FSX vs X-Plane 10 comparison (Cessna 172 aircraft, scenery and handling). Is there a winner? 

The best description I have ever heard was to the effect of "X-Plane is a flight simulator while FSX is an airport and scenery simulator".

00:00 Flight Simulator X (Microsoft) 13:09 X-Plane 10 (Developer: Laminar Research, Publisher: Aerosoft GmbH)

FSX is also 9 years old while x-plane 10 was updated last month.

I think we have winner... DCS

As a licensed pilot. I think some of the add on aircraft that are available for FSX, and P3D which is what I fly, fly better than the available aircraft for X plane. I like to fly from one small regional airport to the other with aircraft like the Majestic Dash 8, and the scenery in X plane at many airports is really terrible. This ruins the illusion that you are really flying as far as I am concerned. I have flown all three, FSX, X plane and P3D, and the one I enjoy flying the most is P3d. and the aircraft that I have are awesome.

Why do people compare FSX with XP10? Obviously the flying dynamics are going to be better in x-plane 10. It came out 8 years After FSX. Would you compare CoD 2 with Battlefield 4? I think I have made my point.

Very well done - I have seen a lot of simmers who have attempted a review like this, but yours was the most substantive by far in my opinion. Kudos to you!

Both games have their ups and downs, I personally don't care for all these disputes between X-Plane and FSX when you can just be happy with what you get ;)

I've been an x-plane user for quite long and I think this review highlights some of the weaknesses of x-plane quite well. This is by all means a fair review. But it doesn't tell the whole story. I'd argue that technically x-plane has much more potential than fsx at this point on nearly every front. Bearing in mind that fsx is so old at this point, that is hardly an achievement and x-plane does disappoint when it comes to actually delivering that potential out of the box. You get clear hints of greatness in some parts of the sim but mediocre default aircraft, rather bland scenery, textures, and other content makes it look somewhat limited. Add to that the complex and limited ATC, rather limited AI aircraft, and a lack of any form of recognizable real world landmarks and you end up with a mixed bag. As mentioned in the review, the flight model is the key selling point. But actually the scenery rendering engine is second to none as well. It just doesn't show that well with the default out of the box content. Part of the reason is download size, then they needed to balance performance and content: a lot of improvements make the simulator less usable on older systems, but a bigger part of the reason is that Laminar the company behind x-plane, is simply very small and they simply lack the bandwidth to use for e.g. modeling every landmark, every little airport, etc. out there. Instead they focus on the core technology. Considering how few people are in their team it's actually kind of impressive what they deliver. So instead of modeling the world, they did the next best thing which is try to predict the world from various datasets. There is no auto gen scenery in x-plane, at least not at run-time. Instead the world is pregenerated from datasources like open streetmap and other geo datasets. Every house tree, etc is built into the scenery using predictive algorithms that try to randomize according to (roughly) region specific rules based on where specific types of things should be (e.g. streets should probably have buildings and street lights). The cool thing about x-plane is that it is highly extensible. It has plugins, scenery packages, planes, customizable textures, etc. and it comes with all the development tools needed to start tinkering with this. Personally, that's not for me and I expect that would be the case for many users. But I do appreciate the work that others have done with these tools. You cannot seriously review X-plane in isolation of its quite lively community of tinkering users. Sure out of the box is not great. But you can fix so much of it and it can change the experience quite dramatically and in many cases for free. I installed a handful of free addons that enormously enhance the visual looks of the sim. 1) there's hd mesh which adds an extremely detailed mesh of the world. This means better looking mountains, more accurate coastlines, rivers, lakes, forests, more finegrained landclass data, etc. It's quite clear that the x-plane guys struggled to keep the scenery to under 8 dual layer dvds. However disk is cheap and so is bandwidth. HD Mesh vastly increases the level of detail at the price of basically disk space and a bit of cpu and memory. Not for older systems but it seems to barely impact performance on my shiny new imac. Unless performance is an issue, you pretty much want this installed first thing. 2) Then from the same source there's an add on that is called farms and treelines. All it does is add treelines along roads and farms based on open streetmap. This makes for a much less random looking countryside. You'll see forests where they should be. Lines of trees along roads, etc. This is a relatively small download but it has a great impact. Also on performance unfortunately, more objects undeniably degrade the performance. These two together make the world more plausible and accurate but it still looks rather generic in many places. 3) Then there are several downloads on x-plane.org that improve the resolution of textures used for e.g. airport signage, runways, various landscape textures, clouds, etc. These mostly work as advertised and make for a less bland experience. The price is again performance: more pixels means more GPU heavy lifting is neeeded. X-plane at extreme textures is very nice to look at though. 4) Finally, most big airports in the world have downloadable scenery with buildings, and in some cases ortho scenery (i.e. photorealistic). This is a bit of a mixed bag but e.g. the San Francisco scenery combined with the hd mesh makes for a very nice upgrade for example. What these extensions do is deliver more of the technical potential that is available but not delivered upon with the default content out of the box. I find, I stick to certain areas and airports and adding scenery for those areas enhances the experience. Also, the world at 5000 feet and higher tends to look quite nice even with just the pre-generated scenery. With FSX there are excellent scenery packages of course. It's the key selling point. These make the most of what FSX can do but at this point the reality is that FSX is designed for hardware that is eight years old and is quite limited in many ways (e.g. utilzing mutli core systems, addressing more than 4GB). It's not going to get better either: the development team no longer exists. X-plane has much more technical potential and no doubt a lot of scenery developers will start targeting x-plane as the FSX userbase becomes smaller. Technically most scenery developers would be able to do a much better job in x-plane and make it look better, have more objects, better lighting, higher resolution textures, etc. But the reality right now is that x-plane has a lack of good content that shows off these capabilities, especially out of the box. Time will fix this, no doubt and if you dig around there is some really good payware out there.

