Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FS vs. X-plane

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FS vs. X-plane

    Much like some other current threads, there's a new computer in the household and an older version of MSFS in the drawer.

    Anyone care to cuss/discuss the pros cons of X-plane vs. FSX?

    I've followed this for a few years- purists insist that X-plane's mathematical modeling of fight is more real. They may be right, but as long as the chair in front of my computer screen doesn't yaw pitch and roll, any flight sim software has one huge gaping hole in it's reality.

    My personal interest is just flying various planes to various places- not into virtual airlines.

    While prettier clouds don't really interest me, a more real view of the ground below does.

    I also enjoy downloading various types of planes and get off a little bit on airlines that don't exist any more.

    I have also struggled with MSFS- dialing in a 200 ft and 0.5 miles to do an ILS, but seeing ALL SORTS of stuff at 400 ft AGL!

    I've had "MS"FS all the way back to Sub-Logic Flight simulator on my Commodore 64. I have flown X-plane a few times at aviation museums- hard to tell the difference on the actual flying.

    Anyway- anyone here tried both software and have some thoughts.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    Originally posted by sst001
    ...a really really long post about his set up and add ons...
    ...and as compared to X-plane...???

    Sorry, but that's the question.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #3
      Try them yourself. Looks like you can download xplane demo, and fsx was available as a demo.

      You can work out for yourself which one you like. You are the only one who can make the decision. I've tried both but won't make any recommendations. It's all subjective - but remember, FSX needs a potent computer.

      At the moment - don't buy anything. Microsoft Flight is on the horizon, wait until it is available.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by sst001 View Post
        Try them yourself. Looks like you can download xplane demo, and fsx was available as a demo.

        You can work out for yourself which one you like. You are the only one who can make the decision. I've tried both but won't make any recommendations. It's all subjective - but remember, FSX needs a potent computer.

        At the moment - don't buy anything. Microsoft Flight is on the horizon, wait until it is available.
        The new Microsoft Flight won't run well except on computers available 2 years after it's released.

        I have a new pretty high-end computer and FSX still gets low frame rates in cases of high demand of graphics. Nothing terrible, but I can imagine how this would look in Microsoft Flight.

        I understand that the newest release of X-Plane is also very resource-starving. I haven't tried it though (attempted to, downloaded the demo, tried to install it a few times, failed, lacked the patience to work it out).

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, I'm still upgrading the hardware to just get a good impression of fsx. Until this process is finished, I'll stay with fs9!
          Maybe I've got a little problem as I don't want to see a Cessna 182 at 190 frames per second in the middle of nowhere, but I want to continue crossing the big ponds (transatlantic & transpacific) in 4stream-jets, e.g. I wanna drive my CLS NZ-742 from L.A. transpacific in fsx as I now do in fs9.
          This is my goal, and I guess, a fsx hardware that - under these circumstances - gives me my good old fs9 742 frame rates (27-37 fps with all goodies activated as there is real weather + the new fsdt KLAX + etc + etc) will just plain simply have to be invented, as there is no such Home Computer today!
          And I dont look for 775-socket QuadCore, but for i5 and i7 processors. Maybe someone can contradict me, but my impression of fsx (or even fs11) system requirements is not very optimistic.
          That's what airlines are good for, amongst others,
          The Gold Member in the 747 club, 50 years since the first LH 747.
          And constantly advanced, 744 and 748 /w upper and lower EICAS.
          Aviation enthusiast, since more than 35 years with home airport EDDL.

          Comment


          • #6
            FS has better graphics, X-plane is better for flight dynamics and instrument practice. You can adjust just about everything in x-plane to practice any situation, even structural failures.

            Plus I still use FS9 even though I have FSX installed. I built my computer myself for gaming and it can run every game I've ever had amazingly. Except for FSX that is. If my computer with its current specs can't run FSX at full or near full settings, then forget it! The next graphics card in line after this one is over $1,000 and it's not worth it.
            sigpic
            http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=170

            Comment

            Working...
            X