X-Plane 10 Regional North America - PC

I'm a long time FS2004 flier. I started my sim career using Sub Logic Flight Sim II on the Apple IIc. I progressed though various flight sims including FS5, Fly, Fly II, Flight Unlimited (all three) and FS2004. I spent almost a decade flying FS2004. I spent hundreds of dollars buying add-ons, GoFlight modules, etc.When I built a new computer system, I decided to try X-Plane 10 demo. I tried various X-Plane demos, mostly for about 10-20 minutes then never using it again. However with my newest computer setup, I could run X-Plane with very high details and fluid frame rates. This convinced me to abandon FS2004 and go forward with X-Plane. I did reinstall FS2004 and my add-ons, but after flying with X-Plane, FS2004 just looked so "dated".X-Plane is a different simulator. It was a little difficult getting used to how it flies and specifically how to interface with the simulator. The keyboard and joystick commands were almost all different. Once I got out of my FS2004 habits, X-Plane really came alive for me. I bought this version (North American) because I didn't want to install 50 GB of world scenery when I mostly fly in the US. I saved about $30 over the cost of the world scenery version. I spent that extra $30 buying a few add-ons for X-Plane.Now you cannot compare FSX or FS2004 directly with X-Plane mainly because most people have advanced custom installs of Flight Simulator, and X-Plane out of the box is not exactly as impressive. But being recently released and actively developed, X-Plane supports some nice new technologies such as multiprocessors and advanced graphics options. I could take advantage of my new computer setup using X-Plane and once I spent about a week tweaking the options, I had X-Plane looking awesome and running great.I am impressed with the scenery, the mech data, the textures and mostly, how the aircraft fly. I've flown a real plane a few times as a student, and in my not-expert opinion, X-Plane aircraft behave in a realistic manner. Not that FS2004 wasn't realistic; I'm not comparing FS2004 and X-Plane directly. It's just that X-Plane "feels" right.I am very happy with my X-Plane purchase. After installing a few add-ons, and a lot of freeware add-ons, I am satisfied that my X-Plane experience will match and eventually exceed my FS2004 experience. I've even taken up airport design - it's a known "issue" with X-Plane that most airports are just runways and taxiways - no buildings. So I've started adding them to the airports I fly into. X-Plane has a free downloadable world editor that allows you to simply point-and-click and add buildings, hangars, aircraft, etc to your airports. I've made a few airports that I think look plausible and spent maybe an hour or so on each one.X-Plane has a free demo that I used for a few weeks to make sure I really wanted to buy it. I suggest you use the demo and make sure you can configure it to your system and be happy with the results before spending money on it.If you are a FSX or FS2004 flier, you cannot download X-Plane and fly it for 10 minutes - you need to set it up, tweak it (much as you did with FSX or FS2004), make it run nicely on your system, then judge it. And you cannot judge it against FSX or FS2004 - judge it on it's own merits. You will find a lot of positives in X-Plane, and some negatives. You will want to say "FS2004 did this" and "FSX does that" - avoid these comparisons. Just judge the flight sim based on how it runs on your system, how it feels to fly, and what it looks like. This is what I did. Previous to X-Plane 10, I downloaded the demo, compared it to FS2004 and said "X-Plane isn't like FS2004" and deleted it from my computer. This time around, I gave it a fair shot, played the demo for a few weeks and then bought this version (which was cheaper than the world scenery version).Going forward, X-Plane is the future. It's currently being developed and advanced. It is supported and being actively worked on. Recently the developer added 64-bit support. You can email him and ask questions or make suggestions. X-Plane has only a few developers, but they respond to emails and forum postings all the time. You are buying the latest flight simulation product, not an old, unsupported and no longer developed product.As I stated, I just built a new computer system, and X-Plane rocks on it. My previous system, X-Plane was marginal at best. But after my hardware upgrades, X-Plane looks and flies great. FS2004 of course runs excellent on my new system, but it's 10 year old limitations are obvious compared to X-Plane (this is my only comparison).My system is an AMD Fx-6300, 8 GB RAM, 128 GB SSD and Nvidia GTX660. It's a fairly powerful setup admittedly, but it handles X-Plane at high resolution and maximum textures at great framerates. In fact, after I installed X-Plane and tweaked the graphics, I disabled the frame rate counter and never looked at it again. There was no need - X-Plane runs great, so it didn't matter if I was getting 25 fps or 50. All of my hardware works with X-Plane including my GoFlight modules, my Desktop Aviator module, and joystick.If you are on the fence about X-Plane, and you are currently an FSX or FS2004 flier, do yourself a favor and try the demo. Not just for 10 minutes - fly with it for a week or two. Tweak it, make it run and look nice, configure your joystick, etc. If after playing with the demo for a few weeks you just don't like it for whatever reason, then delete the X-Plane folder from your drive and there's no loss to you (X-Plane installs in a folder - no registry entries, no installing files to Program Files, etc).My experience with X-Plane converted me from FS2004. And only because I gave the demo a fair shot, and didn't compare it to FS2004. My recommendation is for you to do the same.My hardware: AMD FX-6300 - 8 GB RAM - SSD - GTX660 - GoFlight modules - Desktop Aviator module - Saitek Aviator Joystick

