier makes only a very small part of flight simulator communities. The same for Orbiter by the way. It is all the addons and advanced aircraft/spacecraft who make a simulator.

You're underestimating the presence of the "casual flier" in FSX, I suspect. What you say may be true of X-Plane, where the default airplanes are junk and it has much less "newbie-friendliness," but FSX fliers don't need to go out and buy addons to have advanced aircraft, since they come standard.

I would be very surprised if more than half of the FSX community has bought addons for FSX, and I'd bet it's more than that. Look at us, too--we're all Orbiter players, so we like those advanced aircraft...but you're the odd man out when it comes to having bought professional addons.

The TM Hotas Cougar is one of the best flight simulator hardware I know of. I never had any issues with it (but it is a very complex thing, which requires some configuration). My brother even got a 400€ update for it, which removes the movability of the stick and adds real behavior (the real one also can't be "moved" actually). I don't use it very often at the moment because I'm waiting for the new Falcon which includes an updated graphics engine.

Hmmm, wasn't one of the main reasons for the real F-16's stick not needing to be moved so that the pilot could still have full control under extreme g-loads? Yeah, I think if I'm experiencing "extreme g-loads" in my simpit, I have bigger problems...

I sadly don't have any experiences with pedals.

OK...I'd have to get pedals if I got the Cougar, since it doesn't have a twist stick.

This, on the the other hand DOES seem right, for FSX. If you cannot set temperatures directly then obviously the program handles enviornmental lapse rates for itself, as well as vertical pressure to temperature gradients. Heilor, from what you report it appears correct, even in the magnitude of the alteration (how many feet was the indicated drop?). ADDED EDIT: And a thought; did you check if the true pressure at sea level in both temperature cases was 29.92" Hg? The issue is station adjusted QNH for high elevation aerodromes, not the actual sea level pressure, which would stay constant in both examples for control purposes.

The indicated drop was maybe 400-600 feet? I don't remember.

I didn't check the true pressure at sea level, no, but I don't think it would have been 29.92 in the "heavy snow" case, since there would've been heavy snow at sea level....

 

[ex-orbinaut]

The indicated drop was maybe 400-600 feet? I don't remember.

I didn't check the true pressure at sea level, no, but I don't think it would have been 29.92 in the "heavy snow" case, since there would've been heavy snow at sea level....

First, sorry for the spelling errors (your handle Hielor and Environmental). Must have slept badly. My fault, just the same.

400 to 600 feet indication error is about right for the OAT range between ISA -10º to ISA + 20º, for 6,000 + odd ft amsl, more or less. I think it is doing it right, by what you say. In Quito the station QNH correction is usually 480 ft (less than true on msl QNH), for an aerodrome 9,220 ft amsl, ISA+25. It computes... I will look out for this sim, then. Thanks again!:speakcool:

PS. Just thinking, in reference to my earlier comments. You could calculate the gradients even for ridiculous temperature layers and inversions, but the iteration of the chunk of code that handled it would have to be pretty fine.

 

[Moonwalker]

You're underestimating the presence of the "casual flier" in FSX, I suspect. What you say may be true of X-Plane, where the default airplanes are junk and it has much less "newbie-friendliness," but FSX fliers don't need to go out and buy addons to have advanced aircraft, since they come standard.

I would be very surprised if more than half of the FSX community has bought addons for FSX, and I'd bet it's more than that. Look at us, too--we're all Orbiter players, so we like those advanced aircraft...but you're the odd man out when it comes to having bought professional addons.

Not all standard aircraft of FSX are advanced, especially not the Airbus and Boeing aircraft and their engine sounds (which are anything but close to the real ones). No Flight Management Computer, no accurate EICAS, PFD and ND displays, no accurate TCAS, no complex systems simulation on the whole. If you just want to fly small aircraft a bit and have fun doing missions and training, FSX is nice. Of course X-Plane does not do it any better. But that's not what the majority want anyway, as already pointed out by me and others.

You are, honestly, the first person I meet who constantly points to the standard airplanes. The standard airplanes might make the sim for you and some others but definately do not make the sim for the majority of MSFS users. It is the complex systems simulation and aircraft of Dreamfleet & Flight One, Level-D, PMDG, Wilco Publishing and many others who made MSFS that much popular within the past years. Those aircraft are the basic reason why many use MSFS instead of X-Plane. Me, my brother but also any of my friends who use MSFS only use it because of the complex payware aircraft available (sure not everybody "buys" them, they rather "torrent" them...). Nobody of us, but many others as well, are seriously interested in the standard aircraft which are actually known to be boring (and partly "uggly" if you just read youtube comments). The same for X-Plane. The same almost for Orbiter. The standard stuff is not what makes people use a flight simulator. The best example is X-Plane: less addons, less users. Just imagine Orbiter without any addons. The community would be rather small...

