![]() Once flying along there were several things that I noticed on the route. With NAV mode engaged, the altitude selector set, and VS mode set for 1000fpm climb rate, I slowly climbed away from KTIW and was on my way towards Friday Harbor. Switching to autopilot and setting the aircraft to cruise is done exactly the same way. Both aircraft feel roughly the same once the gear comes up although the MSFS version seems to need more nose up trim and the X-Plane version a little more back pressure to get it up off the runway. That same feel applies roughly to both on takeoff with takeoff speed being reached at roughly the same spot on the runway. Taxing to the runway I appreciated the extra detail in the tarmac on MSFS but ultimately the feel of the two aircraft is remarkably similar on the ground. The DA62 is very easy to start and get going so that makes this process quick and painless. Some switches in both have their own start-up and shutdown positions but essentially the experience is the same. Both work although the MSFS one is more accessible.īoth aircraft have the same start-up procedure although the DA62 in MSFS requires that ELT warning be acknowledged and the transceiver be switched to the on position. In X-Plane, Aerobask has a PDF manual with a checklist that you can reference in the cockpit using the AviTab addon. With MSFS, the DA62 start-up checklist is available as part of an interactive process. In X-Plane the GUI doesn’t have the ability to program a route although there are many utilities and modules out there that can allow you to import a more complex route. ![]() In Flight Simulator you can pre-program that route ahead of time using the flight map. To keep things as similar as possible, I programmed a very simple VFR point to point route using the G1000 (or X1000 in X-Plane) in the DA62. This is what I observed from both experiences. Starting from this airport from the same parking stand, I took off on runway 35, climbed to 8,000 feet on a VFR route that took me almost directly north to Friday Harbour airport (1WA9) and a landing on runway 15. This is an Orbx scenery pack that I bought for X-Plane 11 first and then ended up buying for MSFS as well. I am talking about the Tacoma Narrows (KTIW) airport to the south west of Seattle. I set myself up from one of my favourite payware airports in both MSFS and X-Plane 11. So, for this comparison I used the following:Īs for the actual test. Flight Simulator on the other hand has a ton of advantages right out of the gate and some disadvantages that can’t be easily solved without a direct update from the developers. I could compare X-Plane 11 with stock aircraft and scenery only but X-Plane doesn’t truly shine unless you take advantage of its open architecture and load in some scenery. Although both are civil aviation flight sims, they both have strengths and weaknesses that actually make them hard to compare. How I setup the comparisonĬomparing X-Plane 11 and Microsoft Flight Simulator is not a straightforward experience. I wanted to set myself up with a basic VFR flight experience with the same route on the same morning with the same live weather and in the same aircraft to see just how different my experience was. Having spent a fair bit of time with both sims I decided to fire up the latest version of both for a little experiment. For others, the new Flight Simulator was seen as an upstart without the depth of experience to make it worth spending any time with. For some, the emergence of this new sim would surely kill X-Plane altogether. ![]() ![]() From the moment Microsoft Flight Simulator’s newest release was announced in June 2019, people and communities at large have been comparing the new sim with the now veteran X-Plane 11.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |