Flight models: MS-FSX vs X-Plane 9

[Loud_Silence]

I've never had the chance to fly a real airplane, even a Cessna. Knowing how the real thing handles would be great to see what sim has the best flight model.
Everybody says that the biggest difference between FSX and XPlane is the realism of the flight models. I know that FSX ones are "table flight models". They've been created using real data.
I also know that X-Plane flight models are "dynamic"; the sim "reads" the aircraft shape, the wing shape, the weight, etc, and moves it through a simulated air with different properties, all on the move.
I personally feel that X-Plane models may be great for predicting a plane's behavior, but in the end the FSX ones are really based on real data, and should be the most realistic ones. I don't know if you see what i mean.

Second,there isn't any checklist or reference card. It's quite difficult to take off in a B-2 without knowing where is V1...:down:

[Skybird]

The choice depends on what you want. At least before FSX, rule of thumb said that FS is the button-pushing simulator (meaning it has the better high fidelty cockpit modules available in form of addons showing that with great complexity), while X-P had the better flight models in creating the better experience of actually flying a plane in a dynamic airstream. But the best in the latter regard is neither FS nor X-P, but Condor. And the best radar simulation you do not get in FS or X-P, but Falcon 4.

[FIREWALL]

Are you using flight controls and rudder pedals ?

Fsx makes use of dx10 if you have Vista. Do's Xplane ?

Xplane looks good also. Thats why I ordered it.:DL

Currently have ms 2002, 2004 and Fsx. Fsx imo is the best. 2004 tho has alot of support.

[SUBMAN1]

X-Plane has the most accurate flight model. Condor as mentioned above is a glider sim and not a true Flight game like this. I question its flight model as well, though maybe someone can show me how it is superior to the X-Plane version?

X-Plane uses the NASA models of airflow over surfaces, so frame rate is important. If you frame rate drops into the teens, you might default over to a dumbed down flight model, so never expect graphics to be on par with FSX. FSX uses pretty scenery and a dumb flight model, but does well in the cockpit dept.

So it depends on what you want. If you want to tinker with aircraft to see if something would actually fly in real life, X-Plane is it. You can build any weird design you want, and it will fly like it is made - or not fly that is.

X-Plane also simulates space. It also has Mars for low atmosphere flight and low gravity flight.

FSX can get chunky though in the FPS area. It is artificially boosted in FPS for DX10 (MS is purposefully degrading performance on XP, but that's another matter), so if you have Vista, it will run better. If you have XP, stay away. Notice how every other game on the planet runs faster on XP? That is your first clue.

I get FSX for almost free. Frankly, I'll stick to my X-Plane and pay full price for it.

-S

PS. Go fly a Cessna already. It won't cost you much. Any small airport will take you for a check ride and teach you the basics for almost no $$$.

[Loud_Silence]

FSX and X-Plane cannot be compared. Each one has its strengths. For example, FSX has flight route planner and a extremely good ATC (inherited from FS2004), where X-Plane's ATC just makes it and it doesn't have flight planner.
Instead, cockpit instruments on X-Plane are way more smooth than FSX's.
Airport lighting in X-Plane is also very good, but FSX has just what is needed.
About weather, both can download real weather from the internet, both can make a "wind tunnel"...

An scenic tour from Cuatro Vientos on a cessna can cost more than 500€. Thats more than what i earn in a month! And i doubt the pilot would trust me enough to let me stall his plane...

[Skybird]

If you want smooth gauges in FS planes, check RealAir's packages.

FSX is preferred if you do a lot of VFR flying. FS9 is preferred if you want complex cockpit environments and complex IFR flying.

The modules for doing that often were developed for FS8 and then carried over to FS9, where the one I have in mind do run stable for sure. That still cannot be said about the versions for FSX. It looks better with FSX, but is riskier business than running it under FS9. OS also is a factor, like it is with many other sims, too, SBP for example.

That all major developers still publish items and stuff for FS2004 is a message in itself. There still is a market for FS2004, and it can hold itself to FSX.