 

[Hielor]

Not all standard aircraft of FSX are advanced, especially not the Airbus and Boeing aircraft and their engine sounds (which are anything but close to the real ones). No Flight Management Computer, no accurate EICAS, PFD and ND displays, no accurate TCAS, no complex systems simulation on the whole. If you just want to fly small aircraft a bit and have fun doing missions and training, FSX is nice. Of course X-Plane does not do it any better. But that's not what the majority want anyway, as already pointed out by me and others.

You are, honestly, the first person I meet who constantly points to the standard airplanes. The standard airplanes might make the sim for you and some others but definately do not make the sim for the majority of MSFS users. It is the complex systems simulation and aircraft of Dreamfleet & Flight One, Level-D, PMDG, Wilco Publishing and many others who made MSFS that much popular within the past years. Those aircraft are the basic reason why many use MSFS instead of X-Plane. Me, my brother but also any of my friends who use MSFS only use it because of the complex payware aircraft available (sure not everybody "buys" them, they rather "torrent" them...). Nobody of us, but many others as well, are seriously interested in the standard aircraft which are actually known to be boring (and partly "uggly" if you just read youtube comments). The same for X-Plane. The same almost for Orbiter. The standard stuff is not what makes people use a flight simulator. The best example is X-Plane: less addons, less users. Just imagine Orbiter without any addons. The community would be rather small...

And yet everyone but you in this thread doesn't use payware planes...

Of course the people on the forums you frequent (which are the forums of the payware designers anyway) will be the sort that buys the planes. Do you see why?

Moreover, the casual players don't go to forums in the first place.

I think we have the problem that neither of is arguing from a position of fact. Out of curiosity, how many payware airplanes have the top 5 or 10 or whatever addon makers sold for FSX? Is that data available?

If we had that data and the number of FSX copies sold, it would become plain which one of us is right. If the number of FSX copies sold is higher than the total number of addon planes sold, then it is clear that the majority of FSX users do not purchase addon planes.

Considering that the average purchaser of addon planes buys more than one, even if the total number of addon planes sold is near (or even somewhat higher than) the number of FSX copies sold, then most FSX users are not purchasing addon planes.

I would say, if the total number of addon planes sold is double the number of FSX copies sold or higher, then you would be correct and the vast majority of users purchase addon planes.

As an order-of-magnitude estimate, I would say that FSX has sold around a million copies. I highly doubt that anywhere near that number of addon planes have been sold.

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:29 PM ----------

Also:

Those aircraft are the basic reason why many use MSFS instead of X-Plane.

Yeah, that, and X-Plane is rather full of bugs and annoyances...

 

[tl8]

Support Dan Steph, Buy FSX Passengers!

 

[Linguofreak]

Overmind also pointed out things like the default F-22, which when standing still on the ground will dig its tail into the ground if you pull back on the stick....

At what throttle setting? I know that at high throttle settings on the versions I have it will do that, because it's got some really sweet engines with 20 degrees of thrust vectoring. As long as this is happening at high thrust settings, I'm pretty sure it's a feature, not a bug.

I would be very surprised if more than half of the FSX community has bought addons for FSX, and I'd bet it's more than that. Look at us, too--we're all Orbiter players, so we like those advanced aircraft...but you're the odd man out when it comes to having bought professional addons.

But how much of the FSX/X-Plane community has downloaded free addons? I've downloaded tons, not to mention making a number of my own in Plane-Maker.

Hmmm, wasn't one of the main reasons for the real F-16's stick not needing to be moved so that the pilot could still have full control under extreme g-loads? Yeah, I think if I'm experiencing "extreme g-loads" in my simpit, I have bigger problems...

If anyone figures out a way to put "extreme G loads" into a simpit, I'm buying one! Not before though...

 

[Hielor]

At what throttle setting? I know that at high throttle settings on the versions I have it will do that, because it's got some really sweet engines with 20 degrees of thrust vectoring. As long as this is happening at high thrust settings, I'm pretty sure it's a feature, not a bug.

Idle.

But how much of the FSX/X-Plane community has downloaded free addons? I've downloaded tons, not to mention making a number of my own in Plane-Maker.

I've downloaded a few free addons, but with the exception of that T-45 I haven't kept any of them. I'd still say that free addons keep someone in the "casual" category, albeit the upper end of it.

And for the exact same reason that FSX has a wider variety and better selection of payware addons, it also has a wider variety and better selection of free addons.

If anyone figures out a way to put "extreme G loads" into a simpit, I'm buying one! Not before though...

A big centrifuge!

 

[Moonwalker]

"And yet everyone but you in this thread doesn't use payware planes..."

A lot of Orbiteers generally don't like to use payware. Most do not even buy Space Shuttle Mission 2007. I guess I'm also one of the very few ones here who owns and, more importantly, really likes Space Shuttle Mission 2007 more than any Orbiter Space Shuttle addon.

Anyway, the number of sold MSFS copies would not really show how many actually use MSFS (while there is a huge amount of pirates who use payware addons illegally). A lot of copies, especially those from casual users, come to an end in a rack, in the garret or on ebay (like my two FSX copies did, the standard and deluxe version). FSX payware addons do not appear in the top ten that fast as FS9 products still do so within days. That is because FSX actually is a bad seller. At least I know that from a German vendor who also is a MSFS fan, but you can read that in some freeware but also payware forums (and also think about the Aces closure as one another indication). A significant amount of people still stick with FS9, like I do as well. It works more perfectly than FSX with all the addons. There is no real need to change. Not to mention the standard airplanes, which are uninteresting for a lot of users anyway. Most users either use freeware or payware aircraft and expansions. A nacked MSFS, no matter if it's FS9 or FSX, just is an aircraft toy (with a gloabl US airspace by the way, which I always hated). Guess how many Orbiteers just use the nacked Orbiter package...


That's what really makes MSFS:

And that's what is going to make X-Plane more and more popular:

Whenever I buy old Jeppesen charts from pilots, I often get the advice to use X-Plane over MSFS by the way.

 

[Linguofreak]

Overmind also pointed out things like the default F-22, which when standing still on the ground will dig its tail into the ground if you pull back on the stick....

At what throttle setting? I know that at high throttle settings on the versions I have it will do that, because it's got some really sweet engines with 20 degrees of thrust vectoring. As long as this is happening at high thrust settings, I'm pretty sure it's a feature, not a bug.

I would be very surprised if more than half of the FSX community has bought addons for FSX, and I'd bet it's more than that. Look at us, too--we're all Orbiter players, so we like those advanced aircraft...but you're the odd man out when it comes to having bought professional addons.

But how much of the FSX/X-Plane community has downloaded free addons? I've downloaded tons, not to mention making a number of my own in Plane-Maker.

Hmmm, wasn't one of the main reasons for the real F-16's stick not needing to be moved so that the pilot could still have full control under extreme g-loads? Yeah, I think if I'm experiencing "extreme g-loads" in my simpit, I have bigger problems...

If anyone figures out a way to put "extreme G loads" into a simpit, I'm buying one! Not before though...

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------

Idle.

That is a problem. Version 9 I assume?

I've downloaded a few free addons, but with the exception of that T-45 I haven't kept any of them. I'd still say that free addons keep someone in the "casual" category, albeit the upper end of it.

And for the exact same reason that FSX has a wider variety and better selection of payware addons, it also has a wider variety and better selection of free addons.


A big centrifuge!

 

[Hielor]

"And yet everyone but you in this thread doesn't use payware planes..."

A lot of Orbiteers generally don't like to use payware. Most do not even buy Space Shuttle Mission 2007. I guess I'm also one of the very few ones here who owns and, more importantly, really likes Space Shuttle Mission 2007 more than any Orbiter Space Shuttle addon.

Perhaps.

Anyway, the number of sold MSFS copies would not really show how many actually use MSFS (while there is a huge amount of pirates who use payware addons illegally).

And people also get MSFS illegally. I imagine it would even out, and if we were to count the people who obtain either illegally it would only help my case (as I would consider someone who can't be arsed to pay for the thing to be a "casual").

A lot of copies, especially those from casual users, come to an end in a rack, in the garret or on ebay (like my two FSX copies did, the standard and deluxe version).

And if they go on ebay, then someone else buys it and uses it, and you're not double-counting.

FSX payware addons do not appear in the top ten that fast as FS9 products still do so within days. That is because FSX actually is a bad seller. At least I know that from a German vendor who also is a MSFS fan, but you can read that in some freeware but also payware forums (and also think about the Aces closure as one another indication). A significant amount of people still stick with FS9, like I do as well. It works more perfectly than FSX with all the addons. There is no real need to change. Not to mention the standard airplanes, which are uninteresting for a lot of users anyway. Most users either use freeware or payware aircraft and expansions. A nacked MSFS, no matter if it's FS9 or FSX, just is an aircraft toy (with a gloabl US airspace by the way, which I always hated). Guess how many Orbiteers just use the nacked Orbiter package...

I thought we were talking about MSFS vs X-Plane, not MSFS vs MSFS...

And a "nacked" MSFS is less of a toy than a "nacked" X-Plane, and less buggy too.

Whenever I buy old Jeppesen charts from pilots, I often get the advice to use X-Plane over MSFS by the way.

