A really excellent job, Drawyah! Covered the bases with just enough detail for your conclusions. XP-11 looks good and flies well - only mission building is missing. I hope DTG develop FSW to rival XP - but it'll be an uphill struggle...
Glad you found the video useful! I too would like to see FSW rival X-Plane more, but at this point in time is still has a long way to go. Since release, Dovetail Games has released an update EVERY Thursday, so they are definitely heading in the right direction!
I experimented with xplane and wasn't impressed with the flight dynamics when throttling back to idle in a Cessna. The plane went nose down, even though I had more than enough speed to maintain attitude. Source: am pilot
Drawyah Games I don't have enough experience to suggest alternatives to FSX. I like asca+as16 w/ ftx global to improve realism in fsx and find the flight dynamics consistent with real world. At least small planes, which I am familiar with. I found xplane really good for scenery but didn't like the 3d cockpit experience using trackir...too floaty. I like to have my view react similarly to the real world. FSX isn't perfect but better than xplane. I am looking forward to FSW when it's more mature.
like to ride I can agree about the view and what not in XP but I simply can't agree about the FSX flight dynamics. I know you are a pilot but I haven't found the same feel as you. I encourage you to purchase an add on for X-Plane called "AirFoilLabs Cessna 172p". It is dedicated Cessna 172 simulation for X-Plane. If you purchase it, please tell me what you think!
I have to agree. FSX (if you have the Cash to sink into it) can be made into a very competitive rival to xplane and P3D. I've never had bad experience with Xplane, but I never had a smooth or enjoyable one either. The UI and menus on 10 was a mess and some of the design choices were questionable such as ATC being pretty much nonexistant and the way the game handles AI traffic. I'm not going to comment on flight models because its been some time since I've played either recently. Although I felt that accufeel (for FSX, FSW has it already?) really added a big amount of realism to FSX. Feels a LOT more like it does IRL. Accufeel really shines when you're trying to land in gusting winds or high turbulence. Really feels good in a realism sense.
+Robin Coe Unpopular opinion: I refunded X-Plane 11 for the exact same reasons that you said. I didn't like the 3D cockpit experience in X-Plane 11 at all... also I found a lot of graphical glitches (even more than FSX vanilla)
I've had FSX Acceleration since it was released (10/23/2007) and it was 10 days after my birthday (10/13). Now it's 2020 and I still play FSX here and there, but now comes FSW and Xplane 11. I would definitely try FSW and Xplane 11 if steam had a trail of 30 days before the full purchase.
X-Plane has a free demo on their website, it's worth a download regardless! Unfortunately for Flight Sim World, it is now discontinued in Beta. Now that Microsoft have regained the rights for flight simulator from Dovetail Games, the game will likely never see an update again, which is a shame, the clouds especially were sublime!
When he shows all three games side by side and shows the ground effects, I can't understand that he thinks xplane11 looks better than fsw. Fsw looks amazing! Am I the only one that really think that? The other two looks nothing like it at all. What am I missing?
Based on the fact that X-Plane 11 uses Open Street Map data within its globe to accurately portray real streets and buildings which FSX and FSW do not. Unless you get some sort of VFR Scenery, you won't be flying over your house anytime soon! Likewise at high altitude, ground class can look like a checkerboard which doesn't always look great. There are add-ons for both simulators however that vastly improve on this.
I guess it comes down to personal preference. I personally dislike how the scenery in XPlane has looked. It always seems boring, bland, blurry and flat looking. Accurate as it may be, I'd rather have the odd 2d house on the ground texture and have it looks more visually appealing. FSW in my opinion is the most accurate "feel" in terms of shadows, scale, and color (many sims and games, Warthunder does it the worst, scale scenery too big or too small in comparison to real life sizes). At 5:45 its an accidental comparison side shot of FSW and Xplane11 and you can see the dramatic difference in the scenery.
The thing is, to me that's nothing but a novelty. Its cool, but in the long run its more about the overall bigger picture, literally. The accuracy of where my forgettable house is located is small stuff compared to the overall quality of the scenery itself at altitude. Again, I never said XP11 was bad. I said its not my personal preference.
So you don't care about quality then. Any scenery would do it for you, it could be new york instead of paris and you wouldn't notice and would be happy.
I'm a long time fan and user of FSX. At the moment my rig barely runs FSX. However, hopefully sooner than later I'll be able to run FSW and XP11 with my $1800USD rig. Then I'll feel confident in offering solid unbiased opinions relative to the current flight sims in comparison. Thanks for the great video sir. Your video and commentary were fine.... PEACE! ☮️
Let me say this. I've been flight simming for 23 years. Started out with msfs 4.0. I have purchased and flown fsx, fsw and most recently x plane 11. Fsw angered me tremendously as it was such a disappointment and in my opinion a backwards step. I was blown away by x plane 11 because of the scenery. But let me say I keep going back go fsx. Mainly because of its versatility. You should have added 3 more categories: atc, ai traffic and weather generation. Or lump them into one category called REALISM. This is where fsx blows them all out of the water. From the start ms listened to the wishes of simmers and delivered what they asked for. That was mainly in he area of realism. In the last 10 years simmers have been clamouring about performance/stability/frame rates and aircraft realism because of the work of carenado, PMDG and the like. Sim makers have played into that demand and left realism totally behind. I am appalled at the atc, ai traffic and weather in both fsw and x plane 11. There were no improvements there from fsx but rather huge steps backwards. You would have thought both of these sims would have advanced what fsx already had on the table and given us things like the ability to declare an emergency with emergency vehicles etc. SIDS/STARS & airways. Ai traffic spacing. Realistic wet runways and snow on the ground with corresponding effect on aircraft ground movement. Ground handling services. Although x plane did make an attempt but it is still flawed. These are just a few of he obvious next steps in the simming world which just didn't happen and I am shocked and disappointed. While x plane 11 really wowed me, the atc, ai traffic and weather are appalling. Adittionally I have thousands of dollars worth of airplanes, scenery and utilities installed for fsx. To repurchase all these when they become available for x plane or fsw is just not on. That's why I will stick to fsx. I've got it set up too close to the real world at a great price to be going backwards with a new sim.
Yes, looking back I maybe should have added more comparison categories into this video, giving a more general look at each simulator and where they really shine. I will be revisiting this video when Dovetail Games officially release Flight Sim World out of early access, where I will try to go as in-depth as I possibly can with the video.
Please don't bother yourself, I'm sure you've shown us your abilities in this session. And forgetting your lame excuses about going on holiday, it was rather pathetic. It's definitely the fist time I've heard really bad verbal abilities having an excuse, albeit something I'd expect from a 6 year old. "My voice was bad because I was going on holiday" Perhaps that explains the 1,500 subscribers as well. I've seen a cat with more.
Oooo! how adult of you to be able to change an ID like that, it must take a highly skilled and intelligent 3 year old to be able to do that. So not having any content on my "Channel" (I didn't realise I had a "Channel" is some mark of what exactly? That's your estimation of someone is it? For your information I've spent the past 26 years making videos for national and International TV network news rooms, why the hell would I want to put them on RUclips when I get many millions of views of my work every day? So if anyone's "failed" it appears to be little Danny with his childish and badly skewed view of the world as he sees it. Obviously he believes having "subs" is important and his measure of success. Silly little Danny.
@@propfella well for a start your comment didn't age well as he now has 13K subs. Secondly, 26 years experience, so you admit to being an adult yet post like some angry little teenager, really, the shame of it, Drawyah was about 18 when he made this video and you try to bully him, disgusting. Looking at the discussion section on your channel also shows that you're a bit of a troll by some of the comments that have been left there over the years
For me it's all about the flight model. X-Plane makes it easy to prototype aircraft for real life production. If it doesn't work in X-Plane, it will NOT work in real life. It would be foolish of me to say that there aren't any limitations. An aircraft working in X-Plane does NOT necessarily mean it will work in real life.
I think it depends what you are doing, if you flying around VFR in a piston airplane, then I'd say XP11, if you want to fly an airliner and be 'as real as it gets' you can't beat the addon aircraft produced for FSX which more or less only use FSX as a graphics generator and are simulations in of themselves. Also Activesky Next blows anything else out of the water as far as clouds go and it's also for FSX.
The problem with fax is all of the planes fly on rails. When you touch the ground, the single bogey planes look like they are landing on rocks as if they have no suspension. in X-Plane 11, I am able to realistically grease my landings with the gear moving instead of being rock solid.
i never had FSX crash at me randomally tbh, on a Dual Core processor in 2006 - 2009 or on my current quad core processor from 2011 - 2017 so idk what you are talking about when it comes to "fsx crashes a lot on processors because it was designed for only one core processors" the only times FSX crashed on me were when i used corrupted plane add ons or terrain add ons, or whenever i was on an online server with too many people next to me (more than 20) altho i'd blame my ram for that (4GB at 2006-2008, 6GB at 2008-2011, 14GB at 2011-2015, 24GB at 2015-now)
HoLDoN4Sec Seems you have no idea of VAS on 32bit apps, got NOTHING to do with how many CPU cores or hyperthreads available, nor tons of physical RAM installed, and possibly you not having or using intense high poly addon aircraft and airports. Do yourself a favour, and get a high poly model like PMDG, along with FTX ORBX, Megascenery, Aerosoft etc. scenery and airports. Then add a good weather engine, such as Active Sky, Opus, FSXWX etc. then run all this on your current 24GB system. You'll be lucky to reach two hours of use before you get a CTD (Crash To Desktop) or OOM (Out Of Memory). You could have 64GB of installed RAM today, with a full 64bit O/S such as W7, W8/8.1 and W10, and you would still kill your VAS, as FSX is 32bit, limited to 3.2GB of Physical RAM, and 4GB of VAS. And there-in is the problem, along with a decade of buggy code, unfinished and unfixed. At least Prepar3D, since v2.0 and progressing through to end of v3.0 cycle, were improving the old FSX code with less VAS issues, but it still could crash. P3D v4.0 with 64bit has now overcome the VAS issue limit of 4GB.
FSX SE rarely, if ever, crashes on me, and has crashed less than 5 times in the total 400+ hours I've played it (that being said, while I do have some addons installed and am usually running a browser and extra software while playing, I don't have any insane payware software). On the flip side, I played X-Plane 11 tonight, and I had it crash TWICE within an hour. I think it had something to do with the fact that I was recording, and turning the resolution down temporarily fixed the problem (I returned it to normal after the flight). I will admit, on a technical level, X-Plane 11 is far superior, but I am still more familiar with FSX. Both are good sims in 2017 though, FSX is great for getting into it and is the current king in terms of community support, but X-Plane has a far longer life ahead of it. Flight Sim World still has yet to show its potential, but I think it could be up there one day if DTG is willing to put in the effort.
this video is made by a X-Plane fan and he is very negative about FSX... he also uses the Vanila version while in the last 10 years so many addons make FSX still compatible with any other sim... says scenery of X-Plane is better than FSW... hahahahaha.... flight dynamics of X-Plane 11 better? hahahaha.... many seasoned real world pilots are complaining about X-Plane 11.... I dont know or this guy has ever flown a real aeroplane, then he would know where we speak about... I see that many times, simmers who flying around with a computer game and think they know everything about flying.... even trying to correct professional pilots... yucks and indeed in the all the years my FSX has NEVER CRASHED.... NEVER & NEVER!!! Some crashes happens because some addons are corrupt but that is what u have to test out before u start a real flight with it... and one core is pure nonsense indeed, it works with no problem on my quad core processor too without any crash.... and he forgets the multiplayer or the other famour FSIM P3D in this 'test'....
Theodorus, you need to get your opinion aligned with facts when you quote certain inaccuracies about X-Plane, and your use of FSX over it. As usual there are many so-called wannabe's pushing their opinion as fact about various SIM's. I have used many going back to 1992, in my total 42 year IT career to date, starting in 1976, and now my own business, and I cannot stand the bun fights of those that THINK they know it all. So I am going to challenge your input with facts here as I Googled them. You can take all SIM's installed as 'Vanilla' and X-Plane scenery trounces them all, as it has the most accurate and/or plausable scenery base. Your quote of XP flight dynamics being poor or bad, whatever your laughter was meaning, as well as your totally inaccurate quote, and I quote you "many seasoned real world pilots are complaining about X-Plane 11" unquote is totally out of whack. Here is some testimonials I found by just Googling Professional Pilots and X-Plane, not even just version 11. There was plenty more links I could post here. And amongst them a captain of a European airline, Jan Vogel, both a link of his testimonial and one of many RUclips videos he makes using X-Plane, never mind Aerospace engineers included as well. www.x-plane.com/desktop/for-pilots/ www.x-plane.com/testimonial/brian-lewis/ www.x-plane.com/testimonial/jan-vogel/ www.x-plane.com/testimonial/tom-gielda/ www.x-plane.com/testimonial/philipp-j-muenzel/ ruclips.net/video/QQlz5itiCH0/видео.html I could go on supplying links to factual real world pilots and their positive notes about any version of X-Plane, it's most accurate flight dynamics and use, right up to X-Plane 11. At least I can counter your post by supplying real world input to substantiate my reply to you. Oh! and I held a full pilot's license myself on single and twin engine from 1986 to 1999, having to surrender it due to costs, family and then failure of some important health issues that need to be top notch to retain a license.
Without a doubt FSW is going to out do both of the others. At the moment they are still in the build . But it will rock. I am using a heavily customised 1960s themed FSX. At the moment . And in spite of its very obvious age and limitations, it is my "Goto" flight sim. But FSW is catching up rapidly. And as it grows it will definitely be the one to look for.
I didn't go into any detail about the ease of modding in any of the simulators, and I didn't discount anything from X-Plane 11, I just simply stated that FSX has more mods over 11 years and bigger names in payware.
Thanks for the video and thoughts. Now that FSW is ending, it would be interesting to see the same video with Prepared v4 replacing FSW. It would be great to anticipate future versions. I like the idea of the table.
It is something I definitely want to do at some point in the future, but at this time I do not own P3D of any form, and don't have the money to buy it. That's something that will have to wait, but once I do will be something I'll be doing!
A good Job. I am an FSX simmer from way back.untill, DCS arrived. I found after that i could not return to FSX because the flying was too easy. Then i tried XP11 wow, just the same as DCS i am really sold.
It's not really fair to judge FSW, yet. Wait until the full release has been around for a year and then do the comparison again. FSX and X-Plane both have an amazing history that helps them in several categories, FSW is a noob relative to the other two.
Once Flight Sim World is fully released, I definitely will revisit this comparison style video and maybe do a full focus stream or two with it talking about what it has, what it is and where the future lies for this simulator.
The only thing I don’t like about X-Plane 11 is the joystick controls.I’ve been using P3D and FSX on and off and had not trouble transitioning from them 2.Laminar Research should really make X-Plane 11 more user friendly from people coming from P3D and FSX.
Main factor, what do Dovetail want to add to their simulator on release? We're meant to see a career mode, expended multiplayer, more aircraft, more scenery and more!
X-Plane has another huge advantage going for it, you can run it on Linux or OSX. By comparison, X-Plane runs FAR better in Linux than on Winblows. Not having an OS Elephant sitting on top of your sim helps the performance tremendously. As for those knocking the flight dynamics in X-Plane, there is a reason that for years it was the only certified sim for flight instruction. That being said, being that X-Plane does real aerofoil modeling....the way a plane flies is only as good as the model that is created for the aircraft. I have seen add-on planes that look beautifully realistic and fly like complete crap due to bad modeling in the aerofoil that underlies the visual model.
please just write what you want to say before making the video there was just too much stuttering and to be honest it did ruin the video for me. good comparison anyway and x plane 11 all the way.
Prepar3D is nothing more than an updated FSX. It's the same base software with a proviso by MS that it can't be sold on the open market. How's that for typical MS tactics?
P3D is sold as a full industry simulator aimed at training pilots - There is no widely available entertainment licence for it. That and I cannot afford it. :P
I bought xp11 on steam whilst on sale 1 year ago. Apart from it crashes now n then i want to add controles. I use a xbox controler and i have a midi controler for music programs. I want to use the knobs and posibly the keys. Has anyone tryed this setup? Total noob at flight sims. Thanks
I disagree with the "aircraft quality" selection. FSW only totes simple aircraft in comparison to X-Plane's attempt at default airliners. I would have given that check mark to X-Plane because there seems to be more happening under the hood with that sim. Also, "sim stability" was a poor choice of words because it indicates a discussion of the likelihood of crashes and instabilities within the code... instead, you talked about sim performance, which is considerably different. Please try a less confusing approach next time :).
X-Plane Aviation but how about if I want a simulator with a wide variety of extremely realistic aircraft with near-real system depth. You have to consider everything and that is just an opinion based on preference. Don't get me wrong, X-Plane is pretty good though
I chose not to include P3D v4 as with these comparisons all three simulators are aimed at the entertainment market which P3D does not fit under, only selling as a commercial, high fidelity simulator with the aim of training new pilots. That and I cannot afford it. 😂
The p3dv4 Academy version is quite cheap - it's the price of your typical AAA game title and has all the features of pro, only it says 'Academy' in the top right in small letters..
If you can work on better diction and less stuttering/corrections in your narration, you're sure to reel in more subscribers, and your videos will be of much higher quality! Otherwise, nice comparison, X-Plane is on fleek
Yeah, for some reason I could barely talk when I recorded this video! Was about to go on holiday however meaning I had very little time to do anything else. Otherwise glad you enjoyed the comparison, X-Plane is definitly starting to pull away but we can always wait and see what Dovetail Games have got in store for us.