[SUBMAN1]

FSX and X-Plane cannot be compared. Each one has its strengths. For example, FSX has flight route planner and a extremely good ATC (inherited from FS2004), where X-Plane's ATC just makes it and it doesn't have flight planner.
Instead, cockpit instruments on X-Plane are way more smooth than FSX's.
Airport lighting in X-Plane is also very good, but FSX has just what is needed.
About weather, both can download real weather from the internet, both can make a "wind tunnel"...

An scenic tour from Cuatro Vientos on a cessna can cost more than 500€. Thats more than what i earn in a month! And i doubt the pilot would trust me enough to let me stall his plane...

That is a tour. You need an airport that will train. They will do your first flight for relatively cheap to get you hooked. And you will be the one flying most of the time, if not all the time.

SB like FSX, but after growing up with aircraft in the family, I can tell you that X-Plane is a more valid experience for the actual flight. Cockpits are modeled better in FSX though. So I have to agree with you, in a way, they can't be compared. It depends on what you are looking for.

-S

[Lieste]

Both have very poor flight models for a lot of aircraft - lucky and careful selection will be far more important to finding a 'good' feel and performance than the relative merits of the two simulation methods.

I know for a fact that X-plane doesn't model 3d flow around the wing, with a rectangular wing providing the same lift from root to tip...

By default the table based MS FS probably does as well, but table based methods are easier to correct if you know what you are doing - you really need to get 'into the workings' of a dynamic engine to get equivalent control.

[Loud_Silence]

WHAT THE HELL??? X-PLANE DOESNT HAVE AIRPORT BUILDINGS?? Okay, one thing is being able to see your house. Other thing is spotting famous buildings. BUT IT WASN'T POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE F**KING AIRPORT BUILDINGS, WITH THEIR TERMINALS AND SH*T?
And only the US airports have marked taxiways???
13 gigabytes wasted on ground and trees...:mad:

[Skybird]

Scenery-wise, FS is hopelessly superior. Many international airports are already in solid quality in the default versions, plus plenty of addons available. I myself have around three dozen German payware airports installed. They are so detailled that they could serve as tourist guides. :)

On the flight models, I strongly recommend and encourage to use external aircraft in FS. I NEVER use the default Microsoft planes, never. Usually they are superior to Microsoft'S default aircraft not only in avionics complexity, but flight model as well. Flight Simulator leaves the factory as a game, not so much as a real sim. Due to it's modular character you can (and must) tune it to become less a game and more a simulation.

[Loud_Silence]

I'm very sorry, but personally, X-Plane didn't pass the test.
Flight dynamics are cool, but they're the only truly thing worthy in this sim.
I've tried an IFR trip from Madrid to Alicante, but there are just not enough tools and info on-the-trip to make a decent flight.
So bad that FSX no longer works with sim-charts 3, but with a bit of GPS-tweaking (any idea of how can i move FSX's north magnetic pole to where it's on FS2004?) it still does it.
And so bad that FS2004 scenery is somewhat outdated now(no Terminal 4 on my loved Madrid-Barajas International), but i'll give it a try again and see how it looks on IFR flights
X-Plane would be good for "flight testing" and that stuff, but i don't know if that deserves 12gigs of hard disk space...
The only thing i'm really gonna miss is that only X-Plane has a decent carrier instrumental landing system. Anyway the F-4 sucks...

[Skybird]

IFR flying?

Get

- Level-D Boeing 767, or
- PMDG Boeing 747, or
- Flight-1 ATR 72-500.

All have complete FMC systems, and quite some complex ones. All of them have load mamnagers, and fuel planners are available. separate flight planners can be used, but the FMCs can also be manually programmed, WP by WP.

All of them got completely reprogrammed for FSX, but I recommend them on the basis of the FS9 incarnations. Complex, stable, reliable, several hundred pages of documentation. for FS-2004 I can confirm them to be thoroughly stable and bug-free. The latter is a problem with many other commercial packages, unfortunately.

