smb

Hello All,

Being an X-Plane user for several years, I've never been impressed
with the earlier versions of Flight Simulator. However, the 2004
version seems to be a huge improvement, so I recently got a copy to
try. Overall, I like it, but there are some significant differences
between it and X-Plane. Here are my first impressions after playing
with FS 2004 for a couple of days:


Packaging: FS is the clear winner... fancy metal box compared to
X-P's plain envelopes.

Do***entation: Both are a little sparse and could use nice full-sized
books. FS comes with a nice little getting started book, which is
nice.

Scenery: FS is better, no question about it. More ground detail and
better water textures, and cities look more real. However, it isn't
perfect, and at higher altitudes there isn't quite as much difference
between FS and X-P. The biggest difference is that X-P has problems
rendering the terrain where water and land meet, while FS does a very
good job with that. Flying around in the Grand Canyon in both, FS has
an edge, but it isn't as dramatic of a difference as what I expected.
FS has more true to life visual landmarks, while X-P's scenery is more
generic in nature. Both programs suffer from blurry ground textures
at low altitudes.

Airplanes: X-P has more to choose from out of the box, and offers a
greater variety of aircraft types. There are also hundreds available
for download, but I haven't yet compared that with what you can d/l
for FS. Most airplanes in X-P have instrument panels that look more
convincing, particularly ones with modern panels. (Although the
historical airplanes in FS look pretty good inside!) On the
exteriors, FS aircraft look better because you can see into the
****pits, something you can't do with X-P. However, propeller
effects are better in X-P.

Flying: After trying several aircraft, there is no comparison: X-P
is *much* better. There is a more fluid sense of actual flight,
control surfaces respond better, and you have a better "feel" of
actually controlling an airplane. The airplanes in FS tend to want
to bob up and down a lot ( "porpoising") and I find that darned
aggravating! If you let go of the stick for a second, some airplanes
tend to want to immediately drop like a rock rather than glide. The
flight model in X-P is based on real-time aerodynamic calculation
rather than tables of data like FS. It really does make a
difference. After flying about half of the FS airplanes, I haven't
found one that comes close to X-P in handling characteristics or
flying realism.

Interface: Since I'm more used to X-P, I can't make an objective
comparison. But overall I think X-P is more straightforward, and it
gives you lots of options to do things that I can't find in FS.

Views: FS has that super nice 3D ****pit view, which X-P lacks.
However, X-P is better for external views of your airplane.
Internally, X-P also lets you look "down" thru the windshield, while
the instrument panels in FS sometimes block your forward view too
much.

Sound Quality: It's a wash, depending on the airplane.


Sky/Weather/Clouds: Both are good, with each program being better at
different things. X-P seems a shade better in clear skies, at sunset
and in thunderstorms, while FS has much better snow and rain effects,
and handles variable weather better. Clouds seem to be more
adjustable in X-P, and if you don't like what they offer, you can
download different bitmaps to replace the standard clouds. You can
also change the sky colors in X-P to something more realistic than
what FS has. I like FS's predefined weather situations.


Training: No comparison, FS is much better. X-P assumes you already
know something about flying.


Performance: Both are very similar in terms of frame rates. Overall,
though, X-P runs smoother at high detail settings.

Airports: Both seem to have just about every airport in the world.
Terminal buildings are more detailed in FS; runways are the same in
both.

Other things: X-P is much more flexible in that you can tweak your
aircraft any way you want, and the flight model will change
accordingly. For example, you can easily add more horsepower to your
engines. You can also change the sound effects just by copying
different wav files into the airplane folder. You can even design
your own airplanes and see if they will fly. X-P lets you fly in
more situations and with more different types of aircraft than FS. It
also does helicopters much better than FS does. It's more of a true
flight simulator than a game.


Conclusions: I like both of them, but they are different animals.
FS seems to be nice for sightseeing flights and learning the basics of
flight procedures, but X-P is better for learning how airplanes
actually work, practicing flight maneuvers and just the plain fun of
flying. FS has the look and feel of a very highly-tuned game, while
X-P has the look and feel of a true flight simulator. It would be
nice if there was a program that looked as perty as FS but flew as
perty as X-P. That pretty much sums it up.

Anybody else here fly both programs?


smb

graham mcallister

Thanks for the post.

I've often been tempted to try X-P, but with a 56K connection the download
is a tad too heavy.

Congratulations. Whilst always difficult, your comments are very
constructive and non-prejudicial.

Graham McAllister
fs@twd.com.au

felixr

In my opinion, a reasonable review. You'll of course get comments that "FS
isn't a game" ... but the overall Xp is more the realistic flight
simulator, I believe, is an accurate statement.

I would only point out that FS is a lot "easier" to screw up, er,
correction, tweak your aircraft any way you want. Since the flight dynamics
are controlled more by two files - the *.air and aircraft.cfg files - than
by the construction of the visual/physical model, it's easier to make a 747
fly like a Cessna 172 ..

I believe that in the modelling side, the tools available to construct the
visual model are "easier" than in Xplane (qualifier - I haven't tried the
latest versions of Xplane, my experience is having attempted Planemaker with
v. 5? a few years ago.) There are thousands of models available for
download, the same for scenery, panels, etc. As far as "situations" - I'll
grant you, Xp has more "canned" (default) situations/adventures/flights than
FS, but again, once you get to the third party freeware/commercial arena,
there is more available for FS.

However, it is not fair, I believe, to compare the availability of third
party models and situations when there are clearly many more simmers/3rd
party developers for FS than Xplane.