Use both sims but they aren't perfect.Looking forward to see what X-PLANE 11 will bring!!!

The way you phrase words, And the narrating voice you got, is just marvelous !

Loved this video can't believe you only have 150 views when you deserve A LOT more! Cheers for the help

Okay as an X-Plane lover what I would say is that X-Plane is better but the two simulators do different things better than each other. Firstly X-Plane's physics are just plain better than FSX, if you are looking for the best simulator to actually simulate aircraft, well go for X-Plane. Secondly FSX has far more content (aircraft scenery plugins and so on) and I believe it is cheaper also. FSX graphics wise is not so good out of the box, and X-Plane is a bit better in this respect but also FSX does have recognisable landmarks unlike X-Plane. So if your stuck deciding what sim is better for you I hope this helps, I have tried to give two sided view her so just because I like X-Plane more doesn't mean that I don't recommend it to you because FSX is better for casual simers and X-Plane is better for training pilots or hardcore simulator fans

Mohad Ali, I can't answer you directly. Technically, you can use a a mouse or keyboard to control both, but I personally wouldn't recommend it. I would always suggest a joystick, no matter how basic.

Thanks for the analysis! FYI: TinMan Systems will be doing a comparison of the real-time flight/sensors data that each makes available via UDP. We have already shown an integration video with X-Plane 10 and our RealTime data visualization app.

Great job, beautiful language, very useful. I appreciate your remarks about the long delays concerning the loadings. Something that is not really an issue with FSX.

FIRST OFF: LONG LIVE THE SIM-HEADS! NOBODY WILL READ THIS, BUT: I know this sounds odd, but I feel as though FSX has 'peaked' a second time. It peaked when it was new.... but now, Now, FSX can be easily found online, there are hundreds and hundreds of different servers - all of which utilize different playing styles - some more realistic, some more for fun. I'm seeing entirely NEW communities dedicated to FSX pop up in the last few years - i'm seeing more addon planes than ever, a lot of which are completely free..... I'm seeing actual developer groups coming together to make new flight models, really badass high-def environments, clouds, textures... In the last few years, i've seen FSX pulled out of the past and upgraded by communities to fit in with today's demands. TECHNICALLY, FSX IS THE INDUSTRY STANDARD TO THIS DAY. Currently, my FSX setup looks just about as good as the xplane 10 footage in this video, with HD texture packs, cloud packs, ETC. I know SEVERAL real pilots who SWEAR by FSX. I know ACTUAL pilots that play flight sim also, and they all choose FSX because it feels more like real life than other simulators. XPLANE flys like grand theft auto. Also, most of the full-motion flight simulator setups were built on FSX technology, and would have to be replaced completely to switch to a new flight simulator.... AND SO FAR, nothing that any of the 'new' flight simulators offer are enough of a reason to replace what is currently being used. They're just 'a tiny bit better', which does not justify switching to the new stuff, when the old stuff has been around long enough to where it can be extremely customized for different schools, plane manufactures, etc. SO, BASICALLY: these new flight simulators are going to have to stick around for at least a decade for them to start being the new 'standards'. At least with FSX, a plane manufacture can make its own addon plane for fsx to match the planes they build - if you try to do that with xplane, you will end up having to pay xplane money for the permission to make addons for their program. OH! THATS RIGHT! ...... if you're going the x-plane route, have fun spending TONS OF MONEY on new planes, scenery, addons, ETC. SURE, FSX has been around awhile, but with a handful of addons, you can bring it up to today's standards. Not to mention the LITERALLY THOUSANDS of FREELY downloadable, usable airplanes, scenery, etc... and also, the hundreds and hundreds of server options to play on. With a program that can be OPENLY changed as much as FSX can, why would it ever become obsolete? We can re-texture, we can change flight models, we can edit how the weather works.... This means it's a better choice for flight schools, as they can be customized SPECIFICALLY for the conditions and aircraft they're teaching about. A flight school in hawaii using FSX will be different than the copy of FSX running in a flight school in London. If they use xplane, it will be the same program everywhere. You will have to just trust the developers and cross your fingers that they include features required for your specific school. DON'T GET ME WRONG THOUGH! Xplane 10 is great..... xplane 11 looks fantastic..... but they feel more like games than simulators....which is fantastic for some people, maybe even a good introduction to simulators. SOOOO, Yeah, I'm still sticking with FSX, sorry. The flight dynamics in FSX are extremely realistic, the absolutely INSANELY HUGE amount of both free and paid ad-on stuff is unmatched. If you travel at all via plane, chances are, you've been in the hands of pilots who learned to fly with FSX. Too bad nobody will ever have the sourcecode for FSX - because if they did, they could make the best flight simulator the world's ever seen by using the FSX flight dynamics and physics engine, and a more technologically advanced graphics engine. Multiplatform native binaries would be cool, too (fsx native on linux, yay). SOOO, YEAH. all of them are fantastic, but FSX is the way to go. Prepare 3D is really nice - its just a newer, updated version of FSX that Boeing made (i think) for training Boeing pilots. However, Prepare3D is INCREDIBLY hard on video equipment, even though the graphics are BARELY better than regular FSX. Get FSX, go to rikoooo.com and get their free HD clouds, and hd textures pack. They also have photo-realistic scenery for airports... so if there is a particular area you enjoy flying in a lot, you can download that photo realistic scenere. ANYWHO i spent way too long typing this shit, nobody will read it. Thats my opinion though.