Preferrably used with some special airport scenery like Heathrow, Paris CDG, or any major hub of the German Airport s series.

I also recommend AES, since it adds tremendously to the atmosphere. Nothing better than having animated pushbacks or being welcomed by a follow-me-car when landing in the maze at Heathrow, in thick fog and after sunset.

Don't waste your time doing IFR with default planes!

The IFR flights I do, are a bit unrealistic in that I plan them that way that I have just 05-15 minutes between reaching top-of-climb and beginning-of-descent. That way i have always something to do.

[SUBMAN1]

I know for a fact that X-plane doesn't model 3d flow around the wing, with a rectangular wing providing the same lift from root to tip...

Show me where you read this? This is not true because X-Plane is based on the NASA models and the NASA models do. This is why basic flight testing is done initially on X-Plane since it will be close to actual full dedicated computer calculations done later.

As for airport scenery - yes, a lot of airports are lacking, but that is made up for in many ways by the online scenery.

-S

[Loud_Silence]

Sicerely, it's hard to believe for me that an organisation like NASA, with lots of test centers, huge computers, atc, relies on a commercial simulator to test their designs...

[Lieste]

There is only a linear interpolation of lift between the (adjusted by gross wing characteristics eg Aspect Ratio) section data for root and tip.

The root and tip elements of a non-twisted, non-tapered rectangular wing have equal lifts in X-plane. The real airflows have (approximately) elliptical lifts regardless of planform (the deviation is ~20% for a typical wing, which is far from the assumed linear distribution of lift).

NASA have far more advanced forms for determining lift distributions, and I have used these in the past to approximate the lift distributions over a wing/tail combination. The feel resulting is very different from the #generalised# raw data used within the same flight-model, even when total lift and drag are the same.

[Loud_Silence]

In X-Plane sometimes I feel that I'm just flying a paper plane. After some stall test on various planes I had a sensation of "structural weightlesness" and no inertia.

[FIREWALL]

I knew I was right about this all the time. :smug:

[Sledgehammer427]

it also depends on where you get the planes you use for FSX.
A well-researched plane like my Hughes H-1 (I had to buy it, by the way, money well spent) flies very realistically, however I downloaded a Concorde once that was capable of doing a Pugachev's Cobra...yeah.
the weather is realistically modeled, and it's quite the feat landing a 737 in japan with a 70 mph crosswind:dead:
as long as you put the realism factors to the highest you can go in FSX, you will have a very realistic flight (i would hope:roll:)

[Richard G]

Well, Xplane is FAA certified for pilot training. That should tell you something.

[Skybird]

So what? without knowing the details on for what it is used, that means not too much.

FS2002, I think even FS 2000, was certified in a few Western nations for use in sport flight schools, too.

That was hardly due to the flight model, but more for demonstration of instrument principles and IFR navigation.

[SUBMAN1]

So what? without knowing the details on for what it is used, that means not too much.

FS2002, I think even FS 2000, was certified in a few Western nations for use in sport flight schools, too.

That was hardly due to the flight model, but more for demonstration of instrument principles and IFR navigation.

That is not FAA certification. You can't be serious with that post.... Can you?

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Sicerely, it's hard to believe for me that an organisation like NASA, with lots of test centers, huge computers, atc, relies on a commercial simulator to test their designs...

NASA doesn't, but a few aircraft manufactures do. They use it as a baseline to get initial flight model data, DUE TO ITS AIRFLOW CALCULATIONS OVER THE WING! :nope:

It is not the end all flight model, but its pretty damn close and can be used to understand how an airfoil will be operate without needing to tie up a supercomputer.

-S

[FIREWALL]

X-Plane :nope: :down:

[simbabeat]

It seems like nobody here really knows anything about x-plane. I registered here just to reply to this.

There are no buildings because it would make the program bigger. However, just about every airport in the world is modeled and available for download from x-plane.org

I encourage you to go snoop around x-plane.org and you will see there is no comparison.

Cheers