Im learning to fly and already have 10 hrs, Im enjoying a lot.
But the more I fly  real planes the more I feel FSX is unrealistic flight model wise, the graphics are great and sceneries too but flights models miss something.
Landings aproaches turns ect

Has anyone tried Xplane? Any real pilots can compare them?

As far as  better or worse overall... there are bigger differences between two, real C172s of the same make/model, than there are between FSX and X-Plane, as far as what a user can experience realism-wise, from desktop simulators.

NickN wrote on Sep 4^th, 2009 at 1:24am:

Brett Henderson was the first name that came to mind when I read about flight models here in this thread... He simply knows what he's doing and how to do it damn well


Nick is completely right in that it all comes down to the modeler/programmer/developer (whatever you want to call it).. Brett's aircraft fly more realistically than many payware aicraft out there

Overall, FSX has much more to offer than X-plane, IMO. When it comes down to flight modeling, you just have to know which addons to get

I didn't want to start an FS9/X-Plane war (so I was polite).

"My"  flight models come from understanding the MSFS limitations. There could be a 100-page thread on that stuff. But to the MSFS's credit.. the key to it all, is to use REAL data. If you start building a flight model from there, you never get "lost".

I experimentd with X-Plane a while back, because of all this hype about their "more realistic" flight model. While it is true that a stall break happens more realistically (barely).. and slipping to lose altitude seems to be a tad more realistic.. the overall flight model is a mess when it comes to building a set of FDEs.. whereas the MSFS model seems to have a more sound, mathematical foundation.

In other words..If you start with accurate weights, MOIs, wing-area, wing-location, control surface-data, and engine/prop data... you can work with the MSFS model, and get predictable results.

When I sit down with a cup of coffee (beer for when it's done..  ) and start a serious FDE session.. here's my procedure (all done at MGTW):

1-First.. get it to use up the correct amount of runway, to reach rotation speed. After countless takeoff rolls (never leaving the ground), tweaking power stuff (RPM/MP for props.. thrust for jets.. RPM/torque for turbo-props (they're the toughest)) then step two..

2-Lift-off and climb. The trick here is to keep it from "leaping" off the runway, and that it not need ridiculous amounts of trim for a climb... and the climb has to be reasonable while pitching for Vy. CoG, engine-location, and wing efficiency come into play. This usually requires several returns to step one. 

3-The cruising model has to come close to published cruise speed WHILE at cruise settings(obvioulsy), and be just over max speed with 100% power settings. With jets, this is tricky, because they can easily reach Vne, in level flight, with less than 100% power, at lower altitudes... but will have trouble reaching published max speed at high altitude. It's a compromise. I think the MSFS model was built around small, single-engine, prop-planes.. They're realtively easy to set up. Again.. a few trips back to steps one and two are part of this..

4-Approaches (to me), are  THE  most important part of a flight model. This is where you can give each model, it's realistic personality. Some jets require you to NAIL the numbers.. some props allow you to commit a variety of piloting sins.. and everything in between. Obvioulsy, I've not flown all the aircraft I model... but I have flow a wide variety.. and have ready access to several pilots who have flown just about everything you can imagine. Like.. for the Convair.. I was blessed with input from a guy who flew thousands of hours in an Air Force C-131. He stressed that even though it was near impossible to screw up the approach, that once in ground-effect, a C-131 (Convair 240) will float into the next county. You might not have to worry about falling out of the sky on final, but if you come in too fast, you'll either float past the airport, or bury a wing-tip trying to force it onto the runway ..   The Saab 340, I modeled, is kind of the opposite. If you don't have the approach nailed well out.. you'll be all over the throttle on short-final 

-When all that stuff is good... then I just tweak fuel consumption and range... double-checking engine parameters against performance. Nothing kills the realism buzz, like an airplane that cruises accurately, while the gauges say otherwise 

Good lord.. I rambled (I'm kinda passionate about this stuff). Long story short, FSX is a much bewtter sim, not even considering the visual stuff. THAT puts it over the top 

As for the side-by-side..  I've not only done it on my computer..  there is a high-end simulator at a competing flight club, at my "home" airport. It's set up to run,  On Top, FSX, and XP9.

The best way I can word it, is how some people evaluate flight-dynamics...  Easier does not = better.

Bottom line though (like I posted originally), within the limitations on realism that one can experience from a desktop; you'll find larger discrepancies between two real airplanes, than you will between FSX/XP9.

I chuckled at the Austin Powers  poke 

It reminds me of all the hype around X-Plane's ability to take an actual 3D model into account, when it sets up flight-dynamics 

That would require software that NASA would covet 

Brett_Henderson wrote on Sep 4^th, 2009 at 8:50am:


Which is exactly why I posted it...    I am no Aces lover but I am also no dummy and know a massive bag of hot air when I see it.


As long as people realize what they are reading is nothing but hype, I dont care what people prefer or use.

grizzard wrote on Sep 4^th, 2009 at 7:27pm:


I wouldn't put that as a good "marker".   From the beginning, FS has had a powerful marketing colossus behind it.

From what I've seen, I agree with NickN that it's the modeller's abilities to work within the confines of the program that determines whether a model in FSn is "more accurate"  than the same model in Xplane.

*I* think that both programs offer the user an enjoyable set of challenges.  In the end, it's the user's decision.