Your dreams are as bad as your verbal skills. Dovetail is no contender against X-Plane and never will be. X-Plane is for the serious flight simmers who are looking for realism. FSW is for the children who think it's flight dynamics are authentic. I can't imagine FSW being used by training schools to teach people the basics of flying, but X-Plane has doing it for some time. I believe there's even a large Air Force using X-Plane to train their recruits. And why not? What percentage of switches, gauges and buttons are usable in FSW? Now check out X-Plane. FSW will be popular with those pretending to be a pilot, X-Plane will be popular with those wanting to be a pilot. How many planes do you get with FSW? I think I got 6 with my copy. I've lost count with X-Plane, possibly up around 500 and I've never paid extra for one of them. Although I must admit it's a bummer having to upgrade them all when XP11 came out, and some of them can't be upgraded. I recall my first flight on FSW, I chose Sydney Australia, over which I've flown many times in real planes. They can't even put the Harbour Bridge or the Opera House in the correct places. I spent a month studying the Sydney skyline from the 10th floor of a hospital and FSW's attempt is a joke. X-Plane is much closer to realism. So let the kiddies play with FSW whilst us adults use the closest thing to reality, X-Plane 11. I'll bet that'll stir the millennials up.
You probably wear a Captains hat while playing your Xplane game. Oh so realistic! FSW is awesome, get over it. This is a niche genre and any new sim is welcome. Ditch the snottiness (unfortunately this is common with many simmers, plane spotters etc)
"On fleek": "A word used by those intent on decimating the English language, and further depleting the ever dwindling repository of individuals capable of intellectual conversation." and "An annoying term used by annoying teenagers (see middleschoolers) meant to be "on point"."
It sure looks like it, initially I was a bit disappointed because it looked so similar to FSX which I've been playing for nearly a decade. Hopefully airliners will be brought in soon!
Airlines will come further into development, but it is unknown whether they will be standard or DLC as Dovetail Games do want third party companies to make them.
FSX Specially FSX Steam is much better than P3DV4. More realistic airports, a ton of addons and accu feel etc..... always works. X- plane and P3Dv4 is for snobs, and what they say about the flying effects is not true as You know if You are a real pilot.?
Not sure what this comparison is meant to bring, as FSX is a simulator as opposed to a game? And FSW with Battlefield 1, then graphically BF1 is much better, and still don't know what else to compare it too!
I flew C185s in PNG for a living and all I want now is a Flight Sim that will simulate VFR flying in realistic scenery. I have very little interest in 'Heavies' - boring!
So you think that, as I do, X-Plane 11 leads in the key areas. All it needs is for developers to get behind it and the range of aircraft and customizability will not remain 'problem' areas for too long. X-Plane 11 is the only sensible way to go in the future. Do you know that even where I live in rural France you can actually follow the road networks with their traffic because they are so accurate. And as a FS scenery designer who gave up on FSX because it had so many bugs, I'm back building scenery for X-Plane using Sketchup for object design (free) and World Editor that comes free with X-Plane. Something you didn't cover - FSX doesn't allow sloping airfields. Does FSW? I bet not. X-Plane does. The only thing is that X-Plane doesn't allow seasonability but my bet is that it will come. Just my two-pennorth.
X-Plane 11 uses open street map data, why your local village roads will be visible. FSX uses ground class which uses default determined 'satellite' images on a grid which determines what kind of ground is above it. As long as this map has it, X-Plane will show it. www.openstreetmap.org/
Tim, where I live (retired in rural Dordogne) X-Plane 11 'out of the box' shows small towns and villages in the correct locations where FSX just has open countryside populated with 'American' type water towers and grain silos that don't exist in this part of the world. Also, the roads that connect them, all with moving traffic, are amazingly accurate, albeit with a few small errors eg due to terrain elevation differences. FSX 'roads' are empty and don't go anywhere. X-Plane trees even in open country are for the most part 3D whereas FSX 'represents' them using out of focus 'blobby' flat images. Yes, I used to be a big fan of FSX until they screwed it up reintroducing bugs in SP2 that they had eliminated in SP1 (eg London river Thames rapids, no seasonality for 3rd party tree add ons) but on balance I think that X-Plane is now the way to go even though it isn't there yet and has a way to go (eg ATC and AI traffic). Its game engine is also far more developed meaning that even modest CPUs can run it in high detail with good FPS but what it does now need is for developers to get behind it because then it will really take off, if you'll forgive the pun.
I can't argue that "Out of the box" FSX is at best , basic. But it was always a different animal . FSX etc have always relied heavily on third party add ons and it is , after all, 11 years old. I stay with it because it works on my hardware (at last, after many years of updating to get the damn thing to work). I am really looking forward to FSW catching up. It has all the capabilities of a stunning Flight Sim. ... here's hoping.😊
I recall my first and last attempt at FSX. I thought I'd try out one of their small airstrips, just outside a little town in Australia. Firstly it wasn't anywhere near where it should be, the town of 2,000 had about 5 houses and the airstrip (sealed) was dirt with trees growing all over it. So much for realism. I still have the original disks with a pile of addons in pristine condition, mainly because I have no intention of ever installing it again, once was more than enough. I was rather taken with how the planes managed to sail through buildings and trees, or bury itself in the ground whenever it felt like it. Prepar3D at least managed to sort out many of it's failings, even if it's not allowed to be sold to the general public.
Sorry but FSX/P3D or XPlane-11 have much better aircraft than FSW, just check out A2A, PMDG, REP and others. And if add-ons don't count, then it's a pointless comparison since those sims are DLC-based (target something like a 200$-sim comparison or something like that).
You claim that when not comparing add-on aircraft the video "doesn't count" when in reality I've seen a fair few complaints from people in other videos that they are comparing modded simulators which defeat the point of their video. This was mainly to cater to these people.
The fact is when people make their decision on a new sim, they compare the new sim to what they have now, not what they had 10 years ago. So comparing by default is really not relevant, especially for FSX/P3D
"when people make their decision on a new sim, they compare the new sim to what they have now" FSX still has a healthy 5,000 players DAILY on Steam, numerous more have it on disk. The simulator may be 10 years old, but in terms of active players is the most popular, shadowing over X-Plane 11's 1,000 daily players. steamdb.info/app/314160/ steamdb.info/app/269950/
People make their decision based on the type of experience they can get, nobody will keep the default sim without any DLC for long because it's doesn't bring much in terms of quality, especially FSX since it's older. Now of course there are some videos with a huge amount of expensive add-ons, which is probably as extreme as no add-on at all and which caused the comments you mentioned. Also, DLC is what makes a sim survive in the long term, so it's a very relevant part of any comparison. FSW, should they survive in spite of their weird 3rd-party policy, will only last if others bring quality add-ons to the stock basic aircraft and scenery.
The truth is that only a few people buy a FS just "for fun", and not adding content. For a lot of users, it's things like flight controls and flight systems realism, real world flight directors, etc. Whats the point of doing a review that addresses the curiosity of maybe 25% of flight sim users?
You say that, I did a video in the past comparing each simulator with mods. The comments were full of people telling me that with mods it defeated the point of a comparison.......... What do you people want from me! 😂
No, COME ON, FSX is so ancient and with over 4000 broken codes (bugs) as well as never finished, plus only 32bit, and only good in DX9, the DX10 patches are not that great. Even if it was re-released via DTG as FSX:SE. And what REAL Virtual Aviationist would run a SIM controlled by STEAM!!!! The majority of addons/plugins/scenery/weather are so up to date and able to be used in the latest SIM's that FSX is now truly an extinct dodo long past it's sell by date and retirement age. It would have been better to test an up to date SIM that replaces FSX such as Prepar3D v4.0 64bit, even P3D v3.0 is better at 32bit, to see how modernising the code by a really big player Lockheed Martin, to see where FSX COULD have been. I have had them all and used with good fun over the past 20+ years (Been in I.T. for 42+ years, and my own business since 2012), but there is always the right time to remove and forget very old software and move on. For me personally having used all mentioned here and others, I must concede X-Plane 11 is the one that stands out natively, or with all of the best addons available, with P3D v4.0 and DCS 1.5 and 2.0 a close second (toss up between the two, I love the complex aircraft of DCS, almost at study level for the aircraft addons).
Matthew Thomas Visually, maybe in some cases, but it doesn't take a pilot to know that the flight dynamics simply are not as good as X-Plane. This is practically irrefutable.
This video is very Biased towards xplane, fsw obviously has much better scenery, and also xplane 11 has the worst flight dynamics, and I believe that fsw has the best flight dynamics, how can you even compare the flight dynamics when you’ve obviously never actually flown a plane before........
