On the other hand, with X-Plane making changes every few months, MSFS 3rd party developers are wary of writing for a sim, that seems to break things so often.

This is misinformation.As previously stated by 3rd party developers and LR themselves this is not an issue.eg, http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/2009/12/...to-x-plane.htmlIf users download betas then they are testing software. Otherwise they should wait for official releases. Unlike FSX with XP everyone can participate in the beta process if they so desire.

Hi Y'all,Geofa - I think the standard of "similar visual quality" is a good one to compare, because it's what users care about in the end, but I fear it is also pretty susceptible to imperfect comparisons - each sim has its own strengths, and if you dial in a strength of one, it'll probably paste the other. You'd have to look at a lot of comparison shots. This kind of comparison would give a good overview, but it also would not distinguish between efficiency of the underlying engine and clever use of that engine. In the case of cities and X-Plane, I'm not sure how our efficiency matches FS X but most of the visual problems are due to us not being very clever.I mention efficiency because if you are looking to create a third party scenery pack, the efficiency of the engine might be more important than the cleverness of the default scenery...the engine efficiency tells you how much budget you get for target hardware, while the cleverness of the default scenery is moot.MatthewS - I don't think the airplane seats are going to be a very good use of instancing. They don't represent a huge cost of geometry - since there is only one "user's plane interior" authors have been able to afford to simply copy meshes in their authoring environment. And a lot of authors now bake lighting..this requires a unique UV map on each seat, which would mean instancing ist't applicable. BTW the seats don't necessarily go over the bus - since they're in an OBJ, x-plane hints to the driver to retain them in VRAM if possible. The driver of course has final say as to where anything ends up. (Generally I don't think you're going to convince anyone to come over to X-Plane for technology like OIT or Instancing that we _haven't_ productized yet. The possible exception might be third party developers who need to look a bit into the future to plan their schedule, but even then an unproductized technology is, well, it's just a clever idea, not much more.) About visibility: the visibility limit has nothing to do with frame-rate. It is based on the amount of loaded scenery. Historically X-Plane loads about a 300km x 300 km box of scneery in 3x2 tiles. The scenery is "scrolled" by dropping tiles from one edge and adding them to the other. The maximum visibility comes from a desire not to see off the edge of the tiles. With a 3x2 box, we can get about 50 km from the edge of a tile north-south before we need to reload. This arrangement lets us set the max visibility to a bit less than 50 km (hence 40 km). If we were to increase the max visibility to, say, 100 km, then after the sim scrolled, we'd be able to see off the edge of the earth behind us, which would be not so good.This all goes way back to X-Plane 6; since then a lot has changed. Back in those days, virtual memory was infinite compared to real GPU bandwidth, vertex count mattered, and we all had one core. Since then, we've introduced a low-res planet and in some cases increased visibility to look (slightly) less ridiculous in far views. X-Plane 9 then introduced volumetric fog (it is 3-d but it is not very sophisticated) to try to help smooth over some of the transition problems.So now we live in this weird hybrid world where the detailed scenery only gives us 50 km guaranteed viewing but we have the entire earth at low res. At low res visibility is constrained to assure we only see high res terrain and then as we go higher, this rule is relaxed, revealing the transition area, which we try to cope with via shaders. It's an evolution, and a strange one.In the long term I think this will get better as we improve the quality of the "low res" planet and allow the DSF box to grow. What's holding this up now is just, well, work: the loader needs to be a little bit smarter about not allocating ANY memory for 3-d for those far DSFs. (Right now we only actually burn 3-d resources for nearby 3-d stuff, not 300 x 300 km of houses, but the scenery tile contents in 3-d are stored in RAM in an abridged form.)That turned into a rambling mess...the short form is: limit in visibility is about how much scenery mesh is loaded, not fps, it evolved, it'll get better someday.And as a final thought: Austin and I both live on the east coast of the US - this 100 sm visibility that everyone wants - it's a freaking myth! Seriously, I'm not denying that high vis is needed in some cases, but I think that high vis is one of those things that the flight community has gotten used to despite it being a rather unrealistic portrayal of what's really out the window when flying.cheersben

You are confusing my terminology (maybe on purpose?)When I say "core" I'm taking about what is delivered by ACES or Laminar Research, and not third parties.The FSX "core" is in stasis. Last updated in 2006/07 and will not be updated again (ACES is disbanded).The XP "core" was updated 3 weeks ago by Laminar Research.The "core" graphics capabilities especially of FSX will continue to fade in comparison to the "core" capabilities of X Plane as Laminar takes advantