Have you tried X-Plane?

Bob:

I used to have X-Plane version 6. It's a lot different than 8 from what the website shows.
I know the airplanes are much cheaper than for MS, but they are less detailed too.
It uses different formula for calculating how things fly. I don't know that they fly any better than a "well tweaked" MS airplane, but they do use real life aeronautical formula. I believe it is certified for some limited real aviation time.

If your new computer is a MAC I would give it a try.
With FSX being the power hog it is, many people may take a serious look at X-Plane version 9 when it comes out. I have no idea when that would be.

Good luck.

I found this blog:

User Name Airwolf2000

Being a pilot I bought a PC just to use MSFS and X-plane (a.k.a. XP) for instrument approaches (I use a Mac Mini for everything else). For the most part both do the job real well. MSFS is more of a game as my teenage daughter can land most of the aircraft, however she has much more trouble and rarely succeeds with XP. The true laminar characteristics of XP seem to be be more pronounced in the latest versions of MSFS, however the CPU and graphic cards required to get these capabilites with the eye candy means a computer upgrade for everyone. XP has been working on the same PC CPU and graphics card since version 7.0 with great frame rates. MSFS does win the aircraft war as MS aircraft are more consistent from aircraft to aircraft. Also the landscape of the latest version of XP does not have any radio towers in it, at least not on my CD's. Roads and highways still run off to nowhere at times and some of the external views of the aircraft seem fragmented. However for real pilots who would like to practice dead-recogning and instrument approaches I usually fly X-Plane. For eyecandy in downtown Seattle or Chicago, I show MSFS. Depends on what you want to do.

---

Here is a Wikipedia article about X-Plane. <a href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Plane_(simulator)" target="_blank">Click here

---

<param name="movie" value="www.youtube.com/v/BXcCAsu9Odk&rel=1">www.youtube.com/v/BXcCAsu9Odk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355">

Honestly guys,

I have come to decision that I use MSFS just for fun only. I am not going to look for realistic experience as in the real life or criticize MSFS for not making it processor friendly or as real as it is. Whatever.

I had chances to go to aviation school (in India & Russia) for pilot training and I can still pursue if I really want to. Three cheers to student loan! But I have always known that commercial aviation is not what I wanted. Maybe a weekend pilot, that's a wish though.

Anyway, my point is MSFS is good enough and as Jerry has stated there are really good planes out there for MSFS. You just have to spend little extra money for them.

Three cheers.

Naresh

Naresh, I am not saying that we should all abandon MSFS. I am just exploring other options.

I applaud other developers like Laminar Research for their X-Plane project. They should be encouraged to do it their own way. If Laminar Research can get it off the ground, so to speak, then good for them and us. I think they are on the right track and get the physics right.

One great thing Laminar Research has going for them right now is that they do not have a large corporate infrastructure to hamper them if they want to explore new horizons. For instance, they now have a radar terrain surface map of the planet Mars. And, they are exploring aircraft designs that can work in the thin Martian atmosphere and low gravity.

Laminar Research is also looking at adding an underwater simulation or water based simulation environment. Just imagine the possibilities!