What to expect in the future:
I will make a review about using computer-based flight simulators as a training aid to real-life PPL education, from my own point of views. Most likely it will be released when I have my PPL as I can then compare it to the entire course.
... and maybe a general review about X-Plane 10?
... and maybe a general review about X-Plane 10?
Rise of Flight
Rise of Flight is developed by neoqb in 2009. Neoqb wanted to make a sim where you could turn your head (using TrackIR), and hear all the sounds from the front and from the planes. They succeeded.
First impression:
My system at that time was under the minimums, so I took a little risk there. After installation I updated Rise of Flight to the newest version. When I entered the game, I logged in and tried just flying a little around first. It felt really good, and by keeping the settings low, it performed well, and looked amazing to! I found a good balance between detail and performance in the settings. In the first time, I didn't (and I still struggle to) shoot down the enemy planes. However, the first plane I took on the enemy's side, I did cind of tactically. I landed on an airfield and the other plane crashed. Flying these planes in RoF and FS is far from the same. In FS, you can fly down and the wings will remain there without damage, and if you strike the wing in the ground in FS, it doesn't take any damage. In RoF, I once striked the wing on take-off, and it was damage, and I had to land since it was almost impossible to fly. I have had many overspeed accidents that has ended in death in RoF.
Going deeper:
After almost a half a year, I bought a new computer (specs in the end of the review). Rise of Flight really perform great on a high end computer. Running everything maxed out in RoF is so cool, it looks so real! Once I was followed by a Sopwith Camel, I was hit by a bullet. First, it was just ringing in the ears, and then I could not see very good due to damage (in cockpit view). Rise of Flight only includes four planes, two German, the Albatros D.V, Fokker D.VII, and two allied, the Nieuport 28 and the Spad S.XIII. But they are simulated so well that it's not a problem for me. As well, many new planes can be purchased. There are included a lot's of skins/liveries with each plane as well. But of course, you can still fly against e.g. The Red baron even if you haven't bought the Fokker DR.1. Rise of Flight is often updated, so you now you can log in offline. However, you need to register and log in once online first.
Even deeper: Now I've tried ROF: Iron Cross Edition on my new desktop, and it runs like a true dream. Also with TrackIR 4 Pro. It's taken some time, but now I can shoot down the enemy planes without help. The TrackIR feels like a "must-have" in ROF, you don't have time to use the joystick or yoke hat switch. As well, it you put your head out of the plane, you really hear the wind going by. Now this is what I call realism. Also, when you land (or crash) your plane in the muddy winter landscape you can see where your wheels have been hitting the ground.
Rating:
95%
What I liked about Rise of Flight
- Very good simulated environment
- Very good simulated planes
- Very good graphics
- The Engine, the simulations, the overall realism. Everything.
What I didn't like about Rise of Flight.
- One must buy almost all the planes. The price is low indeed but if you don't make it with what's included it can become a little expensive, still no big matter compared to FS.
Specs:
CPU: Core i7 860 @ 2.8GHz
GPU: NVIDIA GTX260 Special Edition
RAM: 8GB DDR3 @ 600+MHz
HDD: 2x 1TB
First impression:
My system at that time was under the minimums, so I took a little risk there. After installation I updated Rise of Flight to the newest version. When I entered the game, I logged in and tried just flying a little around first. It felt really good, and by keeping the settings low, it performed well, and looked amazing to! I found a good balance between detail and performance in the settings. In the first time, I didn't (and I still struggle to) shoot down the enemy planes. However, the first plane I took on the enemy's side, I did cind of tactically. I landed on an airfield and the other plane crashed. Flying these planes in RoF and FS is far from the same. In FS, you can fly down and the wings will remain there without damage, and if you strike the wing in the ground in FS, it doesn't take any damage. In RoF, I once striked the wing on take-off, and it was damage, and I had to land since it was almost impossible to fly. I have had many overspeed accidents that has ended in death in RoF.
