Results 1 to 10 of 42
Thread: X-Plane versus FS9 orX
-
01-02-2008, 03:59 PM #1
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Belgium
- Posts
- 150
X-Plane versus FS9 orX
I was wondering if anyone has experience with both of these simming programs and wat do you think is the best software
Now I'm curious ...[
-
01-02-2008, 04:02 PM #2
for an average computer : FS2004
for a top of the range : FS X
The question is what is the difference between X-plane and Fs9 (2004)
I havn't met many simbuilders that are not using microsofts flight sim for their primary setup. Maybe you should set up a poll on this and you should get some interesting results.
gez
-
01-02-2008, 04:54 PM #3
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Holley, New York U.S.A.
- Posts
- 1,776
Well to start with X-Plane is different... You know how we feel about different!? We tend to say "well that is no good". The other thing is the scenery has been a a little lacking, now I have not looked at X-Plane for a long time and this may have changed. As far a flight dynamics are concerned.. Very nice... Again interfacing would take a little work. If the scenery has come up I think it would be worth looking at it again. I know I have thought about it recently.
Bob Reed
-
01-02-2008, 05:22 PM #4
If the interfacing was compatible, I'd be running X-Plane. I've heard others say the same. BUT.... it's not that simple, unfortunately...... Oh, and I've heard others say otherwise also
Out of fairness.... we all know where MSFS info is.... here is X-plane's info....
http://www.x-plane.com/
I've had the pleasure of meeting Austin Meyer several years ago, and was extremely amazed, this man is a genius. I doubt if he'd remember me.
-
02-02-2008, 09:46 AM #5
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Switzerland
- Posts
- 13
FS200x <--> X-Plane
Hello
I am using both software solutions for my homecockpit project. As interface hardware I use IOCards from Opencockpits. It works for both simulator platforms, where I only use FS2004 and X-Plane 8.64. Can not speak for FSX.
Here a short comparision based on PERSONAL experience and preferences.
X-Plane:
+ functionality, correct simulation and very deep aircraft-system-depth
+ MUCH better aerodynamics computation
+ open for customization in all aspects
+ possibilty of instructor station over network
+ much more failure-modes for "training"
- availability of scenery + airplane add-ons (situation is improving)
- multi-screen with ONE computer not possible (only networked)
FS2004:
+ multi-screen with ONE computer possible
+ availabilty of add-ons, especially photosceneries
- limited and errorous functionality and system depth (except with add-ons)
- networked solution only with add-on (WideView)
For me the winner is : X-Plane.
Because it is much closer to an Aircraft-Simulator. I do not need fancy aircraft-models (for spotting planes) nor super-duper sceneries. Who needs frame-eating outside models if you sit INSIDE!
Regards - Valentin
http://homecockpit.blogspot.com
-
02-02-2008, 11:13 AM #6
I went to Airventure 07 and spent a few hours talking with Austin Meyer and i walked away from that conversation with the intent to purchase X-Plane. But I could not justify leaving the untol money I have already invested with MSFS. There was a simulator that i flew at the show It was a Eclipse 500 VLJ. the glass cockpit was all run from a networked computer and it was not an addon it came stock with X-Plane. I was highley impressed with the sim. If i could sale my PM stuff I would and move over to X-Plane. The sceneary was up to par with FS9 and it is only getting better.
I beleive (IMHO) that the phrase "As real as it gets" should be for X-plane. The physics are amazing. I also llike that you can see how the forces are applied to the aircraft. An instructor station could be made easily with a networked X-plane.
just my .02 centsMike G.
-
02-02-2008, 11:19 AM #7
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Holley, New York U.S.A.
- Posts
- 1,776
As I recall the instructors station is built into X-Plane.... There where a lot of things I liked about it. What I did not like about it was not a lot of interfacing possibilities and that too may have changed by now. Been a while since I looked at it.
Bob Reed
-
02-03-2008, 12:37 PM #8
I've been tempted to take a closer look again too.... (at X-Plane). The screenies of the scenery at the website, look amazing now. And I believe you can get all world coverage now too ?
What put me off was the lack of complex airliner add-ons (or any payware add-ons!) for X-Plane.
I don't think the airliner offerings that come with X Plane are anywhere near the level of complex FS9 addons (Level D, PMDG). Don't think we're talking LNAV, VNAV or even FL CH ........ and I ain't trading my airliners in for something with just a Vertical Speed mode .... grrrr!
But I am tempted to get X-Plane and use it for the low and slow flying.
David R
Durham, England
1979 Mooney M20J Cockpit builder ......
-
02-03-2008, 01:02 PM #9
There are alot of Payware aircraft for X-Plane. Although you are probably right about the complexity of the airliners. IM not sure about the level of complexity with the addons though.
http://www.c74.net/xplane/_xpo_coop.html
THis one has a Airbus mighgt be woth it to read all about the design in X-palne http://www.reitter.de/galaxy/index_E.html
Here is a 737 (Freeware)
http://www.eadt.eu/Aircraft.html
Ijust found a program called FS2Xplane it converts FS9 and FSX scenery to Xplane
http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?...ds&showfile=24
hope this helpsMike G.
-
02-04-2008, 09:52 AM #10
I admit- Im a DIEHARD MSFS user, and although I have tried Xplane, I was very seriously disapointed. I hope that maybe some of you can shed some light on what Im about to describe so that I wont be so uneducated about the good parts of Xplane.
I have been involved with an on-going effort to bring some new technology to real-world cockpits involving simulation as a test bed. While doing this I tried out several different pc-based simulator software packages. Sadly, none of them compared to MSFS 9 or X for what we were doing. I tried XP ver 8 and could not see what folks see in the software. However, I was looking for issues because I am biased against it, so there's my honesty being shown there. Situation: Start up the Xplane 747 at Mojave, push the throttles foward, and the thing (with near full fuel) takes off like an F16. If the software is actually modeling 'blade element theory' then why can a near fully loaded 747 take off so fast and climb like a bat? That's not good aerodynamic modeling, and I dont think I need to be type rated on the 747 to know that. In my thinking, if the software use BET, then shouldnt even the default models fly however they are built? I realise I am probably wrong in my thinking, but I would really like to understand this.
If Xplane could explode onto the scene with the same support of add-on sceneries, then I would SERIOUSLY consider moving over if all the elements were there.
I look foward to having some light shed on this for me- and it's not to flame, but to be educated on. Right?
Similar Threads
-
QNH from FS versus QNH from PMGetWeather
By npbosch in forum PM Boeing GCReplies: 1Last Post: 11-19-2009, 11:06 AM -
XGA versus WXGA
By FredK in forum Projector SolutionsReplies: 6Last Post: 11-06-2009, 03:09 AM -
FSX versus X-Plane
By LUFTY in forum General Microsoft Flight Simulator 10 (FSX)Replies: 1Last Post: 06-07-2009, 09:15 AM -
TV versus projector
By Goldmember in forum Cockpit Outside VisualizationReplies: 0Last Post: 03-04-2009, 06:27 PM -
0/16/16 versus 8/8/8
By Gerard in forum Phidgets & Cockpit Simulator BuilderReplies: 2Last Post: 01-30-2005, 04:03 PM
6yo FACECAST LINK 14year GIRLS FORUM : ( )...
YWM RAR JAILBAIT ZOOM