the reason for the many control-options is the same reason, why x-plane has aaf license and fsx not

Thank you for the review, great effort! However, I think comparing FSX out of the box as released in 2006 to X-Plane 10 in a 2014 version is not fair. It would be fairer in my view to use FSX with 2014 state-of-the-art addons (such as the A2A Cessna 172 with AccuSim and at least ORBX FTX Global + Vector) - otherwise the comparison completely denies FSX to reflect the technological progress made, while severla X-Plane releases since 2006 were able to incorporate it.

Thanks for a clear and functional review. Very helpful.

LittleRatGaming, I can't reply directly to your post so I'll answer your questions here. I use a Warthog stick and throttles because they give very good accuracy for me. I'm flying at Innsbruck in this video. I fly what you see, I haven't downloaded many X-Plane add ons. I do have the 757 Professional and Diamond DA42 which I will be looking at soon. X-Plane 10 does not have auto-coordination like FSX so you need some sort of rudder control for yaw (even more so with propeller aircraft due to the prop slipstream). Keyboard is a nightmare so a twist grip throttle or rudder pedals are essential in my opinion.

FSX was released in 2006 and is 14gb. Xplane 10 was released in 2011 and is 86gb. Compare that.

Really interesting to see the difference between the two sims.

The gauges are brightly lit because the instrument light rheostat is on by default. When you turn off the instrument lights the colors are more realistic.

20:20 I use a PS3 controller. I know it is not the best joystick for a flight sim, but I can do the rudder thing with the right joystick of the controller. And also plenty of buttons to assign functions to (trimming, throttle, etc). I can't imagine flying in X-Plane with anything else.

I must say, I am very pleased with this comparison. I am a long-time user of FSX and used to have an early X-Plane many years ago but after far-too regular problems with FSX I am looking seriously at X-Plane 10, and this video clip has helped me further along the road to a decision.Thank You.

Both Sims have there Pros & Cons.. I have both, and I enjoy flying Both.....for different reasons. If your a true Flight Simmer..... you will love both! its a matter of personal choice, and your skill level. go get both... happy flying and great job on the video

I'm a total XP guy, my biggest complaint towards FSX is the jittery (low refresh rate) instruments. The flight model leaves quite a bit to be desired... but *MY GOD* is it pretty. Like, I'm pretty sure most of the stuff out there for FSX wouldn't wipe its own arse with content that's considered payware quality in XPlane. I wish there was a way to take the flight model from X-plane and plop it into FSX.

