Well, I don't have any experience with how FSX does its flight model, but my impression is that X-Plane's method is better for sandboxing designs that don't actually exist, or from making rough models from blueprints and specifications.
Somehow I doubt the average flight sim user wants to "sandbox designs that don't actually exist."
I wrote my comments from the perspective of using X-Plane as a desktop flight sim, as compared to using FSX for that same purpose. Aeronautical engineers looking to use it as a virtual wind tunnel would obviously be better off with X-Plane, but that's not the demographic the OP asked about--he asked about a direct comparison with FSX.
I was able to find a fair number for version 5 (which I purchased sometime around 2001 or 2002), and early on I was able to find a decent number for 7, but both of those are several years back now. (I've not tried 9 yet).
And if you include all FS addons since 2001 or 2002, I imagine you exceed the number of addons available for X-Plane by at least an order of magnitude, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was closer to two orders of magnitude. My point stands.
Then again, as I said, it's significantly easier to sandbox your own designs.
Not relevant to the comparison as a desktop flight sim.
The poor ATC is a feature: the way I fly, decent ATC would be calling the air force in to shoot me out of the sky, or the police to arrest me upon landing.
Now *that* would be a fun feature.
As for AI aircraft, v5 had other aircraft that would fly straight and level at a constant altitude (if that can be considered an AI aircraft), and I think v7 had aircraft that would even do things like landing approaches.
When I tried X-Plane 9, the sky was a very lonely place, and the audio ATC was just playing a somewhat randomized loop of ATC recordings (similar to how OrbiterSound does it). Compare that to FSX's fully-voiced ATC, and even if it's not quite perfect it certainly ups the immersion level.
In any case, ATC and other aircraft are still more present than in Orbiter. (Though both could probably be implemented in addons for Orbiter).
Yes, but this should not faze Orbitnauts, given the nature of Orbiter.
I was comparing it to FSX, not Orbiter. Just because I like one sandbox flight sim (Orbiter) doesn't mean that I don't want missions in another.
Or if you want to sandbox your own aircraft designs...
True but still irrelevant to the "desktop flight sim" comparison.
You forgot that X-plane can be used setup for flight training. Most of the Orbiter community appreciates a sim as a close to realistic in terms of the physics as you can get.
:facepalm:
I didn't forget. I didn't mention it because it's not relevant and it doesn't actually differentiate X-Plane from FSX. People always use this argument just because X-Plane is advertising "FAA Certified" versions on their main page. Really, that's false advertising--the FAA doesn't certify flight sim software, they certify full flight sim setups.
FSX is just as capable of being used as a "setup for flight training" as X-Plane is. Which is to say, if you're sitting at home, at a desk, using a desktop flight simulator for practice (and non-loggable) purposes, either X-Plane or FSX will work just as well. There's nothing special about X-Plane that makes it more suited for this purpose--any good airplane for FSX will have flight parameters that are *close enough* to reality to be useful. Short of having motion simulation (which you can do with either program), you're not going to do much better. I've personally used FSX for this purpose--one of the easiest parts of the training for my PPL was the "simulated instrument" bit, because once you learn to ignore your sense of motion and trust the instruments, that transfers very well from the simulator to the computer. Other aspects...not so much.
Getting a version of X-Plane that can be part of an FAA-certified FTD would cost you at least $500 from X-Plane, and then you'd have to put together all the hardware. The FAA doesn't certify flight sim software, they certify the entire hardware setup, so you're looking at several thousand $ more for hardware (and the certification process, which I imagine isn't particularly easy). Somehow I doubt your average desktop simmer would be going through this process. If you wanted that, you'd probably buy the package all together from someone, and that would run you upwards of $4000 for an entry-level setup--and at that point, it doesn't matter what software is actually being run.
Plus, X-Plane is hardly alone in being "FAA-Certified," and it doesn't mean all you think it does. There are several programs out there that are used in FAA-Certified simulators, and many of them are of lower quality and fidelity than either FSX or X-Plane.