FSX was released at a time when multi core CPU's and the code libarys were in their infancy and most people were using single core processors. This is mainly why FSX uses a single core. Also, FSX does not use the GPU? Where did you hear that rubbish from? FSX absoloutly uses your GPU. You are getting confused because modern flight simulators excluding FSX, can now use the GPU to perform additional non graphical compute tasks, alongside the graphical tasks. You should really do your research properly before putting out videos. The workload is delegated between the CPU and GPU in ALL THREE simulators, it is just newer ones can now use the GPU for non graphical tasks. This technology was not available when FSX was released. Flight Sim World is also built upon the FSX engine. This can be seen in your video as on both simulators you can see one core maxed out. It is because FSW and FSX are the same simulator, just with FSW having newer high level improvements. The low level workings on the simulator do not seem to have changed since FSX though, as FSW is still maxing out a single CPU core. If you get a programme like MSI Afterburner, configure the on screen display with the right parameters and launch FSX. You will see your GPU usage in real time. You will also see that FSX is using the GPU to render the game. Like what a GPU is used for, for literally any other 3D game or simulator that has been released in at least the last 17 years.
I'm running XP11 with no probs on an 8 year old CPU. I bought a new graphics card about a year and a half ago, GTX960. I don't overdo any of the settings, but can run comfortably at about 30 fps with hires Ortho-scenery. Unless I load a plane from Carenado, of course. Then my frame rate disappears like a pizza on a weight watcher's convention.
thanks this is basically giving me a better idea that i should stick to FSX and save up for Xplane 11.. i was going to go FSW but didnt realise its the same stupid engine
First of all I couldn’t continue to watch due to the pure amounts of stutter. For real just write down a freaking script and read it. Second when comparing with the crashes, fsx is 10 years old which means it was built to run on a old pc, if the game crashes then your pc in my opinion is really bad, because most desktops like what I run my fsx off of can candle it just fine. Third, once again when comparing an old game to newer game, if that old game is so popular that it’s been the best sim for a good amount of time then it’s not fair to really dis once again on an old freaking game dissing on it doesn’t help anything.
great video. But please... articulate your words a little more. Your flow is really hard to follow. You rush your sentences, up until the end of it where you say the final word or two super slowly. For people who aren't native speakers, it's a pain in the ass to follow what you are saying. Words are great. Saying them all properly and fully is better. Also, customization isn't just aircraft, but scenery also. In xplane 11 you are able to create your own (up to date) custom mesh and road network/houses and stuff overlay with some ease. You can't do that on the other sims so much. Why wasn't this taken on board when judging that category? Let's not also forget the TROVES of user made, near payware quality aircraft that xplane has to it's name. FSW also has really bad multicore usage, hammering a single core much more than any other whereas xplane spreads the load and makes use of multicore processors properly. This should also have been picked up on.
This is not even a real debate. I have been a FSX user for so many years, and I used all the earlier models before. And I have what seems like billions of addons for ms flight sim. But facts are facts, and the fact is that XP11 is ten times better than either of these two other sims, and it isn't even close in any way shape or form. XP11 wins on flight dynamic's alone, but there are so many more reasons why they are better in every other category as well. Hands down, no contest!!!! XP11!!!
FSX is virtually on life support, but in my opinion is still the best sim out there right now, considering it is just $5 to pick up during a sale. The amount of addon content can make it rival X-Plane 11 and even exceed it, but only if you are willing to invest in some good addons. It will remain viable for at least the next couple years, but it is definite that in the near future, the X-Plane games are going to dominate flight simulation due to their newer code and rapidly growing community... Unless Flight Sim World has something to say about it.
John Calvin Hall - That makes about as much sense as comparing a Honda Civic to an F1 racer. One is meant for consumer use and the other for professionals in a certain environment. Adding Prepar3d to this list would make absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
Narration...I can't understand a word this guy is saying. Its absolutely terrible. I've always loved the beautiful english accent and I am disheartened as to how, so often, the younger generation of British speakers totally destroy the classic aristocratic British enunciation.
Yet another excuse for poor verbal skills. Being HALF anything makes no difference to an accent such as yours. I did have the thought "he's gay" though. It's not an accent I'm familiar with although I'm certain I've come across someone with a similar accent, but without the Gay inflections. And let's face it, gays do manage to end up with their own particular accent. How or why they manage to do this I haven't a clue, it's not something I pretend to understand. But line 20 males up with one of them being gay and simply by listening to their "accent" they are easy to pick. A young guy used to come into my shop years ago, he moved elsewhere, but returned two years later and he'd completely changed the way he spoke, he "turned" Gay 6 months after leaving. I'm not "poofter" bashing as they call it in Australia, I'm simply curious as to why their voices change when coming out.
they all look crappy. ground never done correct. they only do planes and sky. fsw is fsx and same planes works if do it yourself. fsw trying everyone pay planes again what they allready purchase to fsx. and its still develop even fsx allready was final and they use that code lol. what they doing is using fsx and add own plugins lol my predict is fsw stay as it is we bought it with these planes, but when they ready release full game with airliners it will be new game FSW PRO and 59.99-99.99 maybe get sale if have bought. how many early acces games have changed full copy?
Nice tailstrike with that pmdg airplane
Thanks! ❤️😂
FSX Has never crashed on me lol
me neither!!
SACK OF LIES!
lol same. It runs the smoothest for me and for years I used it on my laptop without issue. When I tried FSW on the same laptop it could barely run.
maybe on steam but the original version is a crashy pos
@@lucywucyyy You can add uiautomationcore.dll and it will reduce crashing
A really excellent job, Drawyah! Covered the bases with just enough detail for your conclusions. XP-11 looks good and flies well - only mission building is missing. I hope DTG develop FSW to rival XP - but it'll be an uphill struggle...
Glad you found the video useful! I too would like to see FSW rival X-Plane more, but at this point in time is still has a long way to go. Since release, Dovetail Games has released an update EVERY Thursday, so they are definitely heading in the right direction!
I experimented with xplane and wasn't impressed with the flight dynamics when throttling back to idle in a Cessna. The plane went nose down, even though I had more than enough speed to maintain attitude. Source: am pilot
Oh really? I've not generally heard to much criticism about the X-Plane flight dynamics! Which simulator would you recommend?
Drawyah Games I don't have enough experience to suggest alternatives to FSX. I like asca+as16 w/ ftx global to improve realism in fsx and find the flight dynamics consistent with real world. At least small planes, which I am familiar with. I found xplane really good for scenery but didn't like the 3d cockpit experience using trackir...too floaty. I like to have my view react similarly to the real world. FSX isn't perfect but better than xplane. I am looking forward to FSW when it's more mature.
like to ride
I can agree about the view and what not in XP but I simply can't agree about the FSX flight dynamics. I know you are a pilot but I haven't found the same feel as you. I encourage you to purchase an add on for X-Plane called "AirFoilLabs Cessna 172p". It is dedicated Cessna 172 simulation for X-Plane. If you purchase it, please tell me what you think!
I have to agree. FSX (if you have the Cash to sink into it) can be made into a very competitive rival to xplane and P3D. I've never had bad experience with Xplane, but I never had a smooth or enjoyable one either. The UI and menus on 10 was a mess and some of the design choices were questionable such as ATC being pretty much nonexistant and the way the game handles AI traffic. I'm not going to comment on flight models because its been some time since I've played either recently. Although I felt that accufeel (for FSX, FSW has it already?) really added a big amount of realism to FSX. Feels a LOT more like it does IRL. Accufeel really shines when you're trying to land in gusting winds or high turbulence. Really feels good in a realism sense.
+Robin Coe Unpopular opinion: I refunded X-Plane 11 for the exact same reasons that you said. I didn't like the 3D cockpit experience in X-Plane 11 at all... also I found a lot of graphical glitches (even more than FSX vanilla)
I've had FSX Acceleration since it was released (10/23/2007) and it was 10 days after my birthday (10/13). Now it's 2020 and I still play FSX here and there, but now comes FSW and Xplane 11. I would definitely try FSW and Xplane 11 if steam had a trail of 30 days before the full purchase.
X-Plane has a free demo on their website, it's worth a download regardless! Unfortunately for Flight Sim World, it is now discontinued in Beta. Now that Microsoft have regained the rights for flight simulator from Dovetail Games, the game will likely never see an update again, which is a shame, the clouds especially were sublime!
When he shows all three games side by side and shows the ground effects, I can't understand that he thinks xplane11 looks better than fsw. Fsw looks amazing! Am I the only one that really think that? The other two looks nothing like it at all. What am I missing?
Based on the fact that X-Plane 11 uses Open Street Map data within its globe to accurately portray real streets and buildings which FSX and FSW do not. Unless you get some sort of VFR Scenery, you won't be flying over your house anytime soon! Likewise at high altitude, ground class can look like a checkerboard which doesn't always look great.
There are add-ons for both simulators however that vastly improve on this.
I guess it comes down to personal preference. I personally dislike how the scenery in XPlane has looked. It always seems boring, bland, blurry and flat looking. Accurate as it may be, I'd rather have the odd 2d house on the ground texture and have it looks more visually appealing. FSW in my opinion is the most accurate "feel" in terms of shadows, scale, and color (many sims and games, Warthunder does it the worst, scale scenery too big or too small in comparison to real life sizes). At 5:45 its an accidental comparison side shot of FSW and Xplane11 and you can see the dramatic difference in the scenery.
