ND Art & Technology MBB/Kawasaki BK 117 simulator

[Shaman]

This is probably the next best helicopter desktop simulator I have seen after DCS has set new level.

 

http://nd-art-and-technology.com/BK117_main.html

check the videos!

[Boulund]

Looking really awesome! Sure looks thousands of times better than the (I'm gonna say it) crappy helicopters available for fs9/fsx.

Reasonable price as well, only $25

Edited January 4, 2010 by Boulund

[Boberro]

It looks really cool, small price :)

[mse]

I dont know is this same studio but following link is BK-117 for X-Plane.

 

http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=185

[Griffin]

Wow this looks awesome! I've understood that the FSX helicopters are far from this. Now this brings a big pain in my a**. I'd really love such a helicopter in a sim but X-Plane has it's disadvantages compared to FSX and this kind of aircraft really needs some missions.

First the VRS Superbug comes out and is in the wrong sim (FSX instead of DCS) and now this comes (X-Plane instead of FSX)...

God please give us a perfect sim platform for everything!

Edited January 4, 2010 by Griffin

[element1108]

Dodoo sim's 206 is pretty good. They're working on Huey next, that for fsx. I have xplane for mac, but no tracker ir so I'm done with it unfortunaly.

[EagleEye]

Same for me here Griffin. Without something to do (Missions) it may will become boring after some time.

With the VRS Superbug you can at least destroy planes with missiles.

[joey45]

yes but no bang, bangs though :(

Edited January 4, 2010 by joey45

[Lucas_From_Hell]

crappy helicopters available for fs9/fsx.

 

Read this and just remembered of this picture (stolen from the VAT "Berkuts" forum, not my translation at all):

 

I know Google Translate sometimes returns wrong translations, but this time they've missed by a bit too far:megalol:

 

[Shaman]

Hilarious - I remember this picture too, but you guys go completely OT.

It is not for FSX system. Yes FSX has DODO - and anything else is just pure noobishness.

 

Same was with X-plane until it got the ND Art & Technology MBB/Kawasaki BK 117. I don't have it yet ;) But will think about it after 10th Jan (payday!)

The videos and are convincing!

[element1108]

The cockpit is fantastic. I wonder if an fsx version is possible.

[Boulund]

An important question arose just this minute - does the windscreen wipers work??

I'm continually amazed by this kind of tech, wasn't there another video circulating in this forum of a luxury jet with the same kind of detail?

[liotczik]

X-Plane has both rain effects on cockpit glass, as well as moving windshield wipers. Although said effects do not interact between themselves, like in Enemy Engaged (and in reality too).

 

BK 117 is definitely on my list to get! Outstanding visual details and a lot of hard work to make all the systems and flight dynamics. It's a job that simply has to be appreciated. Once for its scope and quality and twice for its rarity. There are very few really good addons (when I think good, I mean mainly flight dynamics, replication of aircraft systems and operation; graphics are important, but still on the second place) and among them helicopters are true 'white crows'.

 

That being said, I can think of 3 good and nice helos for X-Plane and 2 for FS9. Not THAT much of detail as in Bk 117, yet still a lot of dedicated work and a lot of happy hours with them.

 

As for FSX, currently there are no means for converting aircraft between it and X-Plane. It's a very popular topic, but the differencies between ways how aircraft for both sims are built and their file structure are way too big to even think of a reasonable method of cloning planes from FSX to X-Plane and the other way. You want Bk 117 for FSX - you have to build it from scratch, flight dynamics, visual representation, systems, gauges... everything. Maybe only sounds could be reused. As a side note, sceneries from FS9 and FSX can be imported into X-Plane relatively easy. Not point-and-click, but you don't have to have a degree in computer science to achieve that ;)

 

Another question is: why on Earth would you like to try this beautiful helo in FSX, while you can have it in X-Plane? Helicopter dynamics (or rather lack of them) was one of the main reasons, I've never bought FSX and definitely switched from FS9 to X-Plane. And before you accuse me of being an X-Plane fanatic, know that I can see its various flaws and quirks and the first days/flights with it were a little daunting and discouraging. But after that first impressions I've come to a conclusion, that it has much more good features than flaws and since then it's one of my favourite pieces of software. And with frequent updates it's going to be only better! And building your own flying machines for X-Plane is just fantastic, it hooked me in no time.

