View Full Version : xplane as a trainner

07-19-2009, 11:01 AM
hello all i just got my xplane yesterday i read that it is more realistic than msfs
so i said to try it out on my home made tranner for my mep/ir that i am doing at the moment i have to say it feels much more realistic than fsx the only thing i dont like is that i cant work it with 2 monitors on one pc for out side veiw and panel dose any one know a sim insted of xplane and msfs witch would be better for practice i am intrested in it so i can practice
also dose OC work with xplane i am serching for radio hardwere witch will work;)

07-19-2009, 12:52 PM
IMHO either Xplane or MSFS will do the job that you require. As far as radios go Goflight modules will work in Xplane. I have both FS and Xplane and although i think that FS has much better scenery I do agree that Xplane flys a little more realistily. But I feel they both are good for training purposes. My son is 7 and roday i was teaching him how to use artificial horizon in FS but i could have easily done it in Xplane as far as tuneing radio freq either sim would work. As far as another Sim I have never looked into any others. just my .02 cents. True you cant work it on 2 monitors but with a second PC you can get the gauges to display on that PC.

07-19-2009, 01:02 PM
i had fsx with globale realisem amd maybe i havent set the grafics good i know fs has all airports and easy to set up a flight but i found xplane runways and whether more realistic just as i realy fly!!am i missing somthing in fsx maybe there is somthing i havent done can any one help????
p.s. the landing in xplane i belive are very much realistic than fsx is there any fsx add ons that cand bring the grafics close to xplane?

07-19-2009, 02:53 PM
LOL maybe its me missing something I have the gloabal terrain for Xplane but my graphixs are not nearly as good as FSX. I have seen some pics of Xplane and i am highly impressed with the graphics but mine dose not look like thoe images. In my Xplane it always looks likes its clowdy with an ominious fog that makes it so i cant see very far in the distance. In FSX i can see forever. So Maybe it is my Xplane setup.

Here are too screen shots taken at KTSP same times and setup with same type weather. the FSX one looks almost exatcly to what it really looks like in my home town airport but the Xplane is not even close. Notice the FOG in Xplane i cant see very well with it.

http://www.mycockpit.org/photopost/data/564/thumbs/fsx_2009-07-19_11-38-50-10.jpg ('http://www.mycockpit.org/photopost/data/564/fsx_2009-07-19_11-38-50-10.jpg') http://www.mycockpit.org/photopost/data/564/thumbs/X-Plane_2009-07-19_11-45-53-48.jpg ('http://www.mycockpit.org/photopost/data/564/X-Plane_2009-07-19_11-45-53-48.jpg')

07-19-2009, 03:52 PM
Hi Guys,

having given both X-Plane and MSFS a good try-out, I have to say FS9/FSX does it better for me. However, with one important caveat - in FS9 I was using the free RealAir Simulations Cessna 172 model and in FSX the RealAir Simulations Beech Duke.

I have not flown any other cessna 172 model in MSFS or X-plane that comes close to the handling and feel of the RealAir one. I don't think the C172 model works in FSX (have not tried it though) but the Beech Duke is very impressive in the same respects.

I found that the X-Plane aircraft felt a bit unstable and the wind effects were not always realistic e.g. very excessive turbulence even with calm weather.

I had three copies of X-Plane working together - main server (with PFC hardware connected), outside view (via a projector) and IOS. The IOS literally crawled the whole time and was buggy.

Anyhow, for a Cessna 172 on FS9 - look no further than RealAir Simulations - similarly for a twin in FSX the RealAir Duke is excellent. I have not found an FSX C172 to match RealAir yet.


No Longer Active
07-19-2009, 04:00 PM
I too have the real air simulations Cessna 172 in FS9 and it is one of the nicest Cessna's I have ever flown, though the sound of it does sound more like a 737 then a Cessna, but again a very nice smooth aircraft to fly and a beauty to land!

04-05-2010, 10:22 AM
I have tried all the REAL planes i have flown and tried them in Xplane. I don't get it, x-plane sucks, sorry. They fly NOTHING like the real versions i have flown. As for commercial, i t was stated by Matt Ford that real 737 pilots thought the turbulence was WAY over done. The Captain sim 727 in my FSX flies by the numbers according to my real manuals i have. Sorry X-plane lovers, they are paying off somebody at the FAA office for certification! lol FSX isn't perfect either but overall much better. (with after market planes and system tweaking)

08-17-2010, 06:40 PM
It's remarkable that there is such a difference of opinion about X-Plane. I really do want to like it and I have tried hard - but it just does not fly right.

It's very unstable and very hard to fly - for example, in straight and level with little or no wind, if I take my hands off the controls, the plane immediately enters a spiral dive. I used it with a PFC console so the excuse of poor quality joysticks does not apply. Also, having flown real cessna's and also having flown a professional Mechtronix FNPTII, there is no comparison. The other excuse I have heard is that the absence of control loading and lack of movement cues makes it seem harder - but that does not cut it for me either.

I really do want to like it and have tried it again and again, playing with the flight control settings, different aircraft models etc. etc. and they all leave me with the same feeling that its practically unflyable and very unreal.

However, the graphics are very good, the frame-rates are excellent and the extra little features are quite nice. Also, when I look at the kind of detailed improvements and tweaks that are recorded in the change log, I just can't understand how the basics seem so wrong.

I have not given up hope though. I will persevere and I live in the constant hope that I am just missing something....

Someone please tell me I am missing something.....

