Flight Simulators Compared by pcsimulators.org

[itye1970]

A comparison of the main flight simulators for PC, a good article by pcsimulators.org includes Flightgear, FSX,P3D, X-Plane, Aerofly FS2

http://pcsimulators.org/index.php/fligh ... s-compared

[CaptB]

As a user of 3 simulators mentioned there, this seems at least inaccurate.

[Thorsten]

They haven't actually bothered to start FG - the screenshots shown are picked from the FG wiki and site, partially a few years old.

So what kind of picture does studying 4 year old screenshots provide of the current state of a Flightsim?

[Catalanoic]

Another point but important here is. comparing free to paid software dont makes sense, in FSX/Xplane/etc.. you need to buy other commercial addons to get these features, some commercial simulators have the same features as in FG in some aspects, adding third party software/work makes comparisons invalid. You can get in FG (currently partially and need to code or adapt) some of the features included in commercial addons and from the simulators/games itself.

[CaptB]

I agree with Catalonic, they threw the payware addons into the mix.

The aircraft and scenery they have shown are not the default, at least not for FSX and XPX, but addons you have to pay for at least 20EUR on top of the price of the simulator.

A fair comparison would be to compare what you get with a fresh install. If you consider Terragear and FGAddon as part of the package, FG would be between FSX and XPX, otherwise it is also an ecosystem comparison where FG will lose some points.

[Thorsten]

Whereas if the ability to configure and extend is important to you, FG will lead unanimously...

[CaptB]

@Thorsten

Correct. But every time there is a comparison or discussion, they seem to disregard that aspect every time.

[CaptB]

Here's a quick and dirty comparison of LEMD scenery.



FlightGear


FSX Default


XPX Default

[wkitty42]

those ??X ones look like drek...