 

Microsoft sims have their own merits, they are not that totally bad - I used to have hundreds of hours in FS9. But after some time my interest shifted from just "happy-simming" to more serious approach to flying simulation, that is simulating flight itself and its dynamic nature, rather than giving me only a feeling of simulation, built over simplified flight model with use of additional features like ATC, traffic, dynamic weather, addons and visuals. These are nice, right, but the most important is flight itself. Even now, with Black Shark, most of my time I just cruise around and take pleasure from this beautiful and especially dear to me helo (a long story...) instead of busting tanks and evading SAMs (and my favourite mission being 'Courier' so far...) ;)

 

One word about missions. My point of view is that missions are, before anything else, in your head. Think of an adventure and fly it, the rest is imagination, which by the way would be helpful anyway - afterall our computer flights are only simulated...

Want some inspiration? Here you go:

- rent a Cessna 172 and fly to visit your friend in a city 300km away. Unfortunately GPS is busted and you have to fly VFR/VOR/NDB.

- as a pilot in heli charter company, you have to deliver mountain expedition to a high altitude LZ (remember to take max payload and minimum fuel needed ...).

- follow one of great pioneer's flights, like Lindbergh, Hughes, Skarzynski, Orlinski, Bleriot, Mermoz in a plane from their time, or at least in something modern, yet challenging. Can you manage a flight of 5000km with a plane no faster than 100kts? Or in a helo? (Not in one take, but still...)

- make a closed triangular track, with your airfield in one of the corners. Then calculate the headings and tracks for each of legs and how long would it take to complete it. Can you fly precisely according to the plan, without other nav aids, than stopwatch, magnetic compass and airspeed indicator? With wind and turbulence? In a fog?? :D

- you are airliner's captain with bad luck: autopilot is out and you have to fly 10 "laps" in a holding pattern because of some emergency in airport or some VIP traffic. Can you do it and keep "laps" similar to each other? Remember: one "lap" has to be flown at a specific altitude with small tolerance and within 4-6 minutes.

 

Tune the story to your needs, mood and off you go :) There is really no true need for scripted adventures, just a bit of imagination and invention.

[Griffin]

Man you can really write!

I agree with you. Though every sim has it's own pros and cons and that's what is making it so hard. It's difficult to choose between those two. X-Plane has great features, the physics being the biggest of them. FSX has many high quality add-ons that are just as advanced on the physics part despite the not so advanced engine. I don't see anything wrong with FSX except the lack of great helicopters like this one. X-Plane is a great concept and as we can see from this thread, it now has great add-ons too. I think it still has some way to go though.

I will propably just try not to think about civilian sims since they give me too much headache. With DCS it's easy, one platform, only high quality aircraft and their number grows slowly. It's the same with FC, despite the lacking aircraft modelling, as it doesn't have competition. For the same reason I'm really waiting for SoW.

[crazysundog]

That bk117 looks nice and sounds interesting; but I doubt it can hold a candle to the Dodosim 206 in FSX as far as flight dynamics are concerned.

Edited January 6, 2010 by crazysundog

[element1108]

That bk117 looks nice and sounds interesting; but I doubt it can hold a candle to the Dodosim 206 in FSX as far as flight dynamics are concerned.

 

Just can't wait for the UH-1 to drop from Dodo...there's a helo I can see having a lot of fun with. :)

 

Anyway derail sorry, BK 117 if I still had xplane installed on my mac I'd get this in a heartbeat! The price is very nice as well! :)

[Griffin]

That bk117 looks nice and sounds interesting; but I doubt it can hold a candle to the Dodosim 206 in FSX as far as flight dynamics are concerned.

 

I got the idea that FSX doesn't stand a chance to X-Plane in terms of flight dynamics simply because the whole idea of X-Plane is that it's built around a realistic physics engine. Read liotczik's post.

 

Doh, now I really want this chopper but don't think I can handle another sim on my PC and in my head!

Edited January 6, 2010 by Griffin

[JACN]

I got the idea that FSX doesn't stand a chance to X-Plane in terms of flight dynamics simply because the whole idea of X-Plane is that it's built around a realistic physics engine.

 

Excluding helicopters, that statement is not true. Indeed MSFS can be (way) more realistic in terms of simulation accuracy than X-Plane. All depends on how much info (aero-data) do you have for a given aircraft. If you have no data of an aircraft, X-Plane internal algorithms will give you a "quite" realistic behaviour (let´s say 70% accuracy at best) if compared to the "addon producer guessed aerodynamics MSFS model"...Sadly in MSFS world only perhaps a 1% of addon makers takes the effort in research for accurate data. This is the reason of the MSFS bad reputation.