First off, I am not a private, commercial, or military pilot. I have been using MS flight sim since its inception. I must say that I like both MSFSX and Xplane 10. I think they both have strengths and weaknesses. I will mention what I perceive to be the good and not so good for Xplane 10. In the end, I think you cant go wrong with either. I like them both!Good- Excellent weather modeling and the clouds are spectacular.- Night flying graphics are highly realistic.- Allows the user to configure the game to their system's power. It seems you can use a slower cpu and hardware and still have decent results.- You can get updates from company by visiting their website.- Runs stable and smooth.- Some of the planes which come with it are highly detailed and fly awesome!- You don't need to buy the whole world unless you want to.- Try landing a helicopter on a rolling deck. This sim replicates the movement; not just a ship moving on still waters!- Runways are not flat. They are modeled more realistic.Not so good- Long initial loading of game.- Hardly any airport layouts, just runways.- Confusing and tedious game configuration. Maybe too many things to configure!- Some of the planes which come with it are NOT highly detailed and remind me of many years ago planes in FS.- Cost of the game is more than FSX.- ATC is primitive and planning a trip requires you manually setting the flight computer or gps system if your plane has it. I suppose thats a plus for real pilots.- No missions available, there are some basic scenarios saved but not full talking missions.My System:- AMD Phenom II 965 X4 3.4 ghz- G-Force 9800 GTX video card- 4 gb ram- Windows 7, 64bit

As I'm very close to my real world insturment checkride, I decided to give X plane a second try, along with significantly upgrading my PC to I7-4790K. I'd previously tried ver 9 demo, not thrilled but still later the full program...still not thrilled with either the flight dynamics or (significant lack of) scenery and poor navigation instrumentation. How "real" was that as they'd advertised. So a few years later with my IFR, I realized that Microsoft FSX did not update the GPS database and research led me to believe that X-Plane had great ATC and GPS approaches..at least that's what their website advertised. Not so...ATC communication is mostly background gibberish and certainly does not tie in to my real world frequencies (NY Class B area). The GPS actually leaves out the approaches I am practicing..approaches the 10 yr old FSx has. And then I read that updates require a subscription service no less..that would also update good old FSX anyway, which flies more realistically at least with the stock C172. Sure FSX is looking a bit outdated..X plane has fantastically realistic clouds and terrestrial scenery while sparse, looks "real", but for VFR practice, FSX scenery plants the landmarks you need..and for IFR, well I can't be fighting the unrealistic controls all the time..I need to practice "procedures" , right...timing, radios, GPS inputs, etc. it's almost impossible in X plane..at least in the 2 C172 versions I've struggled with. Add to that procedures not even existing...damn these guys anger me. I hate that they get away with this. I hate to return the product because it hurts Amazon, the vendor and consumers in the end. Back to FSX for me along with a subscription service to update the GPS and hopefully charts.