No Longer Active
08-18-2010, 05:31 AM
I am the same as you ryanf, I want to like it, I want to love it just to be a bit different, graphics and frame rates are excellent, I like the smoothness of it all.

But....like you said it doesn't fly right, with basic yoke and pedals it does appear to be constantly retrimmed and it is a lot of hard work flying the little fella. There is something about the actual flight dynamics that puts me off about it, but ots the lovely graphics and frame rates that makes me like it!

I dont think it will be long before they get this right, although my led card is programmed for fs9/fsx all the rest of my hardware should be fine with x-plane. I look forward to using it again one day I really do!

10-18-2010, 11:20 AM

I am a real VFR pilot , so I know a little about flying little GA aircrafts.

I have been using FS for 10 years, since a year I have moved to x-plane. So I have a little knoledge about both sims.

I also have build two cockpit, a B737 then a GA cockpit, with all the programming that gose with getting all working.

My personnel conclusing is that x-plane is 500% better than FSX in terms of realism in flight. You need to use good aircraft model (payware from the best shops only) once you have this x-plane is just so realistic after having used fsx. As soon as you leave ground you have to 'fly' the plan , the wind get hold of you just like in real life. Yes it is harder to fly but that is how it is in real, and in real I never had the idea of letting go of my yoke , the plan I fly dose not have a autopilot so I would never even think of letting go the yoke, with x-plane its the same you have to fly all the time, it is just perfectly realistic for me.

Also the graphic are fluid and when you are landing this is so important, with fsx I feel it so frustrating to try to land with lateral wind and turbulances and your images is not fluid, this never happens with x-plane.

As for the fog in x-plane this is done to preserv your frame rate.

So my conclusion is that only one could ever get FAA approval and that is only x-plane, there is no comparison; but maybe its because i have all the hardware from profeesional simulators, yokes pedals etc...



10-18-2010, 01:30 PM
The Xplane v Msfs has been discussed many times and for every one Real Pilot that says it better ive read the opposite. That goes for GA and Heavies.
I also think The statement that it is FAA approved needs carefull examination. Cant recall the specifics but " FAA Approved" isnt what it appears.
Besides i think a lot depends on how you percieve things.
The fog Thing gets you smooth Flight but to me its not right.
Both sims have there place, just enjoy.
I keep trying both sims but always return to MS.


08-22-2011, 06:09 PM
First got into FlightSims by accident buying a FSX plane for my boys then discovering I needed the Sim--then this--then that--ect,ect. Never played games before but became hooked on FSX. Tried X-Plane but could never get a plane to take off let alone stay up in the air so scrapped the Sim as useless until a growing nagging challenge got me trying it again especially after finding FSX unrealistically easy.
Never looked back-- FSX seems like flying a coathanger now. Yes X-Plane feels tempermental. X-Planes Trims are sensitive but responsive (Rudder & aerelon trims are near none existant in FSX) but once they are trimmed right the plane flies very true Weather ,turbulence, side winds cannot be ignored by real pilots nor X-Plane fliers they are a constant challenge & the wind sock is important. (Try turning a 172 on the runway in a wind gusting18-24 mph with the flaps down !! pretty realistic.) I tried everything to get into a stall spin in FSX but couldn't--turn away from the instrument panel in X-Plane for a few minutes with AP off and stall-spin & fall become unoptional extras
I've had great fun with FSX & its a good stepping stone to flying X-Plane properly. Can't wait for v10.

No Longer Active
01-22-2012, 06:49 AM
X Plane vs FSX

I would just like to add my view on this debate as I feel that I have some very good and valid comments to share.

Firstly, you have to break down the question and ask the question in a different way. That is 'what's better? and better for who?'.......

Is FSX better than x-plane for a real pilot, or is x-plane better than FSX for a real pilot. A real pilot that flies a GA aircraft for real would probably have pro's and con's for both. Does that pilot believe that better scenery means a better a sim, or does that pilot believe that the responsiveness to flight and flight characteristics mean a better sim. Or does that same pilot believe that one is more important that the other, and does another pilot believe vice versa? We will never have a true answer, its all down to personal perspectives and expectations. Everyone is different and shares DIFFERENT views which means there will always be multiple answers.

Now you have the majority of sim users that have never flown for real before. How can they tell you what's more realistic if they have never flown before. Just because they have used FSX and XPlane and one flies better for 'them' than the other, does that mean the other is less real? How can someone say what's better because the actual fact is they will never know until they jump into a real plane and fly it, then tell us what's real.

So for example, this simmer has a real flight in the aircraft that they fly in flight sim. It turns out that neither flight sim matches the experience of flight, but, xplane appears to match the responsiveness of the controls, however fsx appears to replicate the scenery better. Now the sim users has something to compare to!

FSX has a flight planner, but x-plane makes you do the planning on real maps and charts, whats more realistic? I cant see a flight planner magically appearing on your windscreen in a real cessna! This is just an example of 'whats real to you....as a pilot or someone who has never flown before'.....

Someone could start a debate saying that xplane is better than fsx.....the reason...because this flight simmers computer has better graphics when running xplane and fsx is really jumpy, so xplane is more realistic to the user, however his mate has this fab quad core pc with a fab gfx card and it turns out that surprise surprise fsx runs better for the user, and this user is persistant that fsx is better than xplane for him, but this is based on hardware and not on 'flight'....

Realism of xplane vs fsx should be based on opinions from real pilots that have flown the aircraft both for real and on flight sim...and the opinions should be based on JAR pilots and FAA to get a fair conclusion...

There isnt 1 right answer for the debate because its all down to personal views and experience and everyone's is different!