 

Some recent born companies, like Dodosim, have aditionally found the true potential of the MSFS Flight Dynamics Engine. MSFS is not more than a (beautiful) raw simulation engine, it´s up to addon maker´s ability to whether make the most of it or not.

 

And speaking streactly about helicopters...I really doubt X-Plane allows such a richly customized helo physics as the Dodo Jet Ranger displays: loss of tail rotor efficiency, main rotor vortex interference, tail rotor vortex ring state, for not mentioning the "basic" ones: rotor droop on torque application, vortex ring state, weathervane instability, etc...or aircraft components aging!.

 

In summary X-Plane can be considered in the 99% of the cases better than MSFS...but in that 1% MSFS can literally c-r-u-s-h X-Plane´s physics. Let´s wait a few months ;)

 

Álvaro

[liotczik]

Disclaimer: this post is for informative purposes only and it's goal is NOT to be a trigger for flame-war or attacking anyone personally :music_whistling:

As for being offtopic, it still circles around BK117 (and it's "natural habitat"), so I hope it will be enough for not being removed ;)

 

That bk117 looks nice and sounds interesting; but I doubt it can hold a candle to the Dodosim 206 in FSX as far as flight dynamics are concerned.

Wrong. Dodosim's flight dynamics are more or less equal to X-Plane. While the later lacks only LTE (yet), it's stock flight model takes into account all of the other helo-specific phenomenas and effects, that are artifically modelled (=scripted) by the first (I've been very cautious about VRS long before Black Shark...). Dodosim is heavily plugin enhanced (=modded) to get close to that.

 

What Dodosim has better (or equal - I'll be able to tell only after I try BK117), is its systems modelling, especially the engine. For example, you can get your engine fried, because you've attempted a start up with too strong tailwind! Of course it could be also implemented into X-Plane, with a help of a dedicated plugin (it was done before and works fantastic -> An-2).

 

I really doubt X-Plane allows such a richly customized helo physics as the Dodo Jet Ranger displays: loss of tail rotor efficiency, main rotor vortex interference, tail rotor vortex ring state, for not mentioning the "basic" ones: rotor droop on torque application, vortex ring state, weathervane instability, etc...or aircraft components aging!.

Wrong, all indeed is modelled, as was said above. But to tell the truth, X-Plane doesn't model components aging, like in Dodosim (and few other addons from other developers), although you can set mean time between failures for almost every component of your a/c (as well as a separate general settings for the whole a/c and random failures). Last time I had to autorotate, because some little gizmo responsible for letting air into fuel tank, to compensate for 'missing' fuel, suddenly and unexpectedly failed. Fuel got stuck in the tank and engine went silent. But remember, that 'components aging' is only another plugin enchancement, which means it could be implemented into X-Plane and doesn't say anything about, which sim is better - it says only, that Dodosim's work is fantastic.

 

If you have no data of an aircraft, X-Plane internal algorithms will give you a "quite" realistic behaviour (let´s say 70% accuracy at best) if compared to the "addon producer guessed aerodynamics MSFS model"...Sadly in MSFS world only perhaps a 1% of addon makers takes the effort in research for accurate data.

"Behind scenes" X-Plane is superior to even the best plugin for FS9/FSX. Take a look here: http://x-plane.com/pg_Inside_X-Plane.html To make long story short, while making a/c for FS you basically tell the simulation engine, how it should behave and the engine executes what was "told" to execute (FS is more like a railway simulator). In X-Plane you input any raw real (or made up) technical data into the simulation and then the engine calculates in real time all the forces and coefficients working on aircraft in flight, for given conditions, and the result of these heavy-math is what you see on the screen (X-Plane is true flight simulator).

 

Try FSX' Extra 300 and X-Plane's Extra 300 or Su-26, attempt some vicious and autorotative maneuvers and you'll feel the difference between the two.