It is so funny how most of the nosewheels in FSX are flat (or sunk into the runway). Never have really understood that but it is something I look for with each tricycle-geared airplane I fly in FSX. Unfortunately my current computer just can't (really) handle X-Plane. But someday I hope to have one that will!

this "side by side" comparison was extremely helpful,,, thanks! my bro' has been trying to get FSX setup on his gaming PC for over a week and it was jst one problem after another. seriously. i mean, he spent soooo much time tweaking,,, and configuring,,, and downloading,,, and adjusting,,, that he finally got frustrated and jst gave up. then he started watching RU-vid vid's (like this one) and came to realized FSX and x-Plane are quite similar!? so he tried x-plane,, and had it installed and configured (wit a couple add-on thingys) in one day (without yelling!) he even lets ME fly his cessna 172 :)

Thank you for this very fair and balanced comparison. I'm a long time user of MSFS having owned all of them since FS2000 when I first got into sim flying. Currently I too am seeing the age of FSX and the limiting factors you have mentioned. So, I am looking for something new. The XP-10 demo isn't much help, since by the time one figures out the UI and sets up the controls, etc. the time limit has been reached. I have to look at videos and opinions of experienced users as my guide. And I'm pleased to say most have answered my questions and I've decided to get XP-10 as my next civil flight sim. I have looked the others available, but overall, I believe XP-10 is the one that will suit my needs. Again, thank you for taking the time to make this video for us.

Never used anything but FSX but now that I've refurbished an old ASUS X501 laptop and upgraded to Windows 10, I'm just happy that I was even able to run FSX again. I do like seeing this comparison though.

Cliff. I can't reply directly to your message so hopefully you will pick this up. The X-Plane demo is a useful thing to mess around with, however I found it essential to have either a twist grip joystick or rudder pedals. The following web forums can help out with most things, www.x-plane.org www.x-pilot.com www.flightsim.com www.x-plane.com Here are a couple of youtube video's which can help with set up controls CONFIGURING CONTROLS IN X-PLANE cameras CONFIGURING X-PLANE VIEWS adding aircraft (including freeware) HOW TO ADD AIRCRAFT TO X-PLANE Hope that helps.

Thank you for a nicely done review. As both a real world and sim pilot, I find there is really no comparison between FSX and X-Plane. FSX is designed as a flight sim game. X-Plane is designed as a true aeronautical engineering model. The Blade Element theory used in X-Plane, very closely approximates actual flight dynamics. That accounts for the fact that X-Plane is used in many FAA certified simulators, as well as in the engineering departments of many aircraft companies in testing their designs. For budding aeronautical engineers, or those who just wish to try their hand at building a simulator model, X-Pland also ships with PlaneMaker. It is rather basic, but quite good for those who do not wish to invest the time in learning and using the 3D software required to build the more complex sim models. From a pilot's point of view, I find flying the X-Plane sim to be as close to real world flying as you can get, while remaining on the ground. X-Plane has given me many happy hours in the sim cockpit. X-Plane ships with an outstanding hanger of aircraft, and has many more user designed models available for free download from xplane.org. Taking your sim a step further, there are also many professionaly designed paid models available, including some that are licensed by the aircraft manufacturer, such as Boeing.

Thank you for the demonstrations. I've only "flown" FSX, so it was a treat to see a side by side review of the two simulators. I've read a lot of reviews of X-Plane, and I've noticed their is a more negative slant towards it. I have read that the flight dynamics are better, but the scenery is not good. In the demonstration, I found that I liked the flight dynamics and the scenery better than FSX, but you pointed out that the interior and cockpit were not that good - which is kind of weird because, one would think that they would go hand-in-hand. I'd be interested in seeing a demonstration of X-Plane's abilities, as far as, ATC communications and air traffic. It is interesting to see airlines and military aircraft on the ground at an airport with a fairly short runway - that is a bug that can be worked out with an update or patch. Also, you mentioned that X-Plane *guesses* at where some scenery *should* be. Since I'm a low and slow "pilot", I'd be interested in seeing a "flight" over an urban area to see what "flying" VFR is like, if it's even possible. I noticed that you're a damn good pilot too! Thanks again for the demonstration! Best wishes, Dave

if you are trying to just play a game fsx is for you. if you are trying to practice your actual flying skills x plane is for you

Very thorough. I watched this after Microsoft decided to stop supporting FSX and after I bought X-Plane 10. I know you say in the video there is no clear winner, but from my standpoint the better flight model and graphics win for X-Plane over FSX. After viewing this video I now view FSX as more of a video game. Oh, by the way, I retired from the Navy after 33 years as a Naval Aviator...

The user interface is the second worst part of X-Plane. The worst is the lack of content, but that is not the developers fault, of course.

my 1st ever flight sim was on a ZX Spectrum (Flight Simulation (Psion software)(Release date 1982 ) which I spend many hours playing and I was blown away with graphics and game play. I have played FSX on/off and now I look back thinking how did I spend all them hours playing Flight Simulation (Psion software).But I have never played X-Plane 10 and by the looks of the graphics is better then FSX.I wonder what flight simulator games will look like in 30 years time?