Going deeper:
After almost a half a year, I bought a new computer (specs in the end of the review). Rise of Flight really perform great on a high end computer. Running everything maxed out in RoF is so cool, it looks so real! Once I was followed by a Sopwith Camel, I was hit by a bullet. First, it was just ringing in the ears, and then I could not see very good due to damage (in cockpit view). Rise of Flight only includes four planes, two German, the Albatros D.V, Fokker D.VII, and two allied, the Nieuport 28 and the Spad S.XIII. But they are simulated so well that it's not a problem for me. As well, many new planes can be purchased. There are included a lot's of skins/liveries with each plane as well. But of course, you can still fly against e.g. The Red baron even if you haven't bought the Fokker DR.1. Rise of Flight is often updated, so you now you can log in offline. However, you need to register and log in once online first.
Even deeper: Now I've tried ROF: Iron Cross Edition on my new desktop, and it runs like a true dream. Also with TrackIR 4 Pro. It's taken some time, but now I can shoot down the enemy planes without help. The TrackIR feels like a "must-have" in ROF, you don't have time to use the joystick or yoke hat switch. As well, it you put your head out of the plane, you really hear the wind going by. Now this is what I call realism. Also, when you land (or crash) your plane in the muddy winter landscape you can see where your wheels have been hitting the ground.
Rating:
95%
What I liked about Rise of Flight
- Very good simulated environment
- Very good simulated planes
- Very good graphics
- The Engine, the simulations, the overall realism. Everything.
What I didn't like about Rise of Flight.
- One must buy almost all the planes. The price is low indeed but if you don't make it with what's included it can become a little expensive, still no big matter compared to FS.
Specs:
CPU: Core i7 860 @ 2.8GHz
GPU: NVIDIA GTX260 Special Edition
RAM: 8GB DDR3 @ 600+MHz
HDD: 2x 1TB
X-Plane V9
Now it's time to make a review about this wonderful sim!
About:
X-Plane is developed by Laminar Research. X-Plane unfortunately has a rumor about being a bad sim, which in reality is far from the truth. X-Plane V9 came out in 2008, which has extremely improved graphics comparing to the earlier V8. X-Plane has the most realistic aerodynamics available today. In this review I will point out the good and bad things about the sim, and also compare it to FS2004 and FSX. X-Plane features 60GB of global scenery, but you don't have to install everything, there are a map during the instal so that you can point out what places to install the global scenery.
First impression:
When I opened X-Plane the first time I was surprised about how good the graphics were! The mountains looks beautiful! Flying the Cirrus Jet out of Innsbruck (LOWI) I almost got a birdstrike (yes! X-Plane simulates that!) Shortly after a couple of flights, I updated X-Plane to V9.22 (the newest update at that time) so my sim was compatible with the newest planes.
Starting using the sim
After downloading plenty of sceneries and some freeware planes, I had to try out X-Plane with add-ons. I now realised that most planes on the web has a nice model, but is missing a good VC. However, there are still a number of great freeware and payware aircrafts with good VC's (listed in this review). The sceneries are of that quality you could expect in FS, however that's because most of them are converted from FS, which is very easy (tutorial below)! Flying around in X-Plane is a joy! The water is so stunning that I almost can't explain it. X-Plane can also handle a large number of threes without drop in framt-rate (on my system). Buildings are dropping a little FPS if you add more of them, than your system handles. There are a lot of smart choises in the "Rendering options" like "Compress terrain textures to save VRAM", and also there is one option that you can fly on one core (requires dual/quad core) and load scenery in the backround on another. X-Plane is far more within technology than FS at this point.
After flying X-Plane for some weeks, I really like it!