 

I'm currently working on a certain plane, which in RL achieved max. speed of 216km/h. I've gathered a solid database on it (even original polars for wing airfoils, have you ever seen a polar in FS world?), entered all of it into X-Plane and you know what? During the first flight I was unable to accelerate in a level flight more, than to... 216km/h. Other significant flight characteristics I've tested are also within known real parameters of the original a/c. That really made me think... Of course, the more amount and more valid data you can find, the better the results (trash in - trash out), but you have to agree, that generating 3D propeller shape, entering engine power and fuselage drag coefficients and so on, is a more advanced way of determinig max airspeed, than writing down the desired speed value itself.

 

X-Plane is a great concept and as we can see from this thread, it now has great add-ons too. I think it still has some way to go though.

True. Currently only a small fraction of X-Plane's real capabilities are utilised by desktop aviators and that's why for most of the people it appears only as a "little brother" of FS. But in fact it's closer to a professional engineering software, than a computer game (the opposite is true for FS).

 

Some recent born companies, like Dodosim, have aditionally found the true potential of the MSFS Flight Dynamics Engine. MSFS is not more than a (beautiful) raw simulation engine

The truth is, some recent born companies, have found really clever ways of modding VERY raw "simulation" engine of MSFS by adding to it "postproduction" effects, that enchance gameplay into something being closer to accurate simulation. That's more like it :D

 

Indeed MSFS can be (way) more realistic in terms of simulation accuracy than X-Plane.

Wrong. All depends of specific a/c in question; some great planes for FS are way better than some not so great planes for X-Plane - that is correct. But the simulation engine, which is driving them, would be always better in X-Plane, because of its principles and philosophy.

 

it´s up to addon maker´s ability to whether make the most of it or not.

That is absolutely true for every sim and I have greatest respect for every talented modder, who dedicates his time and talent to create real jewels like Dodosim and BK117. No matter what sim they fly in, high quality is an universal value.

[JACN]

 

"Behind scenes" X-Plane is superior to even the best plugin for FS9/FSX. Take a look here: http://x-plane.com/pg_Inside_X-Plane.html To make long story short, while making a/c for FS you basically tell the simulation engine, how it should behave and the engine executes what was "told" to execute (FS is more like a railway simulator). In X-Plane you input any raw real (or made up) technical data into the simulation and then the engine calculates in real time all the forces and coefficients working on aircraft in flight, for given conditions, and the result of these heavy-math is what you see on the screen (X-Plane is true flight simulator).

 

Wrong!:doh::D...

 

X-Plane calculates aircraft elements aerodynamics based on a physics model like Vortex-Lattice, Datcom, basic CFDs algorithms and whatever. Don´t get me wrong...that´s ok and indeed it´s a quite complex and accurate way for PC based simulators. But it will never be as much accurate as a table (point to point) data based simulation. Basically because IF you do own the real (flight test obtained) stability and control derivatives for a given aircraft NO mathematical model in the world---even those run in Cray computers---will predict the real aircraft aerodynamics. A lookup table model system, on the other hand will reproduce it with as much accuracy as resolution and cross aerodynamic dependecies you can model. This is how the real life engineering simulators are built, like MSFS and not like X-Plane.

 

Of course, MSFS data tables are (too) limited in terms of resolution and some (many) aerodynamic effects missing...BUT -I agree with you in this- with some external coding work, some developers (at least the one I know...) have managed to expand the MSFS FDE posibilities to reproduce a real aircraft aerodynamic data-set to the limits of the available data.

 

However, I have to agree with you again, this is not and never has been the rule...but in the right hands (enough skills and knowledge) and with enough data, the simulation of the same aircraft would always be more accurate in the MSFS than in X-Plane.

 

I will not keep discussing about which simulator is best, I think it´s stupid because "depends on" what and how you compare. I simply consider that many times a categorical statement needs enough information behind...from both sides :smilewink:

 

Álvaro

 

EDIT: an example of an advantage of the MSFS FDE system: given a real aircraft aerodynamics, X-Plane physics engine will never be able to reproduce "subtle" aerodynamics effects like a transonic wing-rock effect (not even noticed during the wind tunnel but in the Flight Test phase!). IF aerodata available, MSFS could reproduce that effect matching that real aircraft specific behaviour...X-Plane could not.

