Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by bluedoggiant, May 2, 2008.
Whats your go?
I voted for X-plane because of it's useability. I have so many problems with FSX that it is no fun using it. If I could get it to fly smothly on my MP then I may have voted different.
Just got FSX Working GREAT!!!
I may have to change my vote. But we are lucky because thay are both good programs.
MS Flight Simulator X-for the nicely detailed scenery and because of its wider range of add-ons (which i have lots of).
When I was learning to fly I wanted a sim to practice with. Since I had a PPC Mac at I bought X-plane and also found FlightGear useful for circuit training. X-plane is a challenge to fly even with a yoke and pedals. Quite realistic I find. FlightGear was also pretty tough and I liked being able to mouse look in the cockpit which improved the realism. MS Flight Sim beats both for graphics obviously and my flying school had both X-plane and MSFS. The first time I used MSFS I did a perfect takeoff, circuit and a smooth perfect landing. Totally unrealistic.
For out of the box glamour and as simple playability as a game then MS Flight Simulator X would win.
But if you want a realistic simulation to learn from then X-Plane (recently updated to version 9) easily wins and gets my vote. There are plenty of add-ons for X-Plane (many free, others low cost) for additional aircraft and scenery.
I find just the opposite... much easier to take off, fly the pattern and land in the real thing! Flight sims help with instrument practice, though. Can anyone tell me if any of the current flight simulators can accurately simulate a helicopter autorotation? I haven't tried MSFS beyond the 2004 version, where full touchdown autorotations in a Bell JetRanger will taxi down the runway... granted I've never done full touchdown autorotations but I have done run-on landings in a Robinson R22, and when the skids hit the runway it stops FAST.
For instrument work MSFS 2004 under Bootcamp is plenty good and for playing around FlightGear is fine. If any of the newer sims can acurately model a helicopter it might be worth upgrading.
XPlane is my pick due to the number of aircraft modeled in it and the fact that it actually calculates airfoil/aircraft shape drag-to-lift ratios for performance. I'm not sure about the MS product but I suspect it uses chart performance (performance is based on a performance chart).
OpenGL based, runs on Mac, Windows and Linux, very active community, smooth instruments, payware is cheap and very good, flight dynamics are superb, extremely good world wide scenery, network functionality embedded, easy to use SDK for development of own plugins, nice scenery development tools, comes with an aircraft builder, easy to repaint aircraft, compatible to G1000 (connect and go), used by professionals as well as home users, more fun for less money.
And just that you see that I know what I´m talking about:
I fly real world microlight aircraft, I ran an MS FS 2004 Setup on three (!) computers (one for the sim, one for all the needed tools like ActiveWather, IVAO and Vatsim Communication Tools, FSKeeper, and so on, and one for the charts. I spent about 1000EUR for the Sim and all the addon software like the PMDG 737 and 747, Airports all over the world, and so on. I wouldn´t say that it´s bad, but one Mac is enough to run X-Plane with all the functions I need and i can be sure that the computer does not crash when I rach my destination after 12 hours of flight. When I saw the first FSX videos I was looking forward to it, when I saw the demo I canceled the pre-order. FSX is nothing else than a slightly overhauled version of FS 9. For me this was the end of MSFS after flying in XP and MSFS the same amount of time. XPlane needs less resources for better results (180fps vs. 30fps) and runs on every computers in the house.
It always astounds me that il2: 1946 is left out of these discussions. If you want challenging and ultra-realistic flight models, try this one! Yes they are WWII era aircraft but there are so many of them! And I don't think either X-Plane or FSX come close in the level of detail in their flight models. Yes, X-Plane has the best airflow modelling etc. but aircraft lack the personality and unpredictability of the IL2 flight models. You'll know what I'm talking about when you suddenly reduce the throttle when landing a Yak.
X-Plane for sure.
I wouldn't even compare them; one's a game, the other a simulator.
FSX is the game (i guess)
and i am doing this for fun in my summer time, just take long aviational flights before i do the real thing with my family, and do it for fun, its great, i was considering xplane so that maybe i dont have to switch to windows to play fsx, so i guess ill stick with my plans and get windows
As a part time flight instructor I can tell you from experience that both of them are pretty good. Flight sim is more of a game then X-plane but neither of them fly like a real plane.
simulators are good for teaching procedures, not flying skills. There are advantages to a sim that you don't get in a real plane but don't expect it to behave like a real one.
With that said, X-plane is the most realistic from a procedure and flight model stand point. If you want something better either "On Top" by ASA or the really high end is an Elite system.
They are all simulators, and two (FSX and IL2) are also games.
That is the main reason I spent most of my time training using FlightGear. It wasn't the most realistic sim but it did allow you to look over your shoulder and practice the routines of circuits and so on. It was amazing the difference between my first few runs in the circuit which is quite an expensive operation with all the touch and go fees compared with the times after I had done several hours in FlightGear. I was just so much more confident of the procedure. While I practiced I would even work through all my RT, check the gear, gauges, orientation and so forth just to make sure I knew every step. With the increase in confidence my instructor said he was happy for me to take my first solo in the circuit.
Last time I flew sadly. Retina detached in one eye and despite surgery my vision isn't up to it any more since I have a marked blind spot close to my fovea which means I often can't see small or distant objects when I look straight at them :-(
Disappointed in X-plane 9
Well after have both Sim installed and working fine I must say MS Flight Simulator is my favorite. The only bad point I have to say about FSX in it runs in windows.
I am very disappointed in this release of X-plane. ( Verso 8 is great) First of all I had trouble installing all 6 DVD's I would get to DVD 6 and be stuck in a endless loop. This weekend I had to reinstall on a new drive and can't get past DVD 3. Also there is a lack of planes for version 9 and it looks like what is available is payware. Also the scenery is nothing special. For a Sunday afternoon fly'er like myself I going with FSX. I guess my X-plane DVD's are headed for ebay.
X Plane 9 is very new. People have not made a lot of planes yet. A great database is located here: http://x-plane.org/
Click on files and then download manager. Don't forget to register.
I have MS Flight Sim X running on a Vista machine. Over the weekend I picked up X-Plane 9 for my iMac.
So far I like X-Plane because of the fact that is runs smoothly with an excellent frame rate. Controls and flight panel operations seem very realistic. The only thing I'm a little disappointed with is the city scenery. A lot missing. Las Vegas is a waste land. New York looks like a bunch of auto generated buildings.
I was really hoping for X-Plane to at least have the basic land marks of most major cities.
MS Flight Sim X really shines as far as city scenery and is great for site seeing.
Anyone know if a site where I can get scenery add-ons for cities?
I use X-Plane 8 because it is a real flight sim. I think of MS Flight Sim as a driving game in arcade mode without the realistic physics.
If you check out X-Planes' credentials you will find it has some very serious customers. M$ simply does not have a history of serious use by major aerospace manufacturers and various military branches.
Also, M$ Flight Sim is Window$ only.
Thumbs down to M$ Flight Sim.
X-plane 9 for me. FSX is visually stunning on the right hardware and on Vista (DX10) but it will not run on my Mac under OSX. I really enjoy X-plane 9 but I'm not a "serious" flight simmer. It looks good and plays good in my native OSX so I don't have to re-boot all the time. I have found LOTS of add-on aircraft for it as well.
Probably one of the best aircraft you can find in X-Plane 8. That or the B757-200 found here. I must say again. Go for X-Plane
I haven't simmed in awhile, but I'm always liked X-Plane because it didn't seem to be nearly as resource hungry as MSFS. For me a lot of realism is based on the frame rate, so I don't like seeing much less than 60fps. That seemed to be easier to achieve with X-Plane on modest hardware. From the comments around here - it appears the situation hasn't changed much.
I just found XTraffic v2.40 - Sandy Barbour 2006 for X plane. It lets you create your own traffic patterns. You can find it at Xplane.org
I just picked up X-Plane 9 over the weekend, and I have owned FSX in the past. I would have to agree with others that FSX wins for scenery and polish. I also miss its GPS and AI air traffic, and some of the scenarios.
I do like the fact that X-Plane will run natively in OSX, so I don't have to install Boot Camp just for one game. It still can be choppy with the options turned up though.
I might see how well the FSX demo runs on my newest iMac and decide whether to stick with X-Plane or go back to FSX.
I imported some of my FSX scenery into Xplane. Look for FS2xplane worked well with some photo realistic scenery I had.