After adding all the sceneries I wanted and all the planes, X-Plane is really looking nice! X-Plane also supports sloping runways, making the sim getting the ultimate realism, however, som airports has a little wrong "sloping layout", but that can be fixed very easy with just turning the sloped runways off. Also, gliders and thermals are made in the sim. It includes a very good model of the ASK-21. I'm not a glider pilot, si I can't really say how realistic it is at that point, but it seems very good! You can also choose what plane that can pull you up in the air, or you can use a winch (also works at airports without). A little "bug" (honestly more funny) thing is that you can choose the C172 to pull the B-52 up in the air, and if you do not power up yourself, the B-52 will hang below the C172. You can turn on air baloons, forest fires (works only if it's hot enough etc...). As in FSX, X-Plane simulates roads, however some more unaccurate, at least where I fly. You can choose between many points of traffic desensity. Also X-Plane simulates trains and railroads. With realistic settings, you can even rip the flaps of if you fly with them down at too high speed, loose your wings if you fly too rough etc... every of this settings can be turned on and off. Also X-Plane simulates ditching. X-Plane has also the most realistic civil helicopter dynamics available today. Also, X-Plane as totally default simulates a WX (weather radar), something only a few MSFS add-on aircraft's has got. The AI in X-Plane is as close as nothing (at least what I've seen during testings and flying), just some random planes flying randomly around, very few of them. There is an add-on, X-Traffic, but I haven't tested it so much. It's like FSRecorder in FS, you have to record your flight and you can play it like traffic after that. The good thing is that you can fully control the path of the plane.
X-Plane V9 has some very good models with VC's (C172, P180 Avanti, Cirrus Jet and the ASK-21 +the Stinson L5 in the V9.40 update). The KC-10, 777-200 and 747-400 needs an update, so until these models are updates, and you only fly them, PMDG, Wilco and PSS is better in FS then. For GA pilots and bushflyers, X-Plane is a new sim that is highly recommended! Don't worry, just convert all the sceneries you would like.
Good freeware and payware planes:
The AN-2: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=6915
Mortens Piper Archer III: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=8870
X-Hydros Zenair 701: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=5482
X-Scenery's MU-2: http://www.x-scenery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=6 (payware)
I also recommend the plugin Pilot view for a headshake function.
Link: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=8665
How to convert a FS scenery to X-Plane:
Download FS2XPLANE from http://www.marginal.org.uk/x-planescenery/tools.html and follow the instructions on the screen, it's very easy!
Rating:
65 %
What I liked about X-Plane V9
- Sloped runways!
- The graphics, including the water!
- Fly a glider, Cessna, helicopter, fighter or space ship! Most of them are so good simulated.
- WX simulated as default.
- All the payware is much cheaper then MSFS
What I didn't like about X-Plane V9
- Wish many more airports should have a scenery like LOWI!
- Wish planes like the 747, 777 and KC-10 were much more updated! In X-Plane 9 they have included some very good planes and some of them are not good at all.
- More data about e.g. roads like MSFS has
- Not a good option for traffic
Copyright (C) Helge Sakkestad.
About:
X-Plane is developed by Laminar Research. X-Plane unfortunately has a rumor about being a bad sim, which in reality is far from the truth. X-Plane V9 came out in 2008, which has extremely improved graphics comparing to the earlier V8. X-Plane has the most realistic aerodynamics available today. In this review I will point out the good and bad things about the sim, and also compare it to FS2004 and FSX. X-Plane features 60GB of global scenery, but you don't have to install everything, there are a map during the instal so that you can point out what places to install the global scenery.
First impression:
When I opened X-Plane the first time I was surprised about how good the graphics were! The mountains looks beautiful! Flying the Cirrus Jet out of Innsbruck (LOWI) I almost got a birdstrike (yes! X-Plane simulates that!) Shortly after a couple of flights, I updated X-Plane to V9.22 (the newest update at that time) so my sim was compatible with the newest planes.
