FS04 vs. X-plane

[ QUOTE ]
Airline is a pretty fun game, but it can get addicting after a while.
tongue.gif

But back on topic I haven't tried X-Plane but have FS02 and FS04 and have really enjoyed them. I agree that you really have to have a good computer for FS04 to work well, I learned that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, it most definitely can get very addicting.

Josh
 
[ QUOTE ]
You'll probably find that many of the folks on here don't like flight simmers, so beware...
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it's time to bust this out then
grin.gif


AaronFSBanner.jpg


If you're interested in realistic (well as much as FS9 allows, anyways) or are just looking to chat about flight simming, be sure to drop by FlightSimmer.Com. We're pretty well known as one of the friendliest flightsimmer forums on the web, plus it's actually possible to keep track of a thread rather than watch it get swept away in the abyss
tongue.gif


/shameless plug

I tried X-Plane v5 and lost interest in it. It's recognized for it's accuracy when it comes to physics and flight models, but the panels are pretty generic and FMC's are not to be found. MS has been developing FS for quite a while. It's graphically superior to X-Plane and IMO it has a much bigger user base (especially when it comes to those that develop add-ons for it). No matter which sim you get though, you can connect to the VATSIM Network, which offers live ATC from real people (a lot of times you can also get ATC via voice). I've joined both "departments" of VATSIM (as a pilot and student controller) and find both to be quite fun.

Edit: Oh yea, as I type this I'm working LAX CDEL watching the traffic flow. Right now ZLA is stacked with controllers from DEL up through CTR. It's great fun, especially when fly-ins are conducted and traffic goes through the roof.
 
MSFS or X-Plane...depends entirely upon what you intend to do with it. For general entertainment, yeah, MSFS is probably better. Though X-Plane has rapidly narrowed the gap in recent releases, the visuals in MSFS are generally better--with one glaring exception: flight instruments. In this area, X-Plane's OpenGL graphics engine kicks tail all over MSFS. On even the best computers, the flight instruments in MSFS are jerky, updating only twice per second or so. X-Plane on the other hand updates its instruments at the same rate as the overall visuals, which on high-end machines can be upwards of 100 frames per second! This yields a fluidity of motion for the instruments that is much more true to life and makes IFR work eminently more enjoyable. So for IFR training/practice, X-Plane takes it hands-down.

There are other differences under the hood which may or may not factor into your decision. MSFS has a stunning weather engine and the associated visuals are very impressive. Rather than determining aircraft performance from look-up tables as MSFS does, X-Plane does the math to compute actual aerodynamic performance in real time, even for the propeller and aircraft body surfaces! Because of this, X-Plane is a tinkerer's dream as you can easily build your own aircraft from scratch and then test-fly it! I'm still waiting for someone to gin-up a brick with a J58 strapped to it. If you're not so-inclined, MSFS has a much larger user community that puts lots of energy into making planes you can then download from places like avsim.com.

If you just want to fly a 747 under the Golden Gate Bridge, MSFS is probably a better choice. This isn't to say that MSFS isn't useful for IFR purposes, I just think X-Plane is better. Be warned though, that X-Plane is much less consumer-friendly. Laminar Research is essentially a one-man company, so the product doesn't have the polish to it that MSFS does with its 100+ developers/managers/marketers.

The other determinant is which platform you intend to run on; MSFS only runs on Windows, while X-Plane is developed on a Mac and is available for Mac and Windows, and I believe even Linux is in Austin's plans.

Though I enjoy playing flight sims--I have X-Plane, MSFS 2004 and Falcon 4 SP4 on my computer--I'm not one of the die-hards with home-built cockpits, etc. Lately, I mess around with Falcon 4 for fun, and X-Plane for IFR practice; MSFS doesn't get a whole lot of action from me.
 
Did any of you ever play MS Space Simulator, I think it was out during the time of FS 95 or 98.

I remember playing it like 3 times and then I never played it again, what a stupid program!
banghead.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Did any of you ever play MS Space Simulator, I think it was out during the time of FS 95 or 98.

I remember playing it like 3 times and then I never played it again, what a stupid program!
banghead.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I have played the free Orbiter sim. The graphics are ok and you can do some pretty cool stuff with it. Best of all, it's free
tongue.gif
www.orbitersim.com I think.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yep. Very few people flightsim here. If you do you have to keep it quiet so you don't get flamed. At least I get flamed for it. I would still say FS2004 A century of flight is better than X-Plane.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the issue was more about the questions that you asked and that it seemed like you were applying simulator ops to real live airline ops.

I would bet that everyone on this board has flown a PC sim at least once. So rest assured, Brain, we don't hate you for flying your computer.
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


[theme music from Jaws]
dum dum dum dum dum dum....
[/music]



[/ QUOTE ]

SALSA SHARK!