FSW looks like crap honestly. Can't compare to XP11. Try to fly over your city in FSW and find the place where you live. Good luck.
The thing is, to me that's nothing but a novelty. Its cool, but in the long run its more about the overall bigger picture, literally. The accuracy of where my forgettable house is located is small stuff compared to the overall quality of the scenery itself at altitude. Again, I never said XP11 was bad. I said its not my personal preference.
So you don't care about quality then. Any scenery would do it for you, it could be new york instead of paris and you wouldn't notice and would be happy.
I'm a long time fan and user of FSX. At the moment my rig barely runs FSX. However, hopefully sooner than later I'll be able to run FSW and XP11 with my $1800USD rig. Then I'll feel confident in offering solid unbiased opinions relative to the current flight sims in comparison. Thanks for the great video sir. Your video and commentary were fine.... PEACE! ☮️
Let me say this. I've been flight simming for 23 years. Started out with msfs 4.0. I have purchased and flown fsx, fsw and most recently x plane 11. Fsw angered me tremendously as it was such a disappointment and in my opinion a backwards step. I was blown away by x plane 11 because of the scenery. But let me say I keep going back go fsx. Mainly because of its versatility. You should have added 3 more categories: atc, ai traffic and weather generation. Or lump them into one category called REALISM. This is where fsx blows them all out of the water. From the start ms listened to the wishes of simmers and delivered what they asked for. That was mainly in he area of realism. In the last 10 years simmers have been clamouring about performance/stability/frame rates and aircraft realism because of the work of carenado, PMDG and the like. Sim makers have played into that demand and left realism totally behind. I am appalled at the atc, ai traffic and weather in both fsw and x plane 11. There were no improvements there from fsx but rather huge steps backwards. You would have thought both of these sims would have advanced what fsx already had on the table and given us things like the ability to declare an emergency with emergency vehicles etc. SIDS/STARS & airways. Ai traffic spacing. Realistic wet runways and snow on the ground with corresponding effect on aircraft ground movement. Ground handling services. Although x plane did make an attempt but it is still flawed. These are just a few of he obvious next steps in the simming world which just didn't happen and I am shocked and disappointed. While x plane 11 really wowed me, the atc, ai traffic and weather are appalling. Adittionally I have thousands of dollars worth of airplanes, scenery and utilities installed for fsx. To repurchase all these when they become available for x plane or fsw is just not on. That's why I will stick to fsx. I've got it set up too close to the real world at a great price to be going backwards with a new sim.
Yes, looking back I maybe should have added more comparison categories into this video, giving a more general look at each simulator and where they really shine. I will be revisiting this video when Dovetail Games officially release Flight Sim World out of early access, where I will try to go as in-depth as I possibly can with the video.
Please don't bother yourself, I'm sure you've shown us your abilities in this session. And forgetting your lame excuses about going on holiday, it was rather pathetic. It's definitely the fist time I've heard really bad verbal abilities having an excuse, albeit something I'd expect from a 6 year old. "My voice was bad because I was going on holiday" Perhaps that explains the 1,500 subscribers as well. I've seen a cat with more.
Says the person with no content in his channel and a whopping 4 subs. Good job, propfail. I mean, propfella.
Oooo! how adult of you to be able to change an ID like that, it must take a highly skilled and intelligent 3 year old to be able to do that. So not having any content on my "Channel" (I didn't realise I had a "Channel" is some mark of what exactly? That's your estimation of someone is it? For your information I've spent the past 26 years making videos for national and International TV network news rooms, why the hell would I want to put them on RUclips when I get many millions of views of my work every day?
So if anyone's "failed" it appears to be little Danny with his childish and badly skewed view of the world as he sees it. Obviously he believes having "subs" is important and his measure of success. Silly little Danny.
@@propfella well for a start your comment didn't age well as he now has 13K subs. Secondly, 26 years experience, so you admit to being an adult yet post like some angry little teenager, really, the shame of it, Drawyah was about 18 when he made this video and you try to bully him, disgusting. Looking at the discussion section on your channel also shows that you're a bit of a troll by some of the comments that have been left there over the years
Very good and unbiased comparison in my opinion! Clearly you did your homework. :-) Also, competition is of benefit for all flight simmers.
Glad you enjoyed the video, also can't wait to see what else is in store for the flight simulator community!
For me it's all about the flight model. X-Plane makes it easy to prototype aircraft for real life production. If it doesn't work in X-Plane, it will NOT work in real life. It would be foolish of me to say that there aren't any limitations. An aircraft working in X-Plane does NOT necessarily mean it will work in real life.
I think it depends what you are doing, if you flying around VFR in a piston airplane, then I'd say XP11, if you want to fly an airliner and be 'as real as it gets' you can't beat the addon aircraft produced for FSX which more or less only use FSX as a graphics generator and are simulations in of themselves. Also Activesky Next blows anything else out of the water as far as clouds go and it's also for FSX.
The problem with fax is all of the planes fly on rails. When you touch the ground, the single bogey planes look like they are landing on rocks as if they have no suspension. in X-Plane 11, I am able to realistically grease my landings with the gear moving instead of being rock solid.
i never had FSX crash at me randomally tbh,
on a Dual Core processor in 2006 - 2009
or on my current quad core processor from 2011 - 2017
so idk what you are talking about when it comes to "fsx crashes a lot on processors because it was designed for only one core processors"
the only times FSX crashed on me were when i used corrupted plane add ons or terrain add ons, or whenever i was on an online server with too many people next to me (more than 20) altho i'd blame my ram for that (4GB at 2006-2008, 6GB at 2008-2011, 14GB at 2011-2015, 24GB at 2015-now)
Exactly!
HoLDoN4Sec Seems you have no idea of VAS on 32bit apps, got NOTHING to do with how many CPU cores or hyperthreads available, nor tons of physical RAM installed, and possibly you not having or using intense high poly addon aircraft and airports.
Do yourself a favour, and get a high poly model like PMDG, along with FTX ORBX, Megascenery, Aerosoft etc. scenery and airports. Then add a good weather engine, such as Active Sky, Opus, FSXWX etc. then run all this on your current 24GB system. You'll be lucky to reach two hours of use before you get a CTD (Crash To Desktop) or OOM (Out Of Memory).
You could have 64GB of installed RAM today, with a full 64bit O/S such as W7, W8/8.1 and W10, and you would still kill your VAS, as FSX is 32bit, limited to 3.2GB of Physical RAM, and 4GB of VAS. And there-in is the problem, along with a decade of buggy code, unfinished and unfixed.
At least Prepar3D, since v2.0 and progressing through to end of v3.0 cycle, were improving the old FSX code with less VAS issues, but it still could crash. P3D v4.0 with 64bit has now overcome the VAS issue limit of 4GB.
FSX SE rarely, if ever, crashes on me, and has crashed less than 5 times in the total 400+ hours I've played it (that being said, while I do have some addons installed and am usually running a browser and extra software while playing, I don't have any insane payware software).
On the flip side, I played X-Plane 11 tonight, and I had it crash TWICE within an hour. I think it had something to do with the fact that I was recording, and turning the resolution down temporarily fixed the problem (I returned it to normal after the flight).
I will admit, on a technical level, X-Plane 11 is far superior, but I am still more familiar with FSX. Both are good sims in 2017 though, FSX is great for getting into it and is the current king in terms of community support, but X-Plane has a far longer life ahead of it. Flight Sim World still has yet to show its potential, but I think it could be up there one day if DTG is willing to put in the effort.
this video is made by a X-Plane fan and he is very negative about FSX... he also uses the Vanila version while in the last 10 years so many addons make FSX still compatible with any other sim... says scenery of X-Plane is better than FSW... hahahahaha.... flight dynamics of X-Plane 11 better? hahahaha.... many seasoned real world pilots are complaining about X-Plane 11.... I dont know or this guy has ever flown a real aeroplane, then he would know where we speak about... I see that many times, simmers who flying around with a computer game and think they know everything about flying.... even trying to correct professional pilots... yucks
and indeed in the all the years my FSX has NEVER CRASHED.... NEVER & NEVER!!! Some crashes happens because some addons are corrupt but that is what u have to test out before u start a real flight with it...
and one core is pure nonsense indeed, it works with no problem on my quad core processor too without any crash....
and he forgets the multiplayer or the other famour FSIM P3D in this 'test'....
Theodorus, you need to get your opinion aligned with facts when you quote certain inaccuracies about X-Plane, and your use of FSX over it. As usual there are many so-called wannabe's pushing their opinion as fact about various SIM's. I have used many going back to 1992, in my total 42 year IT career to date, starting in 1976, and now my own business, and I cannot stand the bun fights of those that THINK they know it all.