Heads up guys, X-Plane 10 is currently available at JB HiFi - aswell as Gamesmen in Sydney, and most Gametraders stores around the country

it doesn't matter which sim is better no matter what your choice is the point is that we all have a joy of flight and that we fly. Period.

Great job with the comparison. Really gave me some insight. I will definitely hold off on buying X-Plane X - at least until they've got some PMDG aircraft - or similar working with it. Thanks again.

thanks for that comparison, I found it most informative

If you want real physics: X-Plane If you want looks: FSX (How ever xplane is really starting to show better looks)

One thing I like about Microsoft Flight Simulator is how "novice-friendly" it is. As someone who is not a real-life pilot, but who does like planes, I have learned an amazing amount from FSX's "Learning Center". There are whole flying lessons in that with accompanying articles, along with detailed articles about how to fly specific planes. So I now know my way around the inside of a plane (well, a light plane anyway) quite well, and have a pretty good understanding of takeoff speeds, approach speeds for landing, use of flaps and so on that I had very little idea about before I got FSX. X-Plane does not appear to have that - or at least, I have not been able to find it. Mind you, I only just got X-Plane 10 Global yesterday. But when I opened the game for the first time, it just threw me into the cockpit of the Cessna 172 at Seattle Airport (at least, I think it was Seattle), gave me a couple of instructions about throttling and advice about small planes pulling left, and that was it. Only because of the knowledge gained from the FSX Learning Center and some FSX missions did I know how to get the thing in the air, make turns, approach to land and so on. Otherwise I would have been pretty lost. Maybe X-Plane assumes you have some basic piloting skills already, I don't know. But if you're totally green, it seems to me that FSX is the better sim for learning the ropes from the ground up, so to speak. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am, being so new to X-Plane still), but it seems as though you can only control X-Plane aircraft from inside the cockpit (which admittedly mirrors real life!), whereas in FSX you can control them with any view. Sometimes I like being able to switch to the chase plane view in certain situations to get better bearings. Mind you, I only have a mouse at this stage, so it might be different with a joystick. (Yes, I realise a joystick would be much better - need to look into that more.) One discouraging thing that happened to me with X-Plane is it made my whole computer crash. :( I was approaching the Seattle runway for a landing when the graphics went weird and I couldn't see anything anymore, and then when I tried to spawn at a new airport, my computer crashed. I've had games (including FSX) crash on occasion, but never had my whole computer crash (at least, not my current one) when playing a game. My computer is quite powerful and can handle most games just fine, and it handled X-Plane quite well at first, but then it just kind of gave out and hit me with a "blue screen of death". Is it possible to maybe reduce the graphics resolution a bit in X-Plane? That's one thing you can quite easily do in FSX. Speaking of the graphics, I do agree about FSX having pretty average default scenery. However, I have now got a couple of nice add-ons that improve trees and other texturing (including better runway lights, realistically dirty runways etc.), and the scenery looks a good deal better now, although my home city is not very well modelled at all. Well, the topography is pretty good, but the actual city looks nothing like the real thing! Even going back ten years, it still looks nothing like my real city. Overall though, I think I prefer FSX at this stage, but I probably need to explore X-Plane a bit further (if my computer will let me for long enough!) to be able to judge it more accurately.

There is no comparison for the rotorcraft flight in FSX. If you are a heli person, X-Plane blows MSFS out of the water in that aspect.

For newer Cessna 172SP, it is a LED and it actually flashes, but no doubt that older Cessna are rotating lens and mirror

Thank you for this review it's very useful, I'm new to flight sims (not even set up the PC yet) but I am halfway through my PPL (in a PA28) so want to use a SIM to practice some of the routine activities to help them become second nature. I've bought Saitek yoke, throttle quadrant and pedals and have a decent spec PC on order which I will run through a 40" HDTV. I also bought FS X Delux to start with (secondhand) so I expect I'll see how that goes to begin with. I'm not particularly technical so the thought of having to work out how to use 'add-ons' bothers me a bit, but I guess with time I'll work it out. Thanks again for a useful comparison.

Auto-coordination of rudder is made in "PlaneMaker" and is part of the aircraft as I remember in X-Plane 10

I like how the wheels of the aircraft sink about 4" into the runway at 2:09

if you really want to take this serious, you need the following IMO: -TrackIR/Webcam+Freetrack for camera head-tracking (i will never fly without it) -saitek pro flight yoke, TPM, and multiswitch (radio and nav are optional but very useful) -rudder pedals (i recommend logitech g940 flight system for helicopters and for the rudders) -big screen (at least 30") or multimonitor setup -second monitor or, if multimonitor setup is in use for the sim, a laptop (for moving map, checklists, charts, flight planning, etc) will cost about 1000$ flight simulation is a very expensive hobby, if you really want to live it^^

Best review I have found on this topic. Well done!