Edited January 6, 2010 by JACN

[liotczik]

Agreed :) There is no such thing as 'best sim'. As you said, it depends on how and what do you compare, and also what do you expect from it. I just hope, that my high expectations of BK117 will be satisfied soon ;)

[crazysundog]

Disclaimer: this post is for informative purposes only and it's goal is NOT to be a trigger for flame-war or attacking anyone personally :music_whistling:

As for being offtopic, it still circles around BK117 (and it's "natural habitat"), so I hope it will be enough for not being removed ;)

 

Wrong. Dodosim's flight dynamics are more or less equal to X-Plane. While the later lacks only LTE (yet), it's stock flight model takes into account all of the other helo-specific phenomenas and effects, that are artifically modelled (=scripted) by the first (I've been very cautious about VRS long before Black Shark...). Dodosim is heavily plugin enhanced (=modded) to get close to that.

.

 

I own X-Plane9, and to be honest I didn't find the sim to my taste. I only flew the helo's, and I liked the torque induced yaw, but didn't bother keeping it on my harddrive long enough to give it a chance. On the other hand, you seem to have extensive knowledge of FSX, the Dodosim and its dynamics, and XPlane...

 

But even with all of that...I still hold to my opinion the Dodosim is better. (and my opinion cannot be WRONG because it is only that - an opinion.)

[liotczik]

As I said in one of my previous posts, X-Plane is not a sim, that will get you immediately hooked, even my own first impressions were not so enthusiastic. Only after I got used to it, and spent some hours learning it, configuring, testing stuff and flying, it turned out to be exactly what I always wanted (one of the most memorable moments during that time, was being caught into severe icing in C172, I barely made it out in one piece).

Sure, there are few things, that I'd like to be made differently or even made at all, but still I've never had any regrets after switching from MSFS (maybe sometimes I miss cool ATC and buildings in airports, but only a little ;)) On the other hand X-Plane is compatible with Vatsim/IVAO and the pool of detailed airports is constantly growing. And the best part is, that X-Plane's makers listen to the community and upgrade the sim on a regular basis with bugfixes and new features.

 

One thing to remember is that, the default helicopters in X-Plane were made for it's previous versions, and now are way off, thanks to the frequent updates and refinements in flight dynamics modelling. Their looks are another matter... Fortunately, there are upgraded versions of the best helos and they are really good, both dynamically and visually (I think here mostly about the newest B206, MD500 and R44, there is also a nice EC-120). If you're interested in giving X-Plane another chance, there is opened a new section on x-plane.org about helicopters (currently it's even on the main site), where you have links to all of the most important stuff like recommended birds, flying school and more.

 

I speak only about what I've checked myself and I do know few things about sims I fly, because of my general approach for flight simulations and aviation. I gather and get familiar with RL resources like handbooks and manuals and then try this knowledge in my sims, to better understand it. Some parts of this work almost exactly like in reality and some are totally wrong. Then I try to determine why is that, why something was modelled (and how it was done) or why wasn't, just to know the difference between sim and reality.

 

The final outcome is that, by this interaction and cross-checking of reality and simulation, I can learn more about both, than I would be able to, if I was using only one source/method. Of course, the best thing would be to get real flying license, but I can't afford it yet, so for now I have to fly with what I have :) And I fly everything, that has some degree of fidelity and quality, as you can see in my profile.

 

To be honest, there are regions, I know almost nothing about. For example I know what to do in order to not to be killed by SA-2 and that's it. I'm totally jaw-dropped and feel so small when I read posts about SAM Simulator and after I've visited their website.

 

Indeed Dodosim's B206 is better than stock X-Plane's B206 because it has the following items (though remember, that all of these miracles are driven by plugins and mods, not the FS itself, Dodosim basicaly built a separate sim, that only works in FS environment):

- detailed turbine engine simulation, along with damage model dependent of pilot erros and flight/environmental conditions (X-Plane's engine modelling is more simple, but it's one of the things that are worked on. On top of that some planes have similar plugin enchancements to the engine model)

- detailed additional systems, like hydraulic, electric, fuel (funny thing is that X-Plane has all of it, only it hadn't been used for B206. But it's there and is used on other a/c. I hope the next version of one of my favourite helos will be fitted with these - or I'll try to do it myself)

- airframe wear'n'tear and maintenance mod (that's really fantastic! X-Plane's native "failures screen", while huge and complicated, as well as wear and corresponding failures simulation, can't be compared to that level of attention.)