So I am going to challenge your input with facts here as I Googled them. You can take all SIM's installed as 'Vanilla' and X-Plane scenery trounces them all, as it has the most accurate and/or plausable scenery base. Your quote of XP flight dynamics being poor or bad, whatever your laughter was meaning, as well as your totally inaccurate quote, and I quote you "many seasoned real world pilots are complaining about X-Plane 11" unquote is totally out of whack. Here is some testimonials I found by just Googling Professional Pilots and X-Plane, not even just version 11. There was plenty more links I could post here. And amongst them a captain of a European airline, Jan Vogel, both a link of his testimonial and one of many RUclips videos he makes using X-Plane, never mind Aerospace engineers included as well.
www.x-plane.com/desktop/for-pilots/
www.x-plane.com/testimonial/brian-lewis/
www.x-plane.com/testimonial/jan-vogel/
www.x-plane.com/testimonial/tom-gielda/
www.x-plane.com/testimonial/philipp-j-muenzel/
ruclips.net/video/QQlz5itiCH0/видео.html
I could go on supplying links to factual real world pilots and their positive notes about any version of X-Plane, it's most accurate flight dynamics and use, right up to X-Plane 11. At least I can counter your post by supplying real world input to substantiate my reply to you.
Oh! and I held a full pilot's license myself on single and twin engine from 1986 to 1999, having to surrender it due to costs, family and then failure of some important health issues that need to be top notch to retain a license.
Without a doubt FSW is going to out do both of the others. At the moment they are still in the build . But it will rock. I am using a heavily customised 1960s themed FSX. At the moment . And in spite of its very obvious age and limitations, it is my "Goto" flight sim. But FSW is catching up rapidly. And as it grows it will definitely be the one to look for.
Interesting that you discounted the available mods and ease of applying mods to X Plane 11.
I didn't go into any detail about the ease of modding in any of the simulators, and I didn't discount anything from X-Plane 11, I just simply stated that FSX has more mods over 11 years and bigger names in payware.
Yeah I understand.
Thanks for the video and thoughts. Now that FSW is ending, it would be interesting to see the same video with Prepared v4 replacing FSW. It would be great to anticipate future versions. I like the idea of the table.
It is something I definitely want to do at some point in the future, but at this time I do not own P3D of any form, and don't have the money to buy it. That's something that will have to wait, but once I do will be something I'll be doing!
For me, when I play FSX, it almost never crashes, but the frame rate is terrible and it is insanely jumpy.
Ramon Dumlao Yup lol
A good Job. I am an FSX simmer from way back.untill, DCS arrived. I found after that i could not return to FSX because the flying was too easy.
Then i tried XP11 wow, just the same as DCS i am really sold.
It's not really fair to judge FSW, yet. Wait until the full release has been around for a year and then do the comparison again. FSX and X-Plane both have an amazing history that helps them in several categories, FSW is a noob relative to the other two.
Once Flight Sim World is fully released, I definitely will revisit this comparison style video and maybe do a full focus stream or two with it talking about what it has, what it is and where the future lies for this simulator.
If you can afford to last that long. I purchased it on Steam and only a week later I was told I'd have to pay for the next update.
why don't you comment on the shit of atc that Xplane 11 have compared to fsx
Heh, that is a comparison I definitely should have made, one clear winner! 😂
Its a simple equation :
FSX :2006 = Xplane 11 : 2016 = FSW :2017
Delete equals [FS, X, 20's]
06 = plane 11 : 16 = W : 17
Delete [ 1's]
06 = 6 = 7
Delete [ 6's]
0=7
So :
FSX : 2776
FSW: 2717
XPL : 2716
(I hope now you get it) 😈
The only thing I don’t like about X-Plane 11 is the joystick controls.I’ve been using P3D and FSX on and off and had not trouble transitioning from them 2.Laminar Research should really make X-Plane 11 more user friendly from people coming from P3D and FSX.
Wait till FSW gets out of early access and do this video again .... great video ..
Will be a few years but I definitely will do!
Drawyah Games im pretty sure it wont take that long
Main factor, what do Dovetail want to add to their simulator on release? We're meant to see a career mode, expended multiplayer, more aircraft, more scenery and more!
Nice comparison
Drawyah ..........................awesome job Sir, I have flight sim world and FSX great ! haha not enough money to buy x plane 11
Offline ATC: X-Plane is much aounger than FSX but it has the same ATC System like the FSX. Just pressing buttons in an ATC Window.
X-Plane has another huge advantage going for it, you can run it on Linux or OSX. By comparison, X-Plane runs FAR better in Linux than on Winblows. Not having an OS Elephant sitting on top of your sim helps the performance tremendously. As for those knocking the flight dynamics in X-Plane, there is a reason that for years it was the only certified sim for flight instruction. That being said, being that X-Plane does real aerofoil modeling....the way a plane flies is only as good as the model that is created for the aircraft. I have seen add-on planes that look beautifully realistic and fly like complete crap due to bad modeling in the aerofoil that underlies the visual model.
I'm from Texas and I didn't understand one word. Sorry. Still do not know which one to buy.
please just write what you want to say before making the video there was just too much stuttering and to be honest it did ruin the video for me. good comparison anyway and x plane 11 all the way.
Eh, I had a script, I just hadn't slept in around 22 hours before recording this as I was going on holiday a few hours after recording this. 😅
Drawyah still a good video
There are better sims then FSX but because i've spent so much money on FSX im staying with FSX
Why are you comparing FSX to these? You could compare Prepar3d considering that it's in the same position as x-plane and fsw.
Prepar3D is nothing more than an updated FSX. It's the same base software with a proviso by MS that it can't be sold on the open market. How's that for typical MS tactics?
No one was ever locked out of mods for FSW.
for extreme realism, and single player, you should compare X-plane, FSW, and P3D, FSX vs P3D for multiplayer.
P3D is sold as a full industry simulator aimed at training pilots - There is no widely available entertainment licence for it.
That and I cannot afford it. :P
@@Drawyah you can't afford it? Xplane has a very similar price to P3D
I have since bought X-Plane, a new comparison video is on the way. 😌
@@Drawyah 👍
I'm sticking with ZX81 Flight sim as old school
Overall I love xp11..but put on oculus rift and W O W !😆 FSW is looking good and am looking forward to its beetah☺version being finished
Hmmmmm I’m from 2021, it got canceled....
I bought xp11 on steam whilst on sale 1 year ago. Apart from it crashes now n then i want to add controles. I use a xbox controler and i have a midi controler for music programs. I want to use the knobs and posibly the keys. Has anyone tryed this setup? Total noob at flight sims. Thanks
I had a really hard time understanding this. Kept looking for a subtitles button.
Yeah, I wonder if Siri could understand his language. :-)
Thanks... Google Home at least can understand me. 😭
You should definitely redo this video with Microsoft flight simulator 2020
Oh absolutely! Just have to wait for it to release first.
Drawyah yeah! I think it is really going to come close with x plane!
@@Drawyah can you purchase it if its released for 100 bucks?
Of course! It certainly wouldn't be cheap, but MSFS 2020 looks to be the next generation of flight simulator. I'd certainly not pass that up.
@@Drawyah well your a rich one good luck for your future
what's a good joystick to get? because i'm having a hell of a time playing x-plane 11 with mouse and keyboard.
And do any of them have a VR mod?
I disagree with the "aircraft quality" selection. FSW only totes simple aircraft in comparison to X-Plane's attempt at default airliners. I would have given that check mark to X-Plane because there seems to be more happening under the hood with that sim.
Also, "sim stability" was a poor choice of words because it indicates a discussion of the likelihood of crashes and instabilities within the code... instead, you talked about sim performance, which is considerably different. Please try a less confusing approach next time :).
X-Plane is the best
Looking at your username, no bias there! :3
Yes, X-Plane is great IF you want to buy a $500 to $800 video card
Mine cost $150 and just about does the job. 😉
Get FSX, no need for a graphics card as it's all done on the processor! 😂
Cerebro Brother but I have one.
X-Plane Aviation but how about if I want a simulator with a wide variety of extremely realistic aircraft with near-real system depth. You have to consider everything and that is just an opinion based on preference. Don't get me wrong, X-Plane is pretty good though
where´s p3d v4 ?????????????????????????????
I chose not to include P3D v4 as with these comparisons all three simulators are aimed at the entertainment market which P3D does not fit under, only selling as a commercial, high fidelity simulator with the aim of training new pilots.
That and I cannot afford it. 😂
The p3dv4 Academy version is quite cheap - it's the price of your typical AAA game title and has all the features of pro, only it says 'Academy' in the top right in small letters..
I'll think about it. My budget is fairly tight at the moment, especially just coming out of college last month!
Drawyah Games it's not really worth getting a more expensive fsx... You should look into DCS as well. Quite the sim.
v4 is not a more expensive fsx anymore, it's been improved quite a lot, specially the most important improvement in v4 is that its now 64 bit.
