RuneScapeForDummies (October 11, 2008 at 12:42 am)

dude if u get level-d or pmdg for fsx or fs2004 its way better than x-plane. if u look at say the pmdg 747-400X, everything works and is set up exactly like irl.

compspy98 (October 8, 2008 at 4:01 am)

X-Plane got FAA approved because of the unsurpassed flight dynamics of this engine and if anyone knows anything real flight simulators use instrument panels of their own that just receive data from the sim. so the part about x-plane looking like crap doesn't matter if your a real pilot

marineAV (October 8, 2008 at 1:01 am)

right but its supposed to have realistic physics and handle like a real planei wouldn't know, sorry

matz951 (October 7, 2008 at 10:28 pm)

really I wouldn't have thought that because the panels and planes look like crapis the PMDG 747-400X approved by the FAA?

Carlovfx (October 7, 2008 at 8:51 pm)

Ehm... 70GB of textures and a realistic flying are enough to spend 39 (39!!!!!!!!!) dollars on this product.

marineAV (October 7, 2008 at 6:57 pm)

because the flying is more realistic in x-plane

chirscp79 (October 7, 2008 at 6:39 am)

fsx!

matz951 (October 6, 2008 at 11:39 pm)

FSX looks way better than this crap how the hell did this receive FAA aproval and FSX didn't?

funit1964 (October 5, 2008 at 10:21 am)

That depends on what your aircaft your flying in FSX (PMDG or LEVEL D767) or other updated addons, x plane looks dull and empty.

ch20001229 (October 3, 2008 at 7:59 am)

Regarding X-Plane vs. FSX - if you're after a "simpler" simulation you can just jump into and go, FSX is more up your alley. If you're after one with a steeper learning curve, but immensely more accurate, customizable, and expandable, go with X-Plane. It's no coincidence that X-Plane has received FAA approval for official pilot training, whereas FSX keeps its status as primarily a game. But either is good for the role in which it is intended - both have plenty of eye candy too :-)