@16:00: Some 172's don't have a rotating beacon light but a slow on off thing which is visible from all sides when on. I did a internship recently on an airport at a flight school and this place has like 172s and they all had that configuration of beacon light. It may have been an updated version of the 172 because all of them have Garmin G1000 cockpits.

Hi, thank you for your review, it was good. The joystick milions of settings are there for people who are building a cocpit in there basement. You cak create panels with every button like in the real 747 a atache it to the program. Than if you wanna turn something on, you do not need to do it on a keyboard but you just switch the or pless the necesary button. So you can create real simulation in your home. There is eeaven a solution from saitek like the whole board from cessna - saitek pro flight simulator !

a bit disappointed that the flat tyres on fsx were not commented on or that on xplane when the aircraft is sitting on the ground, the wheels aren't actually on the ground, otherwise alright

You don't need wingdrops in real life. If you keep it straight and level, and use the rudder, you'll feel the stall without the need of a wing drop. And yours, here, can be predicted because seconds before stall your aircraft is banking to left or right - which of course makes it drop towards the slowest wing. Thanks, though, for the advice on which flightsim is best.

The landing looked unrealstic in X-plane because the closer you get to the ground the ground appears to speed past you faster, didn't happen here.

Bro as quite a few people have said this is not a fair comparison FSX development stopped quite a while back. But the MS team did a fantastic job where it has only now being overtaken by the hardware! You should be comparing X-Plane with P3D

FSX is 32 bit where X-Plane 10 is configured for 64 bit systems. Quality wise, X-plane will win because the detailing is very good straight out of the box. If you want something to use a learning tool, FSX should be your sim of choice.

I bought X-Plane 10 last year but didn't like it so I gave it away. My main beef was that light prop aircraft had no natural stability, therefore a roll slowly develops no matter how carefully you try to trim the wings to stay level. They admit it's a longstanding issue at their forum, so I stick with FSX..:)

Your FSX vs X-Plane 10 comparison video shows incredible detail on the scenery, far more so than my current set up with FS2004, running on a good specification PC, using ''VFR Photographic Scenery' add on and with a monitor with a 1600 x 900 monitor. In fact the resolution on my scenery is so poor it is useless for VFR navigation. I was wondering whether the best way to get to the sort of scenery resolution that you have in the video is to upgrade to FSX, change the add on scenery to a better package or whether to upgrade my monitor to a higher resolution monitor, or perhaps do all three. Could you please advise what monitor resolution you used on the video, what add on scenery package you used, and whether you know if the change from FS2004 to FSX makes a vast difference. Many thanks.

Great video, helped me a lot with deciding which one to get!

Water is slightly better in X-Plane 10 than in FSX? Check out the river on the left near 32:00- you can see the reflections in it changing from sky to ground/trees- it's AWESOME! Thanks for the review/comparison!

the sound on X plan is beautiful! if FX had it it would be amazing!

If you're looking for a good default simulator, FSX is the one. With many free add ons, x-plane functions better. Overall, FSX is a better default sim than x-plane and X-plane beats FSX by far with add ons installed!

The 172 hasn't had an actual rotating beacon for years! 172R and 172S both have blinking LED's these days.

Very good video. It deserves absolutely more views. I would suggest to do a comparison between x plane 10 and prepar3d v2, which is basically the evolution of fsx.

Great commentary. I'm a PPL with a few hundred hours in mostly Pipers, but a few in Cessnas and I think you're right on. FSX seems to fly more "by the numbers" but it really doesn't have the intricacies that small planes have- especially for stalls and other practice maneuvers- they feel "muted". X-plane does a much, much better job. Honestly, doing a run-up in FSX vs. X-plane seems like two different experiences. I also prefer the graphics in x-plane- I have only really cared about what I'm seeing if I'm trying to follow a VFR flight plan and using dead reckoning- but I gave that up when I actually got licensed and bought a GPS. I'd much prefer to spend my time scanning for traffic that starring at the landscape- I almost had a head-on when some twin flew 50 feet under my nose because he wasn't paying attention to his altitude. People don't realize VFR is the wild west- you need to be very aware, and you don't- or you shouldn't- spend your time looking at pretty scenery.

Great video. I like your comments comparing the two products without disrespect for either option. I've just gotten X-Plane 10 and can't yet get the view to tilt and pan the way you did in the video. (Saitek yoke and pedals)

I've been using FSX for years and am just installing X-plane 10 right now. Can't wait to finally play around with X-Plane. I use a Logitech X3D that I purchased when I purchased FSX around 7 or 8 years ago, so I hope that I will have the same great experience with X-Plane that I do with FSX with this stick. I suppose that I'm just getting a little bored with FSX and want to try something new. Anyway, thanks for the great video! You never mentioned the lack of vertical draw on the graphics on the mountains in X-Plane... quite a significant difference! Thanks again.