- visuals (Dodo's looks a bit better, more detailed - but hey, it's a payware afterall. For me, X-Plane's version is more than enough, anyway the most important are gauges, which are good and easily readable)

- LTE a.k.a. loss of tail rotor's effectiveness (with patience, this will be eventually introduced into X-Plane as standard. To be honest I've never encountered it in normal operation in Dodosim - only when I tried to check, how does it work. But then again it's just like with failures - the unexpected possibility of it gives the thrills :D)

 

Now, when you consider what I've written in comments, you will realise, that the two aren't that much away from each other and this quality could be introduced to the X-Plane as well (even more easily and it was already done, but on the other airframes), which I hope to see with BK-117 (at least to some degree).

 

My thoughts about Dodosim's B206 are, if you have FS9/FSX and fly them even from time to time, then it's a highly recommended addon. Just to see what can be done with enough skills and knowledge. But if you're additionally into rotorcraft or want to learn fly one, then it's absolutely necessary to buy it.

 

For anyone that only wants to start the engine and wee around for a while, without need for learning niuances and perils of aviation, probably MSFS would be better, because of less flying difficulty and more user friendliness. For anyone truly happy and amazed with Black Shark, I'd suggest either buying X-Plane or MSFS+Dodosim (and then removing all the default MSFS helos from HDD, as unneeded burden ;))

 

I'll stick with X-Plane for the following reasons:

 

- stock flight dynamics are among the best on market, along with nice visualisation and file output (which helps in setting control derivatives you've mentioned earlier, there is even a separate option for them)

 

- it may not have so vast library of addons, like MSFS, but I have there all types of aircraft I fly most often, so it's enough for me (it would be great to have few more, but on the other hand I can't fly them all anyway)

 

- weather dynamics is better in the areas I look for (like icing, ridge lift, turbulence, windshear)

 

- on 85-90% of graphics settings it runs on my PC better than FSX on lowest possible settings (25 fps max over ocean - X-Plane in such conditions accelerates to 100+, Crysis works full detail with only very occasional and minor fps drop, even some DX10 effects are present, while it's only WinXP with DX9). Do I need to add, that then it looks much better than FSX on minimal? Another thing is, I prefer X-Plane's general world colours, less neon and flashy.

 

- the freedom and relative easiness of making own a/c (with the whole subsection about airfoils and their properties, man that's crazy!), even the most extravagant and non existent in RL (for me it was the one of the very main reasons to buy it!)

 

- nice and quite convincing NVG (works for every a/c just out of box :))

 

- dogfight module and possibility to arm a/c with working weapons

- damage model to the airframe (along with max speeds for flap and gear deployment, Vne, max and min G. Exceed one of this and bad things start to happen)

- possibility to fly on Mars (with realistic landscape and atmosphere/gravitation properties. In fact you could modify Earth's properties to reflect any fictional world from your favourite universe :))

 

- lots of config options, at first hard to get a hold of this all, but in the end it can produce an experience better tuned to the specific user

 

- frequent updates of the sim itself, there is a connection between makers and the community

 

- little nice touches and minigames out of the box - a2a refueling, atmospheric reentry, airdrop from B-52, dropping water on forest fires, formation flying, oilrigs, carrier and frigate ops. Sometimes I just want to have fun or do some stunts, instead of "serious" flying. And formation flying module is a great training device, anyone having trouble with it in Black Shark should try it :) Also when you fly unpressurised plane over 12500 ft or so, screen is going black to simulate losing conciousness because of not enough oxygen in too thin air. The higher you get, the more rapid blackout. You can put on sunglasses. Birds are circling on final and deers walk on runway, alwazs ready to create trouble. In nice weather there are baloons everywhere. And so on :) Sure, FSX has some of these, but not all of them :P

[crazysundog]

I may have to try installing it again and give it another chance. I do remember the flight models in the helos being a little 'floaty', kinda like FSX...but it was nice to have main/tail rotor interaction.

 

The Dodosim was built as commercial software, and I dont care if they did it with plugins or mods....its fantastic!

[Shaman]

X-plane never got me hooked until the moment I began training for my RL pilot license. In this regard I have found that it is excelent training tool due to the fact its user interface (instructor console on the 2nd PC) is designed to do just that, you can very easily create own content (f.e. nav aids) on the fly. However the winner to me was the "feel". I actually compare landings in X-plane 9 to the RL ones more then in MS FSX.

I do have DODOSIM on my FSX - yes it is fantastic. My girlfriend also uses it for practice and thinks the same of it. I plan to purchase ND Art & Technology somewhere next week and will let you know what I think of it from my experience.