FSX vs. X-Plane (the new war begins)

[Omhra]

Hielor,
Pains me D -really doesn't pain me, but still... to say that I am with you on this one.
X plane looks good but, dear Lord, its a toy. Lomac is cool ( just bringing it up for urwumpe ) but it flies like a paper plane... MSFS 2000, 2004 and X seem to be very real, but lack eye candy in some respects. I have had actual pilots in my shop fly it and tell me is pretty close.
I have flown MSFSims for years and have done long flights. From SLC to Fl (to jump on to orbiter go to the Moon and back and then from Fl to Mexico city back to the keys in FL and ... well you get the idea... all over the place. I use ( for USA flights) www.skyvector.com for navigation aids and I use AOPA's Jepesen flight planner to, err, plan my flights.
It is always good that the frequencies work fine even if they differ from what the "in-sim" planner cite. Real time weather is my favorite side of it.
It is too bad that good such a part of MS was closed...

 

[Urwumpe]

Paperplane? Bring the A-10 home with some battle damages and you will wish it to be just a paper plane...

Offset thrust by destroyed engines, changed aerodynamics by missing wing tips and stabilizers, different dynamics (landing with a damaged A-10 is nearly impossible to trim calm, it will oscillate by any chance and stick deflection you give it).

Real pilots are no good reference IMHO - in the region in which they fly, there is no special behavior to notice. Test pilots would be IMHO the only valid reference, because they also have the engineering knowledge to say which behavior is wrong.

MSFS, BTW, has most of the time, a pretty flawed flight model, unless you fly the plane which became the reference of the flight model class. The 737 will fly more realistic than the 777 and the Concorde was in 2000 far off any realistic performance (because MSFS had no model for super sonic aerodynamics - and as far as I can read in forums, it still doesn't)

 

[Omhra]

well, ok
LOMAC flaming cliffs is what i fly... I am not going to tell you I don't enjoy it, And it is "cool" to loose large pieces of the plane and feel the changes in flight profile...
On the editor side of it its nice to settup missions that require reloads and the lot (when I find my favorite edit one I will send it to you and see how you do... the end target is all but unattainable, very challenging) And I remember using stormy weather with fast cross winds to make it more fun. But as far as navigation VOR, engine management, control surface control and ATC... MS has got the stuf.
The people that have atested to it range from lear jet pilots to cesna sport pilots... and one Robinson chopper owner. I don't know, but I figure they know some thing about it... The Robinson owner (co-founder of "Nu skin , which he left some time ago) took me on a ride with him, I have the video... will edit and post next week, he said the sim (ms) turned him in to becoming the real thing. he also owns a rusian mig and some check piston war plane and 2 experimentals. He is now creating another company to finnance his mig 29 which is his next purchase. http://www.extremekinetic.com
If you go to my site http://www.stickywraps.com/workpage.html pictures 13,14, 15 and 17 shows a little of his hangar.

It is very hard to dismiss these people's comments.

 

[Moonwalker]

MSFS 2000, 2004 and X seem to be very real, but lack eye candy in some respects. I have had actual pilots in my shop fly it and tell me is pretty close.

I have flown a real Piper and Cessna only a few times but that was sufficient enough to each time immediately realize that's not at all what I knew from about 15 years of MSFS experience. Totally different behaviour. MSFS is way too static especially if it's about winds and rudder/yaw behaviour. But most flight sims, actually all I know of, have that problem.

 

[Hielor]

...the Concorde was in 2000 far off any realistic performance (because MSFS had no model for super sonic aerodynamics - and as far as I can read in forums, it still doesn't)

Well, I don't know if it's any better now, but I know that you can definitely feel the higher drag as you approach and pass Mach 1...

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, I don't know if it's any better now, but I know that you can definitely feel the higher drag as you approach and pass Mach 1...

I have to admit that the "Concorde Professional" by Phonix Simulation Software (R.I.P. due to too much damn hackers instead of customers) does its job more than very well in FS9.

I can't of course tell you about how supersonic flight and the transition actually "feels" in the Concorde. But even Concorde pilots can't really tell that too since there is nothing really to feel and the whole thing is done fully automatically by the AFCS anyway (Automatic Flight Control System - "MAX CLIMB" button and reheat on and that's it for the pilot).

I have the full 4.5 hours ITVV Concorde video (the crew describing the whole flight, procedures and systems while flying from London to New York and back). I also got a complete British Airways Concorde operating manual. All I can tell is that the PSS Concorde in FS9 behaves exactly like what can be seen in the video and read in the manuls as well (the airplane comes with complete instrument panels/systems and is the most complex one I have ever seen in any flight simulator). The accel to Mach 1.7 with reheat active, from 1.7 to 2.00 without reheat active. The transition to supersonic seen on the vario (but also the slight varying climbing and descending behaviour between 50.000 and 60.000 feet exactly fits to what can seen in the video), the rising skin temperature up to about 117/118°C but also more (you know it depends...) the complex fuel system and its 13 tanks including the behaviour of the CG position and fuel transfer. And much more, almost anything. You can be happy to have a virtual flight engineer available. But I do every step manually anyway. The only thing which is missing is the radiation meter. But since the pointer did never rise to a critical value within 27 years of operation, I can dispense with it

I bet it is hard, if not impossible, to find any comparable simulated Concorde beside that of PSS but also SSTSIM which is a comparable payware for FS2004. Those two Concordes won't be beaten for many many years. Forget about 100 % accurate drag and lift and thrust values of a Concorde simulation. You do not "feel" anything in the real Concorde, less than ever in a desktop simulation anyway.

 

[Zachstar]

X-Plane is not going to get a plethora of paid addons any time soon. FSX will be good for another 5 years and then and only then will X-plane stand a chance.

And I diddnt like the way X-plane felt. It seemed as tho I was flying a toy and not a jet.

 

[Anariaq]

All hail X-Plane!

Well the only reasons that I fly X-Plane is helicopter and the chance to see if my own design theoretically can fly. And X-Plane dos that pretty well. Think it was off with 6% against the big guy program ( airfoil and so on )

And helicopters. You will not get more realistic flight characteristic for rotor crafts. Think the only that beats it is DCS Black Shark. And that is only one craft.

AND it runs on Linux

Anariaq