Starting using the sim
After downloading plenty of sceneries and some freeware planes, I had to try out X-Plane with add-ons. I now realised that most planes on the web has a nice model, but is missing a good VC. However, there are still a number of great freeware and payware aircrafts with good VC's (listed in this review). The sceneries are of that quality you could expect in FS, however that's because most of them are converted from FS, which is very easy (tutorial below)! Flying around in X-Plane is a joy! The water is so stunning that I almost can't explain it. X-Plane can also handle a large number of threes without drop in framt-rate (on my system). Buildings are dropping a little FPS if you add more of them, than your system handles. There are a lot of smart choises in the "Rendering options" like "Compress terrain textures to save VRAM", and also there is one option that you can fly on one core (requires dual/quad core) and load scenery in the backround on another. X-Plane is far more within technology than FS at this point.
After flying X-Plane for some weeks, I really like it!
After adding all the sceneries I wanted and all the planes, X-Plane is really looking nice! X-Plane also supports sloping runways, making the sim getting the ultimate realism, however, som airports has a little wrong "sloping layout", but that can be fixed very easy with just turning the sloped runways off. Also, gliders and thermals are made in the sim. It includes a very good model of the ASK-21. I'm not a glider pilot, si I can't really say how realistic it is at that point, but it seems very good! You can also choose what plane that can pull you up in the air, or you can use a winch (also works at airports without). A little "bug" (honestly more funny) thing is that you can choose the C172 to pull the B-52 up in the air, and if you do not power up yourself, the B-52 will hang below the C172. You can turn on air baloons, forest fires (works only if it's hot enough etc...). As in FSX, X-Plane simulates roads, however some more unaccurate, at least where I fly. You can choose between many points of traffic desensity. Also X-Plane simulates trains and railroads. With realistic settings, you can even rip the flaps of if you fly with them down at too high speed, loose your wings if you fly too rough etc... every of this settings can be turned on and off. Also X-Plane simulates ditching. X-Plane has also the most realistic civil helicopter dynamics available today. Also, X-Plane as totally default simulates a WX (weather radar), something only a few MSFS add-on aircraft's has got. The AI in X-Plane is as close as nothing (at least what I've seen during testings and flying), just some random planes flying randomly around, very few of them. There is an add-on, X-Traffic, but I haven't tested it so much. It's like FSRecorder in FS, you have to record your flight and you can play it like traffic after that. The good thing is that you can fully control the path of the plane.
X-Plane V9 has some very good models with VC's (C172, P180 Avanti, Cirrus Jet and the ASK-21 +the Stinson L5 in the V9.40 update). The KC-10, 777-200 and 747-400 needs an update, so until these models are updates, and you only fly them, PMDG, Wilco and PSS is better in FS then. For GA pilots and bushflyers, X-Plane is a new sim that is highly recommended! Don't worry, just convert all the sceneries you would like.
Good freeware and payware planes:
The AN-2: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=6915
Mortens Piper Archer III: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=8870
X-Hydros Zenair 701: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=5482
X-Scenery's MU-2: http://www.x-scenery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=6 (payware)
I also recommend the plugin Pilot view for a headshake function.
Link: http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=8665
How to convert a FS scenery to X-Plane:
Download FS2XPLANE from http://www.marginal.org.uk/x-planescenery/tools.html and follow the instructions on the screen, it's very easy!
Rating:
65 %
What I liked about X-Plane V9
- Sloped runways!
- The graphics, including the water!
- Fly a glider, Cessna, helicopter, fighter or space ship! Most of them are so good simulated.
- WX simulated as default.
- All the payware is much cheaper then MSFS
What I didn't like about X-Plane V9
- Wish many more airports should have a scenery like LOWI!
- Wish planes like the 747, 777 and KC-10 were much more updated! In X-Plane 9 they have included some very good planes and some of them are not good at all.
- More data about e.g. roads like MSFS has
- Not a good option for traffic
Copyright (C) Helge Sakkestad.
TileProxy for FS9 and FSX
Many peoples don't know what TileProxy is yet, but we will take a look. TileProxy is a program that downloads photoscenery for FS9 and X. In this review we will point out the good, and bad things about TileProxy.
