X-Plane versus FS9 orX

[BlackWidow]

Eric that would be awsome if it could be realised. Your thoughts made me think of another question that is intersting.... Why has FS not tried to get FAA certification for there software? especialy when Xplane is certified for FAA.

[Tomlin]

Well, Im not a spokesperson for MSFS, but our Business Developer did speak to them a while back and asked the same question, among many others.

The general answer was that they had no interest [at THAT time] in having that sort of license for the FS franchise as it stands today, but that a consideration had been given to having a product that could be licensed to be used for these types of applications (simulation that is 'certifiable' by entities such as FAA, JAA, etc.) and that we might see this software in the near future. We now have heard of Microsoft ESP, and I think that if you can read up on what's posted on this development, it falls in line with what many would like to see from MS- a licenseable software for R&D, sim rides that can be profitable (because under current EULA, this is a violation to charge for using the sim in a commercial fashion), etc. I think it's safe to say that MS ESP is probably what those guys were alluding to when our person was speaking with them.

MS ESP is taking it to the next level, but on a much wider use, for things such as Flight, Land, and Sea simulation, using the core graphic engine from MS FSX.

http://www.microsoft.com/esp/

...and even better...

http://www.fs2000.org/simnews/2007/M...Simulation.htm

[David Rogers]

This topic has inspired me to go ahead and pick up the latest full version of X-Plane (with full world scenery), and use it for desktop GA flying (you know when you only have an hour spare and just want the virtual wind in your hair!).

[Matt Olieman]

David, I think I'll join you and buy the latest full version also. It will be nice just to putz around with it now and then. At least I'll get back into the swing of it again, and be somewhat more knowledgable/up to date

We'll have to compare notes David

[Bob Reed]

I was thinking the same thing... But I think I will start with the Demo. I think the version I have is 7x.... I was looking at the the X-Plane site.... Appears that things have really changed......

[BlackWidow]

LOL thats funny i have sent away for my full version Xplane 9 so i guess I will join all of you in Xplane too.

[Roland]

When I just finished my 3doF motion platform (pitch, roll and heave) I ran it only on FS9 with Ian's FS9 motion software. FS9 quickly showed a number of shortcomings: No runway motion effects, rather poor turbulence motion, generally not much happening during normal flight in a cessna, and touch-downs were very inaccurate.
Then Ian finalized a X-plane version of his motion software, I tried this as well on X-plane 8.6 and X-plane immediately proved superior in the above mentioned shortcomings of FS9. The spongy feeling comes out in the heave output of X-plane, the runway is very dynamic, even having some small vibrations when going from taxi ways onto the runway, you actually feel it when you run over the centerlights! In the air there is a lot more going on, to the point that I need to set the turbulence never more than 2nd level, otherwise I start to break things. Not to say that the motion is perfect, but much better than FS9.
The downside is that X-plane does not really support my hardware: I terribly miss my force feedback, (the freeware plugin does not seem to work). X-plane 8.6 does give a spanned view on my Parhelia, but the rendering settings need to be set really low. I also miss my separate cockpit on the 4th LCD panel on an extra video card. (I have a 1-PC setup, P4 2.4G that runs great on FS9, but seems far to slow to run smooth on X-plane 8.6)

The interface of X-plane is much less userfriendly than FS, to the point that I have not succeeded in getting certain airplane setting to work. For example, I always seem to be flying coordinated, can't seem to find the menu to switch this off.

X-plane has a lot going for it, but the lack of certain features and hardware support make it still second choice for me.
For my simming, I'm looking for as much immersion possibilies as possible. spanned scenery view, separate panel view, good force feedback, tactile transducers on the sound, separate assignable sound channels, and the motion platform are all important items to come as close to the real thing. FS makes many of these possible, with relatively simple standard hardware and interface.
The fact that Austin keeps changing the output parameter assignments at each version, makes it hard to have utilities that can be used for more than one version.

[Majorfibbs]

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.

Hello

Most probably this B747 model was over-powered. Thrust has in a first step nothing to do with aerodynamics. With enough thrust, even a brick will fly. I admit, like in FS200x, the default models are not state-of-the-art. This is when add-ons like PMDG (or similar) come into action. A quick-test in X-Plane 8.64 could not confirm your experience. I used almost 3 km runway with the Queen of the sky.

Here ONE issue (among others) I find not so nice in FS200x:
- in case of a frozen pitot tube, in FS2004 the speed indicator jumps to zero. In real life AND in X-Plane it stays at its current indicated speed, if you do not change flying-altitude. Consequently the behaviour when changing the altitude is correctly simulated. Thumbs up for X-Plane.

Again, I do not want to start a war. Everbody shall choose HIS (or HERS) flightsim. All solutions have advantages and disadvantages.

Cheers - V.

[Paul G]

I run FSX, and a friend of mine is a devout X-Plane follower. Both setups are really quite good but I find the limitations of X-Plane boost my loyalty to FSX.

X-Plane has the potential to be a far better sim, with a completely transparent interface, way better than any that Microsoft would produce. However, it has limitations visually, and there is a lot less commercial software available, which means you're left to the kind hearts of enthusiast plane and panel developers. That's good in some instances, but not most.

X-Plane doesn't take full advantage of multi-core processors, so your super expensive machine won't be fully utilized.

Visually the scenery in X-Plane looks ok, but it's seriously lacking airport detail. When I arrive at a new airport, I like needing to navigate using taxiway markings, and see buildings as they would appear in reality. In X-Plane there are very few. You land at LAX and it's like you landed at some emergency landing strip in the Mojave.

The other consideration is support and product development. The developer of x-plane is freely contactable in person, and the team is only small. Sometimes this is good as you could request a patch for something specific you're doing. However, it's all down to the discretion of that person, and they're not going to do you a bespoke version of x-plane just because it doesn't work with some module you bought.

For FSX, there is a much more comprehensive support program aligned with a vastly increased market. I would say that the developers are almost as reachable as well (e.g. Phil Taylor I think he's called). FSX may appear more like a game, but Microsoft's simulator has the capability of turning into a serious platform through shear mass volume of users, despite not having such a scientific base.

X-Plane is not as user friendly as FSX by a long way. For example to apply a change you close the window you made the change in. Counter-intuitive. Also has some strange interface metaphors. X-plane has some wierd characteristics which remind you it's a minority product.

However for about $100 a license, you may as well have both (as I have), and see for yourself. Whichever you choose, you're going to invest lots of your time with, and plenty of cash for add-ons etc. You may as well swallow $100 and make your own decision.

Best of luck.

Paul

[magicaldr]

Eric that would be awsome if it could be realised. Your thoughts made me think of another question that is intersting.... Why has FS not tried to get FAA certification for there software? especialy when Xplane is certified for FAA.

From what was added to the WIKI on Flight Simulator, X-Plane itself is not FAA certified. However it has been used in some FAA certified simulators. Having searched around the X-Plane site it does not say FAA certified anywhere, so I assume this statement on the Wiki was right but happy to be corrected (So I can update the Wiki)

Talk page on X-Plane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fl..._certification

Main Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_simulator

ON the articles point, having flown both X-Plane and FSX currently FSX wins. Mainly because of the eye candy. As I dont have a cockpit yet and still desktop sim, the VC is important to me. Also I normally fly 2000 - 6000 feet VFR my photo scenery comes into play a lot. Although I understand I can get it for X-Plane as well, it was cheaper for FS9 at the time. I did prefer the radio procedures in X-Plane, at least I could declare an emergency, something FSX still cant do (without add ins).

Its a tough call, but like many I am used to FSX now. However I suppose its time to dig out my X-Plane DVD and give it another try.