X-Plane versus FS9 orX [Archive]

Bob Reed

01-02-2008, 04:54 PM

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 ...

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.

Matt Olieman

01-02-2008, 05:22 PM

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.

Majorfibbs

02-02-2008, 09:46 AM

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

BlackWidow

02-02-2008, 11:13 AM

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 cents

Bob Reed

02-02-2008, 11:19 AM

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.

David Rogers

02-03-2008, 12:37 PM

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.
:)

BlackWidow

02-03-2008, 01:02 PM

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?autocom=downloads&showfile=24

hope this helps

Tomlin

02-04-2008, 09:52 AM

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?

ryanf

02-04-2008, 10:02 AM

Hi All,

I also tried out X-plane a few years ago. The scenery was very basic and the flight characteristics of the few default planes I flew seemed to be very unusual - did not feel right to me - of course thats a very subjective statement.

However, one thing I have to recognise is that it is the software of choice for some commercial flight sim vendors such as Precision Flight Controls. They package it with hardware in sim setups from desktop units to full FNPT sims, and it is approved by the FAA - so it must good.

cheers,
Ryan.

Tomlin

02-04-2008, 10:08 AM

ryanf

02-04-2008, 10:33 AM

wish I knew :roll:

That's why I was also considering giving it a try-out again....

/Ryan.

Bob Reed

02-04-2008, 10:49 AM

wish I knew :roll:

That's why I was also considering giving it a try-out again....

/Ryan.

Well if you have never flown a real plane and all you have ever flown is FS you might be misled. One of the things that struck me the very first time I flew X-Plane was how real the airplane felt... Putting this feeling into words will not be easy but in a real airplane when you move the yoke or the rudder pedals, since the plane is "floating on air" you feel that. In other words the plane tends to move on all axes not just the axes you effect with the controls. Wow not explaining this very well but it feel almost "spongy" Anyone else understand what I am trying to say that can explain it better? Any way X-Plane has that feeling to the aircraft much more then FS... The plane responds like it is in the air not turn like a car.

Tomlin

02-04-2008, 10:55 AM

Well if you have never flown a real plane and all you have ever flown is FS you might be misled. Wow not explaining this very well but it feel almost "spongy" Anyone else understand what I am trying to say that can explain it better? Any way X-Plane has that feeling to the aircraft much more then FS... The plane responds like it is in the air not turn like a car.

Yes, now THAT I can understand as Ive flown lots before, but the over-all handling to me is not very good. Maybe it was the default aircraft, but then again, that's my whole point. If the software supposedly models how the real design would move thru space and time, the 747 was built horribly (in XP).

Thanks Bob, that was a good comparison btw! I just cant feel that in XP though. Maybe I should go back and try it.

Bob Reed

02-04-2008, 11:10 AM

Well one of the things you have to remember Eric.. Is sitting in our non moving chairs it "feels" different as you cant feel the movement by the "seat of your pants!" By the way all I used was the default AC but just the GAs as I think that is where all the work went. I never tried any heavy iron in X-Plane...

Matt Olieman

02-04-2008, 11:44 AM

Tomlin

02-04-2008, 12:17 PM

Austin Meyers focus has always been about the aerodynamics and performance of the aircraft. Input and output and the results as it were a real aircraft in the air or on the ground. Scenery/cosmetics has always been second. Although the scenery has made a significant improvement. Well, at least that's my opinion.

MSFS has all the bells and whistles and comes close enough for me to have enjoyment out my sim, as most of you do. But I'd love to see the Austin Meyer expertise in MSFS, it is too bad FSUIPC nor PM software does not work with X-Plane, because that's what I would be using in my sim.

What would be nice would be to see a huge financial increase to be worked into the XPlane platform, to bring all of this together. Even better would be if someone had the ability to start a new product alltogether.

I have often dreamed of if I 'won the lottery' about putting together a team of experts to build a competing product to MSFS/Xplane/CAE/FSI software. Yes, it would cost a ton in R&D, but obviously it can be done. Just secure the capitol and resources and then market the heck out of the product and get it in the hands of the user base.

A team of individuals that were absolutely brilliant in their software/graphics skills would usher in an amazing new sim that can only be dreamed of. We have the talent out there- but many of them have thier day jobs and cant devote the time like the user base would like to see unless it was their full time jobs. By it being built from the ground up and not affiliated with any of the big power-house software companies, the project managers could pick and choose from proven elements that would make the product very successful and not require hours and hours of hair pulling once installed on a variety of contemporary machines. The key would be to have a scalable architechture that would allow the user to tailor the software to their hardware while delivering the tools required for 3rd party developers to create the most important content instead of relying only on in-house knowledge. Like MSFS, the 3rd party products would sustain the core development (in theory).

If someone had the money and interest, I dont see why it couldnt be done. Most people will say that there's a good chance that it wouldnt be financially viable, but I disagree. You could have 3 versions, each targeted at a specific user base.

One would serve the home desktop sim market and be made for the masses, like MSFS, complete with a handful of aircraft and an actual SDK included with all the tools released on the day the product is shipped.

The second version would be priced a bit more, but be filled with all of the networking and internal-grabbing software required for home sim building and would possibly have a subscription-based structure in place that would allow for product enhancement as updates were available for a time period.

The third version would be the same software- targeted as a viable alternative for real-world training and priced according to an extended service contract, complete with FAA certification available for a limited number of aircraft.

Dream over...back to the real world for now!

BlackWidow

02-04-2008, 12:24 PM

"MSFS has all the bells and whistles and comes close enough for me to have enjoyment out my sim, as most of you do. But I'd love to see the Austin Meyer expertise in MSFS, it is too bad FSUIPC nor PM software does not work with X-Plane, because that's what I would be using in my sim. "

This is exactly how i feel too Matt, I relaoded the Xplane demo after all of this discussion and although i absolutley love the scenery in MSFS (beatuiful eyecandy) I like flying in Xplane it feels much more like beign in a real cessna the effects of the airplane always remind me of beign in my friends 150. When I was speaking with Austin and Airventure 07 I could tell he was very pationate about the flight dynamics in Xplane (and his corvette) although i know that he was tyring to get the eyecandy into Xplane the scenery for Insbruch (spelling) was fantastic and the water was fantastic. Anyway when Austin showed me the outside view of the plane with all the little ribbons on it to show how the forces of the air moving over the aircraft and what this is doing to the plane I knew that if i wanted "as real as it gets" I would have to move to Xplane but I had already spent so much money on interfacing that I could not justify leaving FS.

Eric there are some freeware Xplane heavies that you could easily put into the demo that i think you will find are much more to your idea of a heavy. I dont want to sound like Im bashing FSX over Xplane i think both sims are fantastic. And for under $100.00 we get to fly any plane we want anywhere around the world and never leave home. SWEEEEET

Bob Reed

02-04-2008, 12:31 PM

Blackwidow...I agree with you! My version of X-Plane is old now and I am thinking about reloading it and taking a look. There is some hardware that works with it but I do not remember which... PFC does but other then that I am not sure. I am still on the X-Plane's mailing list and still get all the stuff sent out.. The outside view has improved a lot. Yes Austin is VERY pationate over his software... There is a lot of stuff built into the software like multiview over a network and so on... The software has it's +s.....

BlackWidow

02-04-2008, 12:32 PM

Tomlin

02-04-2008, 12:51 PM

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/Microsoft_ESP_Debuts_as_a_Platform_for_Visual_Simulation.htm

David Rogers

02-04-2008, 01:59 PM

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

02-04-2008, 02:07 PM

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

02-04-2008, 02:20 PM

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

02-04-2008, 02:23 PM

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

02-04-2008, 04:02 PM

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

02-04-2008, 04:30 PM

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

02-04-2008, 04:31 PM

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

02-04-2008, 07:02 PM

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:Flight_simulator#X-Plane_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.

Efe Cem Elci

02-04-2008, 07:31 PM

Glad to see that this topic didn't degenerate into a duel between supporters of the different simulation software. Thought for a moment that that might just be where it was headed. And its got some FS9/FSXers trying out X-plane.

I'm going to check out the demo as soon as the shipment comes in.

Bob Reed

02-04-2008, 07:35 PM

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:Flight_simulator#X-Plane_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.

X-Plane is not certified without a special aircraft model. The only place to get that is PFC as they are the ones that did all the work and paid for the certification. So you are right X-Plane it's self is not FAA certified.

Matt Olieman

02-04-2008, 08:42 PM

As we're discusing I/O and connection to other products..... Did you see the latest Sismo news release about their SimCards and "Configure your connections to perform whatever function you like from Flight Simulator or X-plane too!)"
http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11434
Will be interesting to see what else comes along to support X-plane :)

Matt O.

BlackWidow

02-04-2008, 08:43 PM

I just went to there website it looks like quality stuff. i love there dual rotaries. thanks for the post.

Efe Cem Elci

02-04-2008, 08:52 PM

Actually the text of the link has 'ww' but the link itself has 'www'. The reason the link doesn't work is because it points to ysyngsim.com instead of 737ngsim.com :!:

Which leads me to believe that Matt might have a really different keypad setup on his laptop.

BlackWidow

02-04-2008, 08:54 PM

LOL i just edited my post because i saw he fixed the link.

Matt Olieman

02-04-2008, 08:54 PM

I have no idea how I did that....... That's scary in itself :)

BlackWidow

02-05-2008, 11:26 PM

I was just looking in the PM offsets documentation and noticed at the very bottom it has Xplane offsets but it says not operational. Was PM software at one time compatible with Xplane?

BlackWidow

02-08-2008, 10:42 PM

Just recieved my copy of Xplane. Now to explore the world of Xplane

BlackWidow

02-16-2008, 09:48 PM

Just wanted to share my thoughts on X-palne

I have been flying GA aircraft in the latest release of X-plane and I will deifintly give it to X-plane in the department of realistic flight models. Planes react very different then MSFS. I am a visuals kinda guy and although most of the payware i have seen for X-plane is on par with MSFS the scenery is dismal. I fly out of KTSP (Tehacahpi Muni) in FSX since it is my home airport I can follow SR58 in any direction and it is exactly where it should be the hills surrounding my home town are all there and it really does remind me of my home. I loaded up the Global mesh for X-plane expecting to see the same thing just a different look. I was more then just unimpressed The country side looked more like the Black Forrest then the high desert. The same hills that remind me of home in FSX were there but in the wrong locations and with about 3xs more hills then should be. As for SR58 (LOL) well there was a road there but it did not come close to FSX. I palyed with the settings and flew most of the time with Insane ammount of scenery which i noticed FR were not great especially in high volume towns like Lancaster CA. I get better FR in MSFS and my sliders are almost all to the right.

I would like to build a sim for X-palne just so i can have very realistic flight models but I am VERY happy with FSX it gives me the sense of flying and i get great eye candy to go along with it. I know that Austin is more concerned with the flight models then the eye candy which is too bad because he could have a sim that would give alot more competition to MSFS then it already does. If X-palne had the volume sales that MSFS does then alot more developers would create X-plane addons which would benifit all useing X-plane.

Another thing i did notice is there is an Avidyne setup that is intended to run over a netowrked PC but i was unable to get it to work. And im not sure if its a finshed program or still in limbo.

just my .02cents