I'd put it another way. If you're flying IFR at high altitudes maybe FSX / Prepar3d is the better choice. If you're flying VFR at low altidudes X-Plane wins as far as I am asked. If you like to fly at remote places with lotsa planes heading for many different airports, FSX is better. I f you like to reduce yourself to a small number of planes in a relatively limited region, X-Plane is the winner. For my part I love flying VFR around the alps. It is possible to really make it look very realistic but is hardly possible to have that quality all around the world because of the pure mass of data it needs. 1-2TB of scenery, mesh and ground textures are not unrealistic just to get some parts of the world like the real thing. But then it does look like it. regards Markus

Thanks for the comparison! I've been without a simulator for a couple years now...my mac went down...and is still down....but we just purchased an hp 15 with all kinds of memory...so in the market again. I previously had x-plane 8, and at that point with my macbook pro...I could only run my graphics at about 30% of what the program was capable of producing....but I was very please with the flight modeling and some of the scenery even at that level of performance. We are currently running windows 8.1...and so far I've not found a version of x-plane that will run on that system. One of the reasons I liked x-plane was that I had probably every airport around the world at my fingertips....and though I could never get my scenery outside the U.S. to work....all the airports were there so I could still make long trans atlantic flights. So anyway....do you know of any versions of x-plane that will work on windows 8.1? Thanks and blessings!

Very honest comparison. I've been using FS since the Sublogic days (on the C-64) and X-Plane to the current version. And as you, I'm a licensed pilot (got my PPL in June of 1971). Anyhow...I think you were spot on with your evaluation. My opinion...I'll take X-Plane over FSX for one reason...It "behaves" closer to the real thing.

I'll not compare them. I own them both and love them both. Plane to plane, FSX has still superior textures and probably with a lot's of addons hold well the line. But it's still a 32 bits program. X-Plane with tons of Simheaven textures is great and the feeling of flight is superior for me. It can use all you memory, CPU and GFX features. No winner, both are nice.

Thanks for the video; I'm want to purchase a flight simulator but I was unsure as which would be best for an amateur like me. After this I think FSX would be best, but this comparison really cleared things up for me. Cheers.

You did an outstanding job on this video ... thank you.

Good video , thanks for the review . Looks like it took a lot of work to make it . Cheers !

FSX For The Win!!

Great video, I've had both sims for years, I have over 125 hours of real flight time so I feel I do know how a light aircraft including a Cessna should feel. But for me the dynamics in X-Plane just aren't right the plane seems to bob around totally unrealistically when turning or climbing, I have Saitek X52 controls, I will have to give X-Plane another go as it does look and seem to handle a lot better in this video.

It would be really interesting if you could do an addendum to this video to compare the same aircraft and airport/environment in FlightGear.

"Too many options, a nightmare..." Very hard to setup correctly.

You could change the AI Aircrafts in x-plane, and also their number, so if you fly on a smaller airport, select smaller Aircraft.

To be honest, I think FSX is better. I got XP11 (demo) to see if I wanted to buy the full version, and I quickly back out of the idea. The flight dynamics were horrible, one small turn of the rudder on a 737 mid flight caused the plane to literally barrel roll in the sky and crash. FSX just has a much better feel for me, and if you take the time to make the outdated sim become more up to date, I think FSX will be much, much better than the default X-Plane.

The statement toward the end, that a lot of the aircraft are old is true and some have 2D cockpits, but, and it's a BIG but, X-Plane 10 not only models the aircraft behaviour to generate flight physics, it also includes a plane designer in the package. So you can make your own! The statement that you will have to pay a lot for good add-on aircraft is also not quite true. There is a very large and active modding scene in X-Plane and you can download from free sites, free aircraft by the hundred! Because they are made by genuine enthusiasts they tend to be good quality. Regarding the scenery. There is a freeware airport editor for X-Plane called WED. Anyone who has tried to use the free editor for FSX will know that it is the most unintuitive clunky, piece of software imaginable. Many enthusiasts using WED make highly detailed airports with custom 3D animated detailing. So while it may seem odd that X-Plane doesn't generate a 'default' scenery for a particular airport, it leaves you clear to go and download the most accurate you can find for that airport, 99% of which are free. The availability and number of these 'out of the way' airports increased exponentially when a free conversion from FSX to X-Plane was released. So if you fly FSX as a game, ie get in and fly without planning and 'expect' there to be scenery where ever your nose points, then great. However if you take simulated flying seriously, Plan your departure, arrival and waypoint airports then you will easily find them just by googling the airport names. There are literally thousands of free airports and scenery for X-Plane 10. I got in to X-Plane, because I was not satisfied with FSX not even bothering to make a helicopter collective 'mappable'. Despite FSX being sold to other developers who have limited permission to improve it (Steam version) and Lockheed Martin. There is still a completely unrealistic approach to helicopter flight. If you want to fly rotor wing accurately, there is no choice. It has to be X-Plane. One final word. When applying add-ons to FSX you may frequently find that they alter the base FSX files. Therefore they can be a pain to uninstall if they go wrong. X-Plane uses an additive approach to add-on software. It is placed in it's own specific add-on folder. This makes it far, far easier to install, test, and uninstall scenery/aircraft. You control how and where customised add-ons are used and removing said add-ons is generally as easy as deleting a folder. Here is a good example of excellent airport scenery available for free from X-Plane enthusiasts. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-V4-MjlRMdWQ.html