FSW and XP11 doesn't have shits and giggles that you can see in AFP95's videos!
Zachary Legaspi So I'm not the only one here that watches AirProduct94 😂
If you can work on better diction and less stuttering/corrections in your narration, you're sure to reel in more subscribers, and your videos will be of much higher quality! Otherwise, nice comparison, X-Plane is on fleek
Yeah, for some reason I could barely talk when I recorded this video! Was about to go on holiday however meaning I had very little time to do anything else.
Otherwise glad you enjoyed the comparison, X-Plane is definitly starting to pull away but we can always wait and see what Dovetail Games have got in store for us.
Your dreams are as bad as your verbal skills. Dovetail is no contender against X-Plane and never will be. X-Plane is for the serious flight simmers who are looking for realism. FSW is for the children who think it's flight dynamics are authentic. I can't imagine FSW being used by training schools to teach people the basics of flying, but X-Plane has doing it for some time. I believe there's even a large Air Force using X-Plane to train their recruits.
And why not? What percentage of switches, gauges and buttons are usable in FSW? Now check out X-Plane. FSW will be popular with those pretending to be a pilot, X-Plane will be popular with those wanting to be a pilot. How many planes do you get with FSW? I think I got 6 with my copy. I've lost count with X-Plane, possibly up around 500 and I've never paid extra for one of them. Although I must admit it's a bummer having to upgrade them all when XP11 came out, and some of them can't be upgraded.
I recall my first flight on FSW, I chose Sydney Australia, over which I've flown many times in real planes. They can't even put the Harbour Bridge or the Opera House in the correct places. I spent a month studying the Sydney skyline from the 10th floor of a hospital and FSW's attempt is a joke. X-Plane is much closer to realism. So let the kiddies play with FSW whilst us adults use the closest thing to reality, X-Plane 11. I'll bet that'll stir the millennials up.
You probably wear a Captains hat while playing your Xplane game. Oh so realistic! FSW is awesome, get over it. This is a niche genre and any new sim is welcome. Ditch the snottiness (unfortunately this is common with many simmers, plane spotters etc)
GunnyNinja *4
"On fleek": "A word used by those intent on decimating the English language, and further depleting the ever dwindling repository of individuals capable of intellectual conversation."
and "An annoying term used by annoying teenagers (see middleschoolers) meant to be "on point"."
AEROFLY FS 2 RUNS ON MY GTX550TI SMOOTH AS BUTTER NO LAG SO FS2 FOR LIFE
You can't compare fsx with fsw and xp 11 as it is very old
Excellent video, wondering how FSW will continue to develop
Well, the integration of trueSKY last month definitely improved things! Could be a strong future for Flight Sim World.
It sure looks like it, initially I was a bit disappointed because it looked so similar to FSX which I've been playing for nearly a decade. Hopefully airliners will be brought in soon!
Airlines will come further into development, but it is unknown whether they will be standard or DLC as Dovetail Games do want third party companies to make them.
Hmm yeah, interesting times ahead
Thank you for the video tell me something how many GB are the X-plane 11
My X-Plane 11 takes up 26.5GB on the hard drive.
Turn on max settings and comapare again.
I think the scenery in FSW is better than Xplane's scenery
FSX in my heart
Can you do Lockheed Martin's P3D Vs. Xplane 11
Unfortunately I do not own P3D. I cannot afford it first of all, and I don't really need it either with FSX:SE being fine for me!
Okie.
Sick Nic you can't compare them. Two extremely different simulators. Really depends on preference
FSX Specially FSX Steam is much better than P3DV4. More realistic airports,
a ton of addons and accu feel etc..... always works.
X- plane and P3Dv4 is for snobs, and what they say about the flying effects
is not true as You know if You are a real pilot.?
I'm a real pilot (in training...), I say X-Plane physics are much better by simulating the airflow around the aircraft. 😌
If you haven't already please take some a discovery flight in a Cessna or pay for some lesson.X-PLANE 11 physics is by far more superior than FSX
Fsx is the best I mean compare it to games if it's time and the compare flight sim world to battlefield 1
Not sure what this comparison is meant to bring, as FSX is a simulator as opposed to a game? And FSW with Battlefield 1, then graphically BF1 is much better, and still don't know what else to compare it too!
X-plane 11 Is by far the winner
X plane 11 my look better but, I'm not paying $60 for a game where all the aircraft I want are over $60 as well
Would rather have FSX I like PMDG more than flight factor
i love xplane 11
I flew C185s in PNG for a living and all I want now is a Flight Sim that will simulate VFR flying in realistic scenery. I have very little interest in 'Heavies' - boring!
Games vs X Plane.
I use x plane11 p3dv4 fsw fsx and flight school
fsx because it's easy to play without needed a powerful computer
So you think that, as I do, X-Plane 11 leads in the key areas. All it needs is for developers to get behind it and the range of aircraft and customizability will not remain 'problem' areas for too long. X-Plane 11 is the only sensible way to go in the future. Do you know that even where I live in rural France you can actually follow the road networks with their traffic because they are so accurate. And as a FS scenery designer who gave up on FSX because it had so many bugs, I'm back building scenery for X-Plane using Sketchup for object design (free) and World Editor that comes free with X-Plane. Something you didn't cover - FSX doesn't allow sloping airfields. Does FSW? I bet not. X-Plane does. The only thing is that X-Plane doesn't allow seasonability but my bet is that it will come. Just my two-pennorth.
X-Plane 11 uses open street map data, why your local village roads will be visible. FSX uses ground class which uses default determined 'satellite' images on a grid which determines what kind of ground is above it. As long as this map has it, X-Plane will show it.
www.openstreetmap.org/
Real " Photographic" scenery is available for FSX as an add on. And well worth having
Tim, where I live (retired in rural Dordogne) X-Plane 11 'out of the box' shows small towns and villages in the correct locations where FSX just has open countryside populated with 'American' type water towers and grain silos that don't exist in this part of the world. Also, the roads that connect them, all with moving traffic, are amazingly accurate, albeit with a few small errors eg due to terrain elevation differences. FSX 'roads' are empty and don't go anywhere. X-Plane trees even in open country are for the most part 3D whereas FSX 'represents' them using out of focus 'blobby' flat images.
Yes, I used to be a big fan of FSX until they screwed it up reintroducing bugs in SP2 that they had eliminated in SP1 (eg London river Thames rapids, no seasonality for 3rd party tree add ons) but on balance I think that X-Plane is now the way to go even though it isn't there yet and has a way to go (eg ATC and AI traffic). Its game engine is also far more developed meaning that even modest CPUs can run it in high detail with good FPS but what it does now need is for developers to get behind it because then it will really take off, if you'll forgive the pun.
I can't argue that "Out of the box" FSX is at best , basic. But it was always a different animal . FSX etc have always relied heavily on third party add ons and it is , after all, 11 years old.
I stay with it because it works on my hardware (at last, after many years of updating to get the damn thing to work). I am really looking forward to FSW catching up. It has all the capabilities of a stunning Flight Sim. ... here's hoping.😊
I recall my first and last attempt at FSX. I thought I'd try out one of their small airstrips, just outside a little town in Australia. Firstly it wasn't anywhere near where it should be, the town of 2,000 had about 5 houses and the airstrip (sealed) was dirt with trees growing all over it. So much for realism. I still have the original disks with a pile of addons in pristine condition, mainly because I have no intention of ever installing it again, once was more than enough. I was rather taken with how the planes managed to sail through buildings and trees, or bury itself in the ground whenever it felt like it. Prepar3D at least managed to sort out many of it's failings, even if it's not allowed to be sold to the general public.
Sorry but FSX/P3D or XPlane-11 have much better aircraft than FSW, just check out A2A, PMDG, REP and others. And if add-ons don't count, then it's a pointless comparison since those sims are DLC-based (target something like a 200$-sim comparison or something like that).
You claim that when not comparing add-on aircraft the video "doesn't count" when in reality I've seen a fair few complaints from people in other videos that they are comparing modded simulators which defeat the point of their video. This was mainly to cater to these people.
The fact is when people make their decision on a new sim, they compare the new sim to what they have now, not what they had 10 years ago. So comparing by default is really not relevant, especially for FSX/P3D
"when people make their decision on a new sim, they compare the new sim to what they have now"
FSX still has a healthy 5,000 players DAILY on Steam, numerous more have it on disk. The simulator may be 10 years old, but in terms of active players is the most popular, shadowing over X-Plane 11's 1,000 daily players.
steamdb.info/app/314160/
steamdb.info/app/269950/
People make their decision based on the type of experience they can get, nobody will keep the default sim without any DLC for long because it's doesn't bring much in terms of quality, especially FSX since it's older. Now of course there are some videos with a huge amount of expensive add-ons, which is probably as extreme as no add-on at all and which caused the comments you mentioned. Also, DLC is what makes a sim survive in the long term, so it's a very relevant part of any comparison. FSW, should they survive in spite of their weird 3rd-party policy, will only last if others bring quality add-ons to the stock basic aircraft and scenery.
