FS9 vs. X-Plane 9 -- The Truth!

[Mark McCoy 823112]

So I was sitting here thinking today.. (an dangerous thing, I know) while I was reading through DL's "interesting" theories on why FS9 is terrible and FSX is the best thing since sliced bread, round wheels and .wallop when it occurred to me that X-Plane wasn't even considered.

 

Now to preface this, understand that I've been using Microsoft Flight Simulator since the days of 16 color graphics and the maze of "keyboard flying." Departing from Microsoft is not likely going to be an easy move for me.. but with Microsoft eons away (if ever) from releasing a new sim since the firing of the ACES team, one has to wonder what's next.

 

I'm always willing to learn new things, especially when it relates to flight. And to that point, I have always been intrigued by X-Plane's blade element theory (deconstruction of the actual model itself to determine flight characteristics) vs. MS's "cheat sheet" method of .air and .cfg files. So I've been to the X-Plane site. I've read threads such as this one here: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=41637 and this one here: http://www.flightsimulationforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=9172&sid=bd48e99030414280bac9503129c6ad5d but they fall short in telling the total picture of what it's like transitioning from FS9 to X-Plane.

 

Perhaps we can utilize this thread as an educational resource for those out there (like me) who are extremely familiar with FS9 (or perhaps FSX) and are at least willing to acknowledge the possibilities of switching to X-Plane, and would like to know what they can expect in performance, flyability, support, add-ons, etc.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

I think the switch to X-Plane is quite likely. Once X-Plane 10 comes out, if global scenery and PMDG quality aircraft follow, I'll be the first to switch (:

[Brendan Lynch 1167842]

Global Scenery- NYEXPRO isn't scenery for every airport, but it covers a lot of them, US, Canada, and Europe (To my knowledge, I haven't checked the download page in a while)

Aircraft-There are plenty of high-quality aircraft available, and as Mark Mentioned, the Blade Element Theory means you just make a 3D model (using Blender or whatever you currently use, or just plane-maker) and most of the performance aspects are done. And there are fantastic designers at many of the X-Plane forums, x-plane.org is just the best known and the only one, to my knowledge, with a download manager making downloading scenery, plugins, aircraft, etc. easy.

Making the switch-

X-Plane.com (Laminar Research) has it's own guide for easing the transition.

http://www.x-plane.com/pg_Switching.html

 

BUT-

Bottom line, if you have MSFS, wait until v10 comes out.

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

The issue isn't performance characteristics, it's systems simulation. With that scenery, it sounds like all it would take for me to switch would be a high quality aircraft systems-wise.

[Charan Kumar]

http://petersuv.vs120062.hl-users.com/

 

http://www.c74.net/xplane/index.html

 

http://www.eadt.eu/ (this is a freeware acft, but has a full functional payware FMC)

[Tim Krajcar]

Timely thread, Mark. I'm in the process of fully converting over to XP myself and now that I've spent some real quality time getting to know the sim, I must say I LOVE it.

My bird of choice at the moment is the JGX Cessna/Columbia 400 - http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=54 - for my money, it trounces the Eaglesoft bird for MSFS. It's simply a great model of a fantastic aircraft. In fact, I like it so much that I'm in the process of expanding my two monitor, PC+Laptop setup to three monitor, PC+PC+laptop so I can run dedicated G1000 PFD and MFD each on their own monitor...

 

I have also heard fabulous things about the MU-2 available from the same site, and it's worth noting that Carenado has already ported three of their models to X-Plane and has announced they will port "most" of their FSX fleet at some point.

[Sebastien Bartosz]

I have also heard fabulous things about the MU-2 available

 

I have it, it is very nice ! I must say, but its meant to be used in 3D mode, the 2D panel is actually a section of the 3D cockpit, but that doesnt move. So its very complicated, and I have never flown with it.

 

It is a beautiful model though !

 

And about what Charan said, I suggest downloading the X737 (eadt link), especially the new version that came out.

get that + checklister, or just the manual. its fantastic. Check it out Tim if you haven't already: x737

[Keith Smith]

X-Plane is a long way from having the level of airport detail that FS9/X payware packages have today.

X-Plane doesn't have native support for pop-up panels in the interface

 

Other than that, my understanding is that X-Plane does a pretty sensational job with everything else. It's helped me with r/w landings, x/wind landings, and slow flight.