Like I said. I just re-installed it yesterday to verify that I hadn't mis-remembered how terrible it was, and within 5 minutes I'd found something like a half-dozen bugs, one of which required me to restart the program, and the others of which when combined made the thing nigh unplayable. I shouldn't have to fight with the software, which is what I have to do in X-Plane.

That is a problem. Version 9 I assume?

Yes. 9.2.

 

[Moonwalker]

And a "nacked" MSFS is less of a toy than a "nacked" X-Plane, and less buggy too.

... yes, if you look at default airplanes and user-friendliness in the eyes of a gamer/casual fun flyer. Wrong, if you look behind the sandbox of FSX (the menu and eye candy game-like fun stuff) and compare it with X-Plane really.

X-Plane is used by a lot of companies for aviation engineering and flight training: NASA, Carter-Copter, Scaled Composite, the US National Test Pilot School and many others (even the Department of Defense). But most costumers are pilots who use it on laptops during flights and also during layover, to simulate possible approaches and the return flight in relation to likely weather scenarios.

More than a half million people around the globe already use X-Plane. While the years go by, and FSX becomes old and no replacement takes place, X-Plane is going to be used more than ever before. The most comments I already read from those who changed from MSFS to X-Plane after many years (like I'm going to do so too), is that "MSFS is just a toy". I still like MSFS. It is nice if you just want to fly nice looking airplanes (and payware addon systems simulation). But the physics and behaviour is just poor compared to X-Plane, which you know if you've ever flown a real airplane. Especially FSX is nothing more than just a game, or if you will a downgraded simulator.

 

[Hielor]

... yes, if you look at default airplanes and user-friendliness in the eyes of a gamer/casual fun flyer. Wrong, if you look behind the sandbox of FSX (the menu and eye candy game-like fun stuff) and compare it with X-Plane really.

Since when is user-friendliness a bad thing?

I (and, I imagine, most desktop simmers) want the simulator to do one primary thing: "bring the world of flying to my desktop," because I can't go experience it in reality.

FSX does just that. ATC, AI traffic, gate procedures...X-Plane has none of those. Yeah, it has ATC, but it's pitiful compared to FSX's.

X-Plane is used by a lot of companies for aviation engineering and flight training: NASA, Carter-Copter, Scaled Composite, the US National Test Pilot School and many others (even the Department of Defense). But most costumers are pilots who use it on laptops during flights and also during layover, to simulate possible approaches and the return flight in relation to likely weather scenarios.

That's nice. Those are specialized fields. The needs of a commercial-quality "simmer" and the needs of a desktop simmer are very, very different. FSX is very good at meeting the desktop simmer's needs. X-Plane isn't.

More than a half million people around the globe already use X-Plane.

Source?

While the years go by, and FSX becomes old and no replacement takes place, X-Plane is going to be used more than ever before.

Yes, and I hope that they rise to the occasion and fix the things that need to get fixed.

The most comments I already read from those who changed from MSFS to X-Plane after many years (like I'm going to do so too), is that "MSFS is just a toy". I still like MSFS. It is nice if you just want to fly nice looking airplanes (and payware addon systems simulation). But the physics and behaviour is just poor compared to X-Plane, which you know if you've ever flown a real airplane. Especially FSX is nothing more than just a game, or if you will a downgraded simulator.

Again, I doubt that Joe WeekendSimPilot cares if the flight model is off a wee bit. He wants to "bring the world to his desktop." FSX does that. X-Plane doesn't. X-Plane is better in a few things than FSX, but it doesn't cover the entire experience of flying the way that FSX does.

For real pilots looking to accurately simulate their flight training, X-Plane is better. For aviation companies wanting a "virtual wind tunnel," X-Plane is better. That's all fine and dandy--but that's not the market we're talking about.

 

[Moonwalker]

Meanwhile, after years of enjoying MSFS, I can dispense with a static ATC that always responses (and sounds) the same way by pressing buttons, and a global US airspace structure (completely unrealistical, which was always annoying to me) if I just look what X-Plane really offers to those who are seriously interested in a realistical flight simulator. Since I've flown a real Piper and Cessna a few times myself I became rather disappointed with MSFS (just the professional Boeing, Airbus and Concorde aircraft addons still forced me to use it). I'll keep my FS9 up and running some time but just because of addon aircraft. But FSX is a real no go for me, just like for many former FS users who changed and are changing to X-Plane.

Regarding gate procedures: in X-Plane your aircraft can be pushed back by different types of trucks (PPU or whatsoever) for different types of aircraft. You can also view the pushback from the truck itself. Gates can be also animated, just like cars and anything else.

Source?

Austin Meyer / Laminar Research. They even reduced the price to let in all the MS users (Microsoft-Conversion sale). Since 2004 (global scenery) and even more since version 9 there is a significant increase of sales.