First impression:
After finally being able to manage the settings, I opened FS9, loaded the flight, something that took some 10-15 mins. for me, and tried it on Oslo Gardermoen. I was very disapointed when I saw how the scenery was there (picture 2). So I flew to Oslo, and that was some bettre (There I could use the max. FS2004 res. for photoscenery, picture 3). After that, I wen't down to the city of Moss, which was also covered, and seemed fine, however, plenty of places between both airports was like Gardermoen. I wen't to my summer house (picture 5) and it was first then I discovered the poor watermasking. I wen't to Rakkestad (picture 1) and had the same "problem" as Gardermoen. The first impression was not the best, but it seemed ok, I know Norway is poor covered by Yahoo, that TileProxy used at the time of this review.
Going deeper:
As I wrote, Norway is poorly covered by Yahoo, so I had to try out TileProxy in the US, which is covered very good! After the looong loading time I was able to fly in Miami, and that seemed ok, but still some places that was not really good covered, at least the watermasking was bettre in the US. After trying out TileProxy many places worldwide, I can confirm that with FS9, this is honestly not recommended. However, if you fly a 757 from Los Angeles to New York, it can be nice. As seen on picture 1, the res. is just "ok" at normal cruising altitude. Now, I had to try it in FSX. I wen't to Helsinki, and it was just nice. Not the full res. available for FSX, but just ok. You can compare Pasi's Malmi photoscenery with TileProxy's (picture 7), Pasi's is the one with more colours and higher resolution. When going to the countryside, or actualy not more than a few KM out of Helsinki, Finland (picture 6), I realised that TileProxy is grounded for my use until it get's new aerialphotos, and we get some faster internet lines, and more powerfull hardware.
NOTE: TileProxy has maybe been updated since this review!
Conclusion: If you have a fast internet connection, high-end system and FSX, you should try this out.
Rating:
45%
What I liked about TileProxy:
- A nice idea
- Works nice in known places
What I didn't like about TileProxy:
- Poor coverage for more "uknown" places
- Poor watermasking
- (Increasing loading time like a....)
First impression:
After finally being able to manage the settings, I opened FS9, loaded the flight, something that took some 10-15 mins. for me, and tried it on Oslo Gardermoen. I was very disapointed when I saw how the scenery was there (picture 2). So I flew to Oslo, and that was some bettre (There I could use the max. FS2004 res. for photoscenery, picture 3). After that, I wen't down to the city of Moss, which was also covered, and seemed fine, however, plenty of places between both airports was like Gardermoen. I wen't to my summer house (picture 5) and it was first then I discovered the poor watermasking. I wen't to Rakkestad (picture 1) and had the same "problem" as Gardermoen. The first impression was not the best, but it seemed ok, I know Norway is poor covered by Yahoo, that TileProxy used at the time of this review.
Going deeper:
As I wrote, Norway is poorly covered by Yahoo, so I had to try out TileProxy in the US, which is covered very good! After the looong loading time I was able to fly in Miami, and that seemed ok, but still some places that was not really good covered, at least the watermasking was bettre in the US. After trying out TileProxy many places worldwide, I can confirm that with FS9, this is honestly not recommended. However, if you fly a 757 from Los Angeles to New York, it can be nice. As seen on picture 1, the res. is just "ok" at normal cruising altitude. Now, I had to try it in FSX. I wen't to Helsinki, and it was just nice. Not the full res. available for FSX, but just ok. You can compare Pasi's Malmi photoscenery with TileProxy's (picture 7), Pasi's is the one with more colours and higher resolution. When going to the countryside, or actualy not more than a few KM out of Helsinki, Finland (picture 6), I realised that TileProxy is grounded for my use until it get's new aerialphotos, and we get some faster internet lines, and more powerfull hardware.
NOTE: TileProxy has maybe been updated since this review!
Conclusion: If you have a fast internet connection, high-end system and FSX, you should try this out.
Rating:
45%
What I liked about TileProxy:
- A nice idea
- Works nice in known places
What I didn't like about TileProxy:
- Poor coverage for more "uknown" places
- Poor watermasking
- (Increasing loading time like a....)