RE: 18:30 When you've cobbled together your own "real" cockpit using Teensies or Arduinoes, is why. Or when you've bought a stick/yoke/throttle quadrant and/or input panel with masses of buttons. (I'm the latter, having bound my Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog throttle's radio switch to do radio stuff (fwd=contact ATC, [up,dn]=general/[up,dn]...), my china hat to do the map, starters and so on on the starter switches, APU on the APU switch... and other stuff on the stick proper (Gotta love having 6 buttons and 4 hat switches there) and want to do a sim pit for something fun like a 747-800.) Basically, most things that aren't in "buttons: basic" that you'd expect to be able to bind to do the real world equivalent in an A/C instead of hunting for it by moving your view around. Or if you've done a sim pit and want to get it FAA certified as a BATD/AATD or a level B or C simulator with projection and motion. You want "headache"? Try setting up DCS A-10C without the pregenerated HOTAS profile. XP's button config is simple. :D

Hey Rich, Do you think that would make sense to actually refresh that review between Prepar3d V3 and XP11 given all the updates that were thrown in since then? Keep up the good work. Cheers

I'm just getting into flight simming, I was always into trains and buses. It's all very complex in to the cockpit...

I really enjoyed this. You've definitely earned a sub from me. I like the enthusiasm and effort you put forth. :-)

hi mate, awesome video, well done. thanks for posting stuff like that on you tube, it helps so much to make decissions :) cheers mate !!!

As other people said, it's not a fair battle, maybe p3d vs xplane is better match.

FSX playable without any issues. Xplane Full of Bugs and huge wait times for simple tasks. Not to mention when you choose a airport to depart from. 90% of the time there are no buildings or planes.

Thanks for a well put together review

I wish that someone make realistic comparison between X-plane 10 and its current rival from LM Prepar3D v2.X (FSX had last update in 2007) and make it in split screen that would help to beginner or shopper... to decide

Very nice review. Have you fooled around with FlightGear at all? All over the map once you get to the non-standard aircraft, but I'd be curious to hear what you think of flying their 172 (especially the flight dynamics).

I don't have X-Plane 10 yet. i thinking buying it soon. I am still using X-Plane 9

"When would you want to set an individual key for 'Inlet Heat 1 On"? A home built flight sim with actual dials, knobs, and buttons. Something FSX cant do. Thats why the FAA has approved X-plane for certain flight requirements and not FSX.

In FSX it's tricky to land even after using the app for ages- ie aircraft, especially light ones tend to be very wallowy and tricky to line up especially if approach has been poor. I managed to easily land FIRST time in Xplane from a very poor approach. The problem with Xplane is the scenery or absence of it compared to FSX loaded with ORBX. Another thing though with Xplane the scenery tends to be hesitant whereas in FSX it's very smooth. I have a pretty powerful set up. Some aircraft fly better than others in FSX...some A2A are actually pretty poor to land which is surprising...

As a sim junkie, i prefer x-plane. The physics are major for me, and x-plane is clearly superior. The most impressive physics engine i have ever experienced in a computer is the one on the il2 1946. If one day i get my hands on a non-combat flight sim with that level of dynamics, i'll dedicate my life to it. Anyway, great vídeo m8. you sound like Edd China. Cheers

Congratulations!. I am hearing impaired and it was great to have such a well paced video with such clear dialogue. Felt that the deceased Microsoft Flight had better visuals than my current program FSX.. The stalls you showed in X Plane seemed more realistic than those of FSX. and for me the X-Plane scenery added to flight reality. Thanks

The biggest diference between them both is that x plane has a 64 bit version and gets updated regulary! FSX is dead. The community is still active but it has no future without the 64 bit. But still it WAS a great simulator!