 

During one of my many VFR XC flights, I was in some pretty high terrain in a Piper Warrior (160hp). I noticed that with the honking crosswind, I would benefit from getting closer to the ridge line of a nearby mountain range (I was a few miles east of it at the time). As I approached the face, my VSI showed a climb, even though my pitch attitude had not changed. Yep, I was getting lift from the ridge, as planned. I pitched for 0 VSI and picked up about 10-15kias from the whole exchange.

 

There's something to be said for having some real physics going on in the sim.

[Conan Davis 1183715]

I have to say having flown both MSFS and X-Plane each one has their strong points right now. As said a few times the flight model and real physics happening are always nice but the lack of airport scenery sometimes can be frustrating. MSFS does a much better job as a beginner pilot to get you in and flying and even some basic flying knowledge without ever having to actually go online and do some reading.

 

Scenery for X-Plane is coming along nicely (I myself have published a few airports on the org and there's new ones all the time). Some of the pluggins leave a little to be desired however (ACars comes to mind). Altho again there are a ton of really nice ones out now (UMFC Payware, vasFMC, HSI both very good freeware pluggins).

 

Aircraft wise I honestly don't know the level of Payware aircraft for MSFS as I chose X-Plane years ago and I know I've purchased several aircraft and always been pleased on how realistic they feel.

 

I think I saw a post in here saying if your on MSFS stick on it until X-Plane 10, I'm going to have to agree with that, but when X-Plane 10 comes out...Microsoft begone..

 

Just my opinion

[Sebastien Bartosz]

I did the switch from FSX to XPlane about 2 years ago I think, and I never looked back once (I even reinstalled FSX the other day (how dare I !) to see, and I was actually disgusted, and uninstalled it right away).

 

Couple things I dont like about XPlane though:

 

No default scenery, which can be VERY annoying sometimes, when you can't find the right scenery. And even converting scenery's doesnt always work.. what a shame.

 

For default aircraft, I think the XPlane default FMC is pretty good actually, and it can be pretty neat. But for their payware aircraft, they need to raise the bar up a bit and get rid of that default FMC and put a real FMC in there ! There are some fantastic payware aircraft (Peters Aircraft A330/A340/A380), they have everything, but the FMC...

 

And I also don't like how the whole XPlane philosophy is based on having only one window and using your arrow keys to look up/down etc.

I like how FS has popup windows for the throttle quadrant, overhead etc.

[Charan Kumar]

+1, in my desktop, where I have serious problems with XPlane so don't use it anymore there, the window always fit fully, so I wudn't have to look down and up. I am sure the panel editor can sometimes be helpful, but don't know about resizing. I always reposition all my switches to where I can see them without having to scroll down too much, I know, not original, but I am in a sim .

 

I enjoy FS9/X and XPlane. I use FSX 95% of the time, but the other 5% is between FS9 and XP. When I am more concerned about my flying skill and or feel like "I need to know my real place in flying skills" I go to XP, and it will happily show me where I belong, anywhere but in the left seat

[Ryan Butterworth 1037842]

I did the switch from FSX to XPlane about 2 years ago I think, and I never looked back once (I even reinstalled FSX the other day (how dare I !) to see, and I was actually disgusted, and uninstalled it right away).

 

Couple things I dont like about XPlane though:

 

No default scenery, which can be VERY annoying sometimes, when you can't find the right scenery. And even converting scenery's doesnt always work.. what a shame.

.

 

Yeah the scenery (or lack thereof) is a major issue for me. I'm a GA flyer 90% of the time and flying in and out of small airports is my thing. XP9 (hopefully 10 is a lot better) is just plain nasty for default small airports.

 

But I've seen some promising features in 10 and some excellent planes. Hopefully I'll be a dual user when 10 does come out.

[Brian Knoblauch 1155119]

I've currently got FS9 and X-Plane 9. X-Plane is great for just flying around VFR, but I've found it to be pretty much unusable for IFR flights. The instruments are too small and low res. Getting a bigger monitor just makes it worse, you still have the tiny unreadable instruments, just with bigger gaps. I complained about that to the X-Plane guys and the reply was that it was something they are hoping to be able to have fixed in X-Plane 10. So, I'm still using FS9 until then...