All in all, an illustrative and objective point by point review.

May I suggest you post it to flightsim.com as either an Op-Ed or "Review"
....

Felix/FFDS
Pegasus Aviation Design

paul s

What metal box?? I've only seen it on sale here in a standard plastic DVD box.

Have you got the 'texture settings' set to maximum??

It encourages IFR. :-)


So I can have my Extra 300 handling like a 747-400?? ;-)


I've only ever flown FS, will have a look at X-P sometime.

--
Paul S

the original russ.

I got mine in the standard shrink wrapped cardboard box. :-)

MS released a limited edition in a small DVD sized metal box. But who keeps
the box anyway? ;-)


Cheers,

Russ.

amd

<Much snippage>

Great balanced commentary. Enlightening for one who has entertained
buying XP, just as I expanded my Train Simulator horizons to include Trainz.


I am with Martin on this, who suggested maybe you needed to tinker
with your visual settings. I will include your MIP levels, which
affect things globally.

Grabbing hold of the FS2004 textures is not as easy as it looks. For
instance, it has been reported and discovered you get much better
water textures if you max the terrain slider above it, and turn the
water slider off. And it works.

Interesting observation. care to expand on that? The effectiveness of
propeller animation are very much dependent on the modeler's skill with bitmaps.

I have never flown XP but what you describe as anomalies with FS
planes are very similar to what anyone experiences while trying to
"dial-in" the joystick/pedals and set a comfortable range of sensitivities.


Examples? Those "missing" things may be easily accessible in an
aircraft's configuration file within FS.

You may be unaware there are freeware bmp packages for FS clouds too.

In actuality, weather, real-world weather, and 3D clouds that build
and dissipate as you watch are one of FS2004's great strengths. Even
with its predecessors, FS2002 and FS2000, users had the ability to
download freeware to make bulk or blanket changes to cloud appearance.
I have no reason to believe there won't soon be many freeware choices
for 2D clouds.

Already, freeware 2D clouds are available for FS2004, which require
fewer graphics resources, and allow more 3D clouds to be added without
taking a bigger hit.

Not doubting you, but I would fully expect your most familiar
simulator would have the best understood configurations. I don't know
your system or whether XP uses DirectX or OpenGL graphics.

Easily done in FS by editing the aircraft configuration file, which is just text.

Also possible in FS.


Interesting, especially if you can do it within the XP sim without an
add-on 3D program.


That's always been the XP claim to fame. I've read great articles
about its wacky but lovable author, Austin Meyer. His followers are
many and I respect his entrepreneurial mettle.

Ho boy.

This one statement pulled from your conclusion, will flack, especially
insofar as it insults the thousands of users, myself included, who see
FS2004 as something more than the "game" of Sim-City with airplanes in
it. Even your qualifier: "Very highly tuned" fails to soften the blow
for this reader.

I'd respectfully suggest you explore the differences between
well-tuned air files and those just cobbled together for FS--some of
which are unfortunately the default aircraft. Once you do, you will
discover there are some wonderfully true-to-life handling planes here
too. Not all of them by a long shot, but enough to choke a small hard
drive.

Agreed, but even better, would be comments from one who has lived with
FS, tries XP, and shares the opinions moving in that direction will
spawn.

--
Mike (amd)

quilljar

I have both on my HD and I have to agree with almost all you have said.
However, as you get to know FS better, you will find that the support and
the downloads for aircraft and scenery including tools to build both are
possibly 100 times more for FS than for X-plane. After all the user base is
also so much larger.

I know that X-plane has a very big following and a lot of add-ons but you
will soon see that these are still quite modest cf with FS. I too only wish
that the A/C in FS flew as well as Austin has made them. He is a remarkable
fellow isn't he?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/2003

felixr

Mike - You comments are valid, especially those on the ability to tweak
parameters from the aircraft.cfg file.

I consider smb's comparison's more as comparing both sims "out of the box".
Terrain, clouds, etc., are, like you say, easily replaceable with 3rd party
bitmaps, and such.

Strictly viewing both from a flight *simulator* point of view, X-Plane
appears to be the better *simulator*, while FS has the nudge on the eye
candy (not that the flight dynamics are slouches)

smb's comments are prompting me to take a look at the latest X-plane....

Felix/FFDS
Pegasus Aviation Design

amd

<Snip>


Me too, Felix. Those with open minds in Train Simulator wish all the
strengths of Trainz (it has an OpenGL Graphics engine) could be
combined with MSTS. Easily, the worst aspect of MSTS is its absolutely
klunky and buggy Route Editor (for designing).

In contrast, even the current Trainz version of "route editor" is a
designer's dream come true.

Personally, I can adapt to slightly ****eyed flight dynamics quicker
and easier than I can adapt to lackluster scenery.

But that's just my opinion.

I notice X-P (sic) design author and guru Austin Meyer is a featured
speaker at the AvSim conference, making this post of sms'
curiously-timed. Regardless, I am confident X-P has many enjoyable
strengths and I know for certain, having read a number of articles
about both X-P and Austin, he is much more approachable than the MS
Team and goes so far as to personally answer users' e-mail!

One amazing fellow.

Some might see my reply antagonistic. That was not at all how it was
meant.
--
Mike (amd)

david macleod

Amazon messed my original order, so after complaining they expedited a
second order. That very day I received the original and next day the second.
I contacted Amazon once and got no reply so I kept the second. still in the
metal box unopened with shrink wrap on it.
look for it on ebay in 10-15 years.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----