We're gonna need a bigger boat.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep. Very few people flightsim here. If you do you have to keep it quiet so you don't get flamed. At least I get flamed for it. I would still say FS2004 A century of flight is better than X-Plane.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the issue was more about the questions that you asked and that it seemed like you were applying simulator ops to real live airline ops.

I would bet that everyone on this board has flown a PC sim at least once. So rest assured, Brain, we don't hate you for flying your computer.
grin.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Well I barely fly in real life so even if I wanted to, I couldn't apply those Boeing 777 things into real life. I know quite a few of you made fun of me because I got the virtual ATP license in MSFS. It is just a game and to get the ATP is like beating a level. As for landing airliners into carriers, that is fun. I also enjoy going to the grand canyon with the tri-motor and flying low inaide the canyon.
 
XPlane by far.
Much more realistic (not as much eyecandy, but we are flying, not playing a video game)
 
X-Plane seems a bit more realistic out of the box, but FS9 has much more potential. I agree the default set up in X-Plane is superior to Fs9... the comparison ends though when you add a few items to FS9. For one thing the NavAid database for X-plane is far from complete or accurate (it is good in some areas) with FS9 for example a student instrument pilot can with 99.9% accuracy practice approach procedures with real world charts and plates. With X-Plane many approaches don’t exist or don’t match the real world procedure. Jeppesen produces the database for Fs9 so its pretty much dead on.

As far as instrument fluidity for approach and instrument practice the default X-plane aircraft are superior to the default Fs9 aircraft. However third party add-on's for Fs9 are simply amazing (and virtually unavailable for X-plane).

Here is a link to a panel I use for IFR practice. The movements are as smooth as real life. 400kb image.

441 Panel (be sure to view at max size 1280 x 960 for full quality.
 
FS9 is a pain to run on a slower computer. With the following specs, I only get about 15 frame rates per second with the low settings.

Pentium III 533MHz
ATI RADEON 7500
120GB HD
 
[ QUOTE ]
Pentium III 533MHz
ATI RADEON 7500
120GB HD

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, Brian - now you have a reason to get a summer job!! I wouldn't use that thing to type a Word document on!!!
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
For one thing the NavAid database for X-plane is far from complete or accurate (it is good in some areas) with FS9 for example a student instrument pilot can with 99.9% accuracy practice approach procedures with real world charts and plates. With X-Plane many approaches don’t exist or don’t match the real world procedure. Jeppesen produces the database for Fs9 so its pretty much dead on.

[/ QUOTE ]

News to me. This might be news to you: X-Plane's navaid dataset comes straight from National Imagery and Mapping Agency data (specifically, the Digital Aeronautical Flight Information File product--same place Jeppesen gets their data from). I use real-world charts and plates for my IFR practice with X-Plane and I've yet to come across a navaid I couldn't use. (For a while there they purposely didn't included back-course LDAs because X-Plane didn't handle them properly, but that's since been fixed, after I bugged Austin about not being able to fly the missed on the KASE VOR approach properly--then again, how many back-course LDAs are out there?).

I wouldn't mind trying a good third-party aircraft for MSFS...anybody wanna lend me one?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure a good majority of you folks out here fly sims right? Well, could you please give me your opinions on the two. Which one is better than the other perhaps? I don't know what one to get.
confused.gif

Thanks,C5

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on why you want the flight sim. If pretty graphics are your goal, go with MSFS. If you want a flight model go with X-plane (in MSFS some numbers are put in to a file that tell the sim how the plane performs, and generally have to be jury rigged to get the plane to act half right, X-Plane on the other hand takes the geometry of the airplane and calculates everything off of the conditions and the plane.). The panels arent as pretty in X-plane, but i find the flying more realistic (as far as a pc based sim goes anyway). In the past MS's weather was better, but the newest beta of X-plane sounds like this gap is going to be closed up.

I havent touched either though since i've gotten 24 hr access to a seminole specific Frasca sim, i like the immersion
smile.gif
 
X-Plane still has issues with how that data works with the sim in some areas. I just tried several approaches in my home state and each is off from the runway by about a mile. The data may be right, but it can have issues with how it performs with certain airports. I have had great success with some approaches and equal number that are so far off they can’t be used. I have never had a real world procedure not match up perfectly on FS9.

You cant really share the add on aircraft without hacking them. Most install direct from the company site and have a registration key placed on your machine to verify that you own the odd (checked at the time of install). If they suspect that you are sharing keys you get shut off from future installs if you need to reinstall it for example).
 
[ QUOTE ]
120GB HD

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty good sized hard drive though, you could add lots of planes on that big of a hard drive!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
120GB HD

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty good sized hard drive though, you could add lots of planes on that big of a hard drive!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I have many other uses for my computer besides flightsim.
First of all, I really need to upgrade my processor to something like a P4 2.8. To do that I will need a new motherboard and probably a better cooling system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top