[Ted Au 1176285]

I've currently got FS9 and X-Plane 9. X-Plane is great for just flying around VFR, but I've found it to be pretty much unusable for IFR flights. The instruments are too small and low res. Getting a bigger monitor just makes it worse, you still have the tiny unreadable instruments, just with bigger gaps. I complained about that to the X-Plane guys and the reply was that it was something they are hoping to be able to have fixed in X-Plane 10. So, I'm still using FS9 until then...

 

Say what?

 

Please hop on over to AVSIM and peek at a couple of recent reviews for XP from Carenado and Shade Tree Micro. Not to mention earlier releases like the MU-2 and Falco. And the recent Dash 8 Q400. And the recent CRJ200.

 

Which aircraft are you talking about? While I find the default XP aircraft utterly rubbish some of the payware and freeware is exceptional and the gauge refresh rates kill FSX...never mind FS9 . Perhaps you have a setting wrong somewhere?

 

**edit**I do fly both XP (9.6.7) and FSX...enjoy both although to be fair I am now probably 80-90% XP and the balance FSX.

 

**edit**Perhaps the biggest headache and potential obstacle for IFR-types is the lack of integrated Navigraph-supported FMC's which can make flying SID/STARS etc a bit of a headache (The new CRJ200 FMC is Navigraph supported). Also the default GPS is pretty rubbish

[Brian Cheung 1181193]

I've currently got FS9 and X-Plane 9. X-Plane is great for just flying around VFR, but I've found it to be pretty much unusable for IFR flights. The instruments are too small and low res. Getting a bigger monitor just makes it worse, you still have the tiny unreadable instruments, just with bigger gaps. I complained about that to the X-Plane guys and the reply was that it was something they are hoping to be able to have fixed in X-Plane 10. So, I'm still using FS9 until then...

 

Come again? I do both VFR and IFR flying (in both payware and freeware, GA craft and biz jets) and have never found any of the gauges hard to read.

[Brian Knoblauch 1155119]

Which aircraft are you talking about? While I find the default XP aircraft utterly rubbish some of the payware and freeware is exceptional and the gauge refresh rates kill FSX...never mind FS9 . Perhaps you have a setting wrong somewhere?

 

**edit**Perhaps the biggest headache and potential obstacle for IFR-types is the lack of integrated Navigraph-supported FMC's which can make flying SID/STARS etc a bit of a headache (The new CRJ200 FMC is Navigraph supported). Also the default GPS is pretty rubbish

 

Default aircraft. I haven't seen fit to buy an aircraft for it yet since I was so disappointed. If aftermarket ones are better, perhaps I'll go buy one to try.

 

The GPS is by far the worst part for sure. It's so tiny that's impossible to click the buttons. Not that you can really read it anyways.

 

Refresh rates aren't an issue. X-Plane can generate bigger numbers, but FS9 still can crank out more than enough for realism, even with all the detail at max (and this is an old P4 machine, albeit with a monster video card). I tried the demo of FSX and it was unusable at even the lowest settings. Maybe it didn't detect my video card?

[Luke Kolin]

(and this is an old P4 machine, albeit with a monster video card). I tried the demo of FSX and it was unusable at even the lowest settings. Maybe it didn't detect my video card?

 

No, FSX is simply unusable with anything less than a Core 2. If you have a P4, do your stomach lining a favor and skip the aggravation that is FSX until you have a beefier box.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Brendan Lynch 1167842]

About the instruments, it depends on your texture resolution. If you have it set high enough, you can read everything in the 'pit, and you can zoom in with the 3-D pit option, even if it doesn't actually have one, and click the buttons that way. But I rarely have issues with small buttons.

[Ted Au 1176285]

Default aircraft. I haven't seen fit to buy an aircraft for it yet since I was so disappointed. If aftermarket ones are better, perhaps I'll go buy one to try.

 

The GPS is by far the worst part for sure. It's so tiny that's impossible to click the buttons. Not that you can really read it anyways.

 

Refresh rates aren't an issue. X-Plane can generate bigger numbers, but FS9 still can crank out more than enough for realism, even with all the detail at max (and this is an old P4 machine, albeit with a monster video card). I tried the demo of FSX and it was unusable at even the lowest settings. Maybe it didn't detect my video card?

 

Before you go sinking money into payware please take into account the "scaleability" of XP9. Where your system probably cannot run FSX X-Plane will scale to your system; however, the stronger the CPU the better it runs. And a "monster" gfx card coupled with an elderly P4 cpu may not be such a monster by modern standards.

 

Now while I cheerfully gag at the lack of functionality within the XP default GPS and the rather ugly pastel coloring within the display I have not seen evidence of "tiny" buttons or a lack of "readability" even using the bleah default planes. This sounds like a settings issue.

 

Have a look at a couple of payware examples:

 

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0511/Carenado/Saratoga.html

 

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0411/ShadeTree/PC12.html

 

Now in all fairness the images you will see are from a more modern machine than yours yet considered mid-range by todays standards. But even freeware and default planes in XP are functional and viewable.

 

As a last note the control functions are quite different within XP compared to MSFS. You have the manipulator functions that work differently than MSFS users would expect and I can see where the learning curve to make them feel natural can take some practice.

 

Again-don't go sinking money into payware until the primary issue of your not seeing the cockpit in a legible fashion is resolved. There are some high-quality freeware GA planes to try as well.

 

I hope this helps you a little bit.

 

p.s. Just to make sure the record is held correct I do fly in both XP and FSX.

[Brian Knoblauch 1155119]

Before you go sinking money into payware please take into account the "scaleability" of XP9. Where your system probably cannot run FSX X-Plane will scale to your system; however, the stronger the CPU the better it runs. And a "monster" gfx card coupled with an elderly P4 cpu may not be such a monster by modern standards.

 

Now while I cheerfully gag at the lack of functionality within the XP default GPS and the rather ugly pastel coloring within the display I have not seen evidence of "tiny" buttons or a lack of "readability" even using the bleah default planes. This sounds like a settings issue.

 

No problem running with the detail cranked up. The CPU is slow, but doesn't seem to be a bottleneck. The video card is pretty current, it's a high-end one that they were going to throw out at work because a couple caps on it blew. Was just out of warranty (really short warranty on video cards I guess, it wasn't very old) I replaced the caps and it works great.

 

I tried X-Plane on my Wife's Core i7 too, same issues with instrument readability there. Like I said, I even contacted X-Plane and they said it was a known issue (due to using old, small, low-res images) that should be resolved in 10. I don't see how anyone could possibly NOT be having the same problem? Do you guys have some magic settings that even the X-Plane guys themselves don't know about? If so, PLEASE share! I really would like to use X-Plane instead of MSFS since the ancient airport/navaid data in MSFS is very annoying to deal with!

[Charan Kumar]

Brian, maybe you could post your resolution tab and folks might be able to make suggestions. Things like Antialias can affect them. I remember my XPlane acft looked like it was drawn on paper by a 2 yr old before I changed some settings, can't remember which ones, but anti-alias was definitely one of them.

[Ted Au 1176285]

Brian-just to double check you are running XP v9.6.7 correct?

 

Do your gauges look anything like the ones off the PC-12/47 link I posted? While the aircraft is custom payware and the gauges are tweaked they are pretty much standard instruments within XP. You can even plainly see the naff GPS units .

 

Sadly no magic settings and I do use 4X AA internal to XP and nHancer for my nVidia card.

 

I would definitely post up your settings tab and perhaps wander over to x-plane.org and have a go getting some help there as they are rather quick to respond.

[Brian Knoblauch 1155119]

Brian-just to double check you are running XP v9.6.7 correct?

 

Do your gauges look anything like the ones off the PC-12/47 link I posted? While the aircraft is custom payware and the gauges are tweaked they are pretty much standard instruments within XP. You can even plainly see the naff GPS units .

 

Sadly no magic settings and I do use 4X AA internal to XP and nHancer for my nVidia card.

 

I would definitely post up your settings tab and perhaps wander over to x-plane.org and have a go getting some help there as they are rather quick to respond.

 

Not sure on the exact version number, but I downloaded the latest patch as of maybe 2 weeks ago and no change then. Gauges are nowhere near the detail of the ones in the image you have. Upping the resolution keeps them the same low-res version, so they shrink and I get big gaps in the panel.

 

I'll grab those settings next time I'm near that computer!

[Brian Cheung 1181193]

Here's what my X-Plane looks like, and this is a freeware aircraft:

 

If you're having trouble reading gauges and such, I'm pretty sure you're short-changing yourself on some settings.

[Brendan Lynch 1167842]

Mine looked quite the same, and I don't have spectacular graphics at all. Gotta love After's 7X!