The truth is that only a few people buy a FS just "for fun", and not adding content. For a lot of users, it's things like flight controls and flight systems realism, real world flight directors, etc. Whats the point of doing a review that addresses the curiosity of maybe 25% of flight sim users?
You say that, I did a video in the past comparing each simulator with mods. The comments were full of people telling me that with mods it defeated the point of a comparison.......... What do you people want from me! 😂
That's true. So maybe do a video of the ten best FS mods. lol
No, COME ON, FSX is so ancient and with over 4000 broken codes (bugs) as well as never finished, plus only 32bit, and only good in DX9, the DX10 patches are not that great. Even if it was re-released via DTG as FSX:SE. And what REAL Virtual Aviationist would run a SIM controlled by STEAM!!!! The majority of addons/plugins/scenery/weather are so up to date and able to be used in the latest SIM's that FSX is now truly an extinct dodo long past it's sell by date and retirement age.
It would have been better to test an up to date SIM that replaces FSX such as Prepar3D v4.0 64bit, even P3D v3.0 is better at 32bit, to see how modernising the code by a really big player Lockheed Martin, to see where FSX COULD have been. I have had them all and used with good fun over the past 20+ years (Been in I.T. for 42+ years, and my own business since 2012), but there is always the right time to remove and forget very old software and move on.
For me personally having used all mentioned here and others, I must concede X-Plane 11 is the one that stands out natively, or with all of the best addons available, with P3D v4.0 and DCS 1.5 and 2.0 a close second (toss up between the two, I love the complex aircraft of DCS, almost at study level for the aircraft addons).
Andrew Brown But bugs make the game hilarious
Did you forget to write a script?
Nope, I just couldn't speak for shit the day I recorded this, and I was flying to Poland around 20 hours later so I had limited time to do it too. 😛
flying to Poland in real life or sim
Real life of course! If I were just flying on the simulator, I would easily have delayed that and recorded my script better... 😂
The real winner is neither. P3D is.
you use ur old voice recording again and again
Flight Sim World is the greatest
Matthew Thomas
Visually, maybe in some cases, but it doesn't take a pilot to know that the flight dynamics simply are not as good as X-Plane. This is practically irrefutable.
Dude use ur mind we all know it’s X-Plane 11! Duh.
Dude use your mind we all know it's P3D, duh
Winner is
fs2004 :D
Xp11.
Think FSX scould have been replaced with P3D v4, or added also i think FSW will not be an realistic simulator on the same level as XP11 and P3D
This video is very Biased towards xplane, fsw obviously has much better scenery, and also xplane 11 has the worst flight dynamics, and I believe that fsw has the best flight dynamics, how can you even compare the flight dynamics when you’ve obviously never actually flown a plane before........
fsw has better night envire
FSX was released at a time when multi core CPU's and the code libarys were in their infancy and most people were using single core processors. This is mainly why FSX uses a single core. Also, FSX does not use the GPU? Where did you hear that rubbish from? FSX absoloutly uses your GPU. You are getting confused because modern flight simulators excluding FSX, can now use the GPU to perform additional non graphical compute tasks, alongside the graphical tasks. You should really do your research properly before putting out videos. The workload is delegated between the CPU and GPU in ALL THREE simulators, it is just newer ones can now use the GPU for non graphical tasks. This technology was not available when FSX was released. Flight Sim World is also built upon the FSX engine. This can be seen in your video as on both simulators you can see one core maxed out. It is because FSW and FSX are the same simulator, just with FSW having newer high level improvements. The low level workings on the simulator do not seem to have changed since FSX though, as FSW is still maxing out a single CPU core.
If you get a programme like MSI Afterburner, configure the on screen display with the right parameters and launch FSX. You will see your GPU usage in real time. You will also see that FSX is using the GPU to render the game. Like what a GPU is used for, for literally any other 3D game or simulator that has been released in at least the last 17 years.
I wish I could run X-Plane 11 well but my pc cant handle it
I'm running XP11 with no probs on an 8 year old CPU. I bought a new graphics card about a year and a half ago, GTX960. I don't overdo any of the settings, but can run comfortably at about 30 fps with hires Ortho-scenery. Unless I load a plane from Carenado, of course. Then my frame rate disappears like a pizza on a weight watcher's convention.
thanks this is basically giving me a better idea that i should stick to FSX and save up for Xplane 11.. i was going to go FSW but didnt realise its the same stupid engine
First of all I couldn’t continue to watch due to the pure amounts of stutter. For real just write down a freaking script and read it. Second when comparing with the crashes, fsx is 10 years old which means it was built to run on a old pc, if the game crashes then your pc in my opinion is really bad, because most desktops like what I run my fsx off of can candle it just fine. Third, once again when comparing an old game to newer game, if that old game is so popular that it’s been the best sim for a good amount of time then it’s not fair to really dis once again on an old freaking game dissing on it doesn’t help anything.
Fsx
great video. But please... articulate your words a little more. Your flow is really hard to follow. You rush your sentences, up until the end of it where you say the final word or two super slowly. For people who aren't native speakers, it's a pain in the ass to follow what you are saying.
Words are great. Saying them all properly and fully is better.
Also, customization isn't just aircraft, but scenery also. In xplane 11 you are able to create your own (up to date) custom mesh and road network/houses and stuff overlay with some ease. You can't do that on the other sims so much. Why wasn't this taken on board when judging that category? Let's not also forget the TROVES of user made, near payware quality aircraft that xplane has to it's name. FSW also has really bad multicore usage, hammering a single core much more than any other whereas xplane spreads the load and makes use of multicore processors properly. This should also have been picked up on.
Yes, I can sometimes read a little too fast for some peoples liking, I'll definitely remember this for future videos I made!
howevah
xplane!!!
x plane is the most realistic one
This is not even a real debate. I have been a FSX user for so many years, and I used all the earlier models before. And I have what seems like billions of addons for ms flight sim. But facts are facts, and the fact is that XP11 is ten times better than either of these two other sims, and it isn't even close in any way shape or form. XP11 wins on flight dynamic's alone, but there are so many more reasons why they are better in every other category as well. Hands down, no contest!!!! XP11!!!
Never xp 11 bevore p3d
Need an English translation of this.
These comparisons have become useless and boring. Pick one or all and enjoy,
X-Plane won, But FSX is in the cut still, due to the availability to 3rd party products to enhance it
FSX is virtually on life support, but in my opinion is still the best sim out there right now, considering it is just $5 to pick up during a sale. The amount of addon content can make it rival X-Plane 11 and even exceed it, but only if you are willing to invest in some good addons. It will remain viable for at least the next couple years, but it is definite that in the near future, the X-Plane games are going to dominate flight simulation due to their newer code and rapidly growing community... Unless Flight Sim World has something to say about it.
This is a straw man. Where is Prepar3d???
The comparison was mainly based on simulators avalible with an entertainment license which P3D does not offer.
I also cannot afford it. 😛
John Calvin Hall - That makes about as much sense as comparing a Honda Civic to an F1 racer. One is meant for consumer use and the other for professionals in a certain environment. Adding Prepar3d to this list would make absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
your voice sounds like you cant be bothered to talk
That's a new one for me. 😅
DCS !!!!!
Narration...I can't understand a word this guy is saying. Its absolutely terrible. I've always loved the beautiful english accent and I am disheartened as to how, so often, the younger generation of British speakers totally destroy the classic aristocratic British enunciation.
I'm half Polish, Polish people do talk really fast so erm, sorry! 😌
Yet another excuse for poor verbal skills. Being HALF anything makes no difference to an accent such as yours. I did have the thought "he's gay" though. It's not an accent I'm familiar with although I'm certain I've come across someone with a similar accent, but without the Gay inflections. And let's face it, gays do manage to end up with their own particular accent. How or why they manage to do this I haven't a clue, it's not something I pretend to understand. But line 20 males up with one of them being gay and simply by listening to their "accent" they are easy to pick. A young guy used to come into my shop years ago, he moved elsewhere, but returned two years later and he'd completely changed the way he spoke, he "turned" Gay 6 months after leaving. I'm not "poofter" bashing as they call it in Australia, I'm simply curious as to why their voices change when coming out.
And winner is P3D xd
they all look crappy. ground never done correct. they only do planes and sky. fsw is fsx and same planes works if do it yourself. fsw trying everyone pay planes again what they allready purchase to fsx. and its still develop even fsx allready was final and they use that code lol. what they doing is using fsx and add own plugins lol my predict is fsw stay as it is we bought it with these planes, but when they ready release full game with airliners it will be new game FSW PRO and 59.99-99.99 maybe get sale if have bought. how many early acces games have changed full copy?
wow FSX really sux
I see your username doesn't add any bias! 😉😂
😛
it's 11 years old... and still competes.
Fsx