every new version of Xplane has promise .. but to date, none of the versions have truly delivered a product superior to MSFS.

In what way?If you're talking about 3rd party add ons, then you are absolutely 100% correct. But that is very rapidly changing.Otherwise, it's purely subjective and you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion.

In what way?If you're talking about 3rd party add ons, then you are absolutely 100% correct. But that is very rapidly changing.Otherwise, it's purely subjective and you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion.

Default, out of the box, no add-ons, default planes, what version of FS does XP 9 beat? Remember now, no AI Traffic, no airport buildings except at ONE airport. How far back would you say you would need to go in FS? We aren't talking about what MAY be in XP 10, let's compare XP 9 to something.

In what way?If you're talking about 3rd party add ons, then you are absolutely 100% correct. But that is very rapidly changing.Otherwise, it's purely subjective and you are absolutely entitled to your own opinion.

its not really subjective ... Objectively speaking, MSFS sales numbers exceed xplane numbers.... number of developers, number of participants in the respective communities, number of default aircraft, airport scenery, general scenery, ATC .....all better in the MSFS version.

Ok, let's clear it up....again.X Plane is primarily 1 person. Austin Meyer. He has a small staff. But Austin owns X-Plane and wrote the source code.Microsoft is a multi billion dollar company. 283 people made FSX and who knows how many beta testers were used. So it stands to reason that MSFS would be more popular because they have a much higher budget for promotion. And I still see people with FSX running at 15-20 fps with a 3rd party add on. You'd think with so many brains working on 1 piece of software, they can optimize the code a bit.For that reason, it's obvious MSFS would have more developers. The bottom line is M-O-N-E-Y. X Plane has 52 default aircraft. And I don't mean variants of 1 aircraft. I mean 52 completely different default aircraft. FSX...does not.Airport scenery. I haven't visited every single airport in x plane and FSX (I have both) so I cannot comment on that. ATC, FSX wins that one. Now I will add some things.Terrain LOD. FAR superior in X Plane. As admitted by several FSX developers. Actually, 70GB more superior.X Plane Runways follow the terrain. FSX runways do not.Jim, I'm not sure what you mean by ONE airport having scenery. I have seen scenery at many airports in X Plane. Unless you only have the demo and you are seeing Innsbruck. Is that the same version of x plane where you said it has only ONE default aircraft? X-Plane has smooth gauge animation by default. FSX developers have to code that in.X-Plane has real weather download and more realistic winds (as reviewed in an issue of PC Pilot magazine). PC Pilot said x planes weather was more realistic than in FSX, even with ActiveSky installed. So, as mentioned by the reviewer, even Activesky cannot reproduce what X Plane can do by default.X-Plane clouds cast shadows on the ground by default. FSX does not.X-Plane uses physics (yeah, I'm bringing that one in), FSX uses lookup tables. I prefer to use Sir Isaac Newtons methods than the methods adopted by Microsoft.X-Plane can handle in excess of 1.5 million polygons for an add on aircraft mesh. FSX can handle, at the most, about 150 000 to 200 000. FS9 can only go up to 65 000. Like I said, purely subjective. I'm just curious...Do Windows users go to Apple forums and start talking about how good Windows is and what it has above Apple?Imagine how hard you would get slammed by pro Apple users.Your decisions and opinions are respected. It would be nice if you could do the same for us.

Having been a simmer since Sublogic days, owned every version of MSFS since MSFS95... I can say one of the benefits that XP has over all the others, well its supported far beyond anything MS has ever put out. Really how many "upgrades" do we get from Austin for XP? I run the updater about once a month and there is always something he's added, tweaked or fixed for us. What are we up to now version 9.70? Plus it just works, I've never had XP crash... but man if I had a dollar for everytime MAFS has crashed on me I'd own my own development company... But I do run it on a Mac, not a windows machine

Having been a simmer since Sublogic days, owned every version of MSFS since MSFS95... I can say one of the benefits that XP has over all the others, well its supported far beyond anything MS has ever put out. Really how many "upgrades" do we get from Austin for XP? I run the updater about once a month and there is always something he's added, tweaked or fixed for us. What are we up to now version 9.70? Plus it just works, I've never had XP crash... but man if I had a dollar for everytime MAFS has crashed on me I'd own my own development company... But I do run it on a Mac, not a windows machine

this is one of the big reasons that xplane cant get many developers......

this is one of the big reasons that xplane cant get many developers......

Then it's obvious the developers are grossly misinformed because the updates do not affect the flight models or add ons at all. I made my first add on for X Plane 9.3x and it still flies exactly the same now in 9.70 as it did back in 9.3x.

Ok, let's clear it up....again.X Plane is primarily 1 person. Austin Meyer. He has a small staff. But Austin owns X-Plane and wrote the source code.Microsoft is a multi billion dollar company. 283 people made FSX and who knows how many beta testers were used. So it stands to reason that MSFS would be more popular because they have a much higher budget for promotion. And I still see people with FSX running at 15-20 fps with a 3rd party add on. You'd think with so many brains working on 1 piece of software, they can optimize the code a bit.For that reason, it's obvious MSFS would have more developers. The bottom line is M-O-N-E-Y. X Plane has 52 default aircraft. And I don't mean variants of 1 aircraft. I mean 52 completely different default aircraft. FSX...does not.Airport scenery. I haven't visited every single airport in x plane and FSX (I have both) so I cannot comment on that. ATC, FSX wins that one. Now I will add some things.Terrain LOD. FAR superior in X Plane. As admitted by several FSX developers. Actually, 70GB more superior.X Plane Runways follow the terrain. FSX runways do not.Jim, I'm not sure what you mean by ONE airport having scenery. I have seen scenery at many airports in X Plane. Unless you only have the demo and you are seeing Innsbruck. Is that the same version of x plane where you said it has only ONE default aircraft? X-Plane has smooth gauge animation by default. FSX developers have to code that in.X-Plane has real weather download and more realistic winds (as reviewed in an issue of PC Pilot magazine). PC Pilot said x planes weather was more realistic than in FSX, even with ActiveSky installed. So, as mentioned by the reviewer, even Activesky cannot reproduce what X Plane can do by default.X-Plane clouds cast shadows on the ground by default. FSX does not.X-Plane uses physics (yeah, I'm bringing that one in), FSX uses lookup tables. I prefer to use Sir Isaac Newtons methods than the methods adopted by Microsoft.X-Plane can handle in excess of 1.5 million polygons for an add on aircraft mesh. FSX can handle, at the most, about 150 000 to 200 000. FS9 can only go up to 65 000. Like I said, purely subjective. I'm just curious...Do Windows users go to Apple forums and start talking about how good Windows is and what it has above Apple?Imagine how hard you would get slammed by pro Apple users.Your decisions and opinions are respected. It would be nice if you could do the same for us.

1. We are not comparing staff/budgets/programming. The end user doesn't care about that. 2. Does XP 9 outperform FS9? No. 3. Default planes? How many want to fly a experimental glider or a Mars lander? Realistically count the planes that most will want in both. 4. I had all 6 DVDs installed and not a single tower, terminal, hanger or parking structure were at any XP 9 airport, just grass(no water), runways and taxiways. Yes, all sliders were full and I did had houses and office buildings in towns and cities, so it was not a settings issue. Post a shot of KDTW while sitting at runway 4R, if you could. 5. Default Ai Traffic: XP None. 6. FS 9 has smooth gauges by default. 7. The weather in FS9 using ASv6.5 is way more accurate. Ever go to the weather map in XP and see the same little green blob repeat itself over and over again in the same pattern row upon row? 8. I didn't know this was the XP Forum? 9. So, default over-all: XP9, FS9, FSX.

1. We are not comparing staff/budgets/programming. The end user doesn't care about that. 2. Does XP 9 outperform FS9? No. 3. Default planes? How many want to fly a experimental glider or a Mars lander? Realistically count the planes that most will want in both. 4. I had all 6 DVDs installed and not a single tower, terminal, hanger or parking structure were at any XP 9 airport, just grass(no water), runways and taxiways. Yes, all sliders were full and I did had houses and office buildings in towns and cities, so it was not a settings issue. Post a shot of KDTW while sitting at runway 4R, if you could. 5. Default Ai Traffic: XP None. 6. FS 9 has smooth gauges by default. 7. The weather in FS9 using ASv6.5 is way more accurate. Ever go to the weather map in XP and see the same little green blob repeat itself over and over again in the same pattern row upon row? 8. I didn't know this was the XP Forum? 9. So, default over-all: XP9, FS9, FSX.

Ok. So don't fly x plane. I don't know how many different ways you want me to say it. If you don't like it, then it's absolutely no skin off my nose. I have both and prefer x plane. If it makes you feel any better, then keep criticizing it. The more you do so, the more time you waste in a forum for a product you are not involved with. Kinda foolish if you ask me. I don't go to the Activesky forums and keep making posts about how unrealistic the wake turbulence is in Activesky.I have pointed out many positive points about FSX. You have never pointed out any positive points about x plane. Even though the majority of people have said BOTH sims have pro's and cons. I'll say it again, if you don't like it, don't fly it and don't come to the x plane forums if what you read bothers you that much. I don't like Abacus products. As a result, I don't go to their forums to constantly criticize their products.Quite a no-brainer, really.What I DO know is more and more people are switching to or adding x plane to their simming experience. And big time developers are doing the same thing. Even BEFORE XP10 is out. If what you are saying is true, then these people and developers must be the dumbest individuals in the entire simming world for moving to a platform that is so bad. UNLESS it really isn't that bad.If you really want a comparison between XP9 and FS9, I'll gladly oblige. And give Flightsim.com some extra traffic. Just because you are so passionate about what you believe in, Jim.http://www.flightsim...339#post1589339That is a direct comparison between the default Cessna 172 in each sim.See the ATC tower in the background in the x-plane screenshots. Anyone who knows airports knows that is Sydney Airport. BTW, that is default scenery. That must be the airport you were at, right Jim? Seeing as you said X Plane only has scenery at ONE airport. No, wait. Innsbruck is the default airport when first starting X Plane. So that's at least TWO. So your X Plane version only has ONE default aircraft and TWO default sceneries. I would definitely question Laminar about that one. You're the only one who has that in X Plane 9. Oh, and final footnote. There is no way gauge animation in FS9 is smoother than X Plane. If you can see otherwise, then you have some serious sight issues.

I consider myself a pretty avid FSX user, but I have to admit, I am really starting to like X Plane more and more each day. While I definitely enjoy FSX, especially with add-on developers like Carenado, PMDG, Flight1, and Aerosoft, something still seems off. I have thousands of dollars in add-ons for FS9/FSX but something about it still nags at me. It's not really the performance as my system seems to run FSX just fine. It's not the add-ons, there are too many great ones to mention. I just can't put my finger on it. Maybe it is that XP just seems "smoother" and more fluid overall. In all honesty, if XP had more airport scenery available and AI traffic, I am not sure I would use FSX that often. For me, it is the add-on developers of the FS series that keep me interested in it. If those developers, or a few of the big ones I really enjoy, go over to XP or develop for both sims I am going to have a tough time calling FSX my "main" sim.

I consider myself a pretty avid FSX user, but I have to admit, I am really starting to like X Plane more and more each day. While I definitely enjoy FSX, especially with add-on developers like Carenado, PMDG, Flight1, and Aerosoft, something still seems off. I have thousands of dollars in add-ons for FS9/FSX but something about it still nags at me. It's not really the performance as my system seems to run FSX just fine. It's not the add-ons, there are too many great ones to mention. I just can't put my finger on it. Maybe it is that XP just seems "smoother" and more fluid overall. In all honesty, if XP had more airport scenery available and AI traffic, I am not sure I would use FSX that often. For me, it is the add-on developers of the FS series that keep me interested in it. If those developers, or a few of the big ones I really enjoy, go over to XP or develop for both sims I am going to have a tough time calling FSX my "main" sim.

Ark,You might be surprised what X Plane developers have made recently. You don't have to buy any of it, because there are many videos made of various top quality x plane add ons that can stand up to many of the top level FSX add ons. You can get a broader picture while watching these videos. These are system rich, plug in filled add ons that are extremely accurate in performance and systems modelling. Not the well known, generic, 2D panel freeware that X Plane has become known for over the past few years.It's great that you are having an open mind about the whole situation. I just wish many others were more like yourself. At the risk of advertising the various top quality payware in an open forum, feel free to PM me and I will point you to what I consider the best add ons in x plane. Then you can make up your own mind, ask questions in the respective forums, and come to a more complete conclusion that will shed some more light on the subject.Keeping in mind, I was a HEAVY MSFS user ever since FS98 up to and including FSX. I have all the various popular payware (PMDG, Captain Sim, Flight 1, ActiveSky 6.5 AND ActiveskyX, etc...). And like you said, there was something missing in FSX that I found in X Plane. And that something was enough to totally change my mind about my preferred sim. I think what it boils down to is FSX "looks" better with the color saturation, water effects, ATC and AI, but, for me, x plane provides a far richer flying experience overall. And as a certified pilot, that is far more important to me.

6. FS 9 has smooth gauges by default.

Default FS2004 gauges are a slide show. You need an add-on like Flight Line T if you want something that is nearly animated like default X-Plane gauges. Why do you think Reality XP does only try to sell their GNS430/530 product to the X-Plane community and not an add-on replacing default gauges ?

2. Does XP 9 outperform FS9? No.9. So, default over-all: XP9, FS9, FSX.

Default is not what simmers use, but OK, it's your freedom to think so and to tell it in every topic you see in a X-Plane forum. It's just ridiculous because we were not talking about what's the best sim for you, we were talking about who's the next FS developer expanding to X-Plane. Jim you're off-topic. Feel free to start another topic for your comparisons. I don't want this topic to be closed like most Flightsim.com X-Plane topics. Again, it's OK if you prefer FS2004. As you know, today FS2004 is still the most used Flight Simulator, far more than FSX or X-Plane.I was using FS since Flight Simulator II (subLOGIC/Amiga). But now my favorite sim is X-Plane and I'm happy about every new X-Plane add-on developer. When will HiFi Technologies start building add-ons for X-Plane ?

Ark,You might be surprised what X Plane developers have made recently. You don't have to buy any of it, because there are many videos made of various top quality x plane add ons that can stand up to many of the top level FSX add ons. You can get a broader picture while watching these videos. These are system rich, plug in filled add ons that are extremely accurate in performance and systems modelling. Not the well known, generic, 2D panel freeware that X Plane has become known for over the past few years.It's great that you are having an open mind about the whole situation. I just wish many others were more like yourself. At the risk of advertising the various top quality payware in an open forum, feel free to PM me and I will point you to what I consider the best add ons in x plane. Then you can make up your own mind, ask questions in the respective forums, and come to a more complete conclusion that will shed some more light on the subject.Keeping mind, I was a HEAVY MSFS user ever since FS98 up to and including FSX. I have all the various popular payware (PMDG, Captain Sim, Flight 1, ActiveSky 6.5 AND ActiveskyX, etc...). And like you said, there was something missing in FSX that I found in X Plane. And that something was enough to totally change my mind about my preferred sim. I think what it boils down to is FSX "looks" better with the color saturation, water effects, ATC and AI, but, for me, x plane provides a far richer flying experience overall. And as a certified pilot, that is far more important to me.

I actually just picked up the Challenger 300 and really enjoy it. Beautiful exterior model, intuitive interface for accessing the various features, and the FM feels really good (I am not a Challenger pilot so accuracy is beyond me. lol). The Corvalis is another one of my favorites. I have also been looking at the CRJ from Jrollon as well. Seems like there are some real nice add-ons out there. I still can't get over how detailed the Challenger 300 is. Any other recommendations? Thanks!

I actually just picked up the Challenger 300 and really enjoy it. Beautiful exterior model, intuitive interface for accessing the various features, and the FM feels really good (I am not a Challenger pilot so accuracy is beyond me. lol). The Corvalis is another one of my favorites. I have also been looking at the CRJ from Jrollon as well. Seems like there are some real nice add-ons out there. I still can't get over how detailed the Challenger 300 is. Any other recommendations? Thanks!

Recommendations. Anything and everything from X-Aviation. I have the CRJ-200 and it's a damn fine piece of kit. If you're into GA's or turboprops, the Beechcraft Duchess (yes, it's mine but it has received exceptional reviews) or the MU-2, Corvalis which you already have, Falco, T-28C and Seamax.From x-plane.orgThe Challenger which looks very impressive. If you like heli's, the Bell 206 or BK 117. I can't really comment on the other x-plane.org offerings as I don't have them, but you would be well advised to read some reviews.There is a review site available that specializes in reviewing x-plane products and that's at xplane10.wordpress.com

I've just come into some new information. It appears there IS another big developer coming to x plane. And this one is big. So far it is unannounced as final details are being resolved, but it's going to shake things up a lot.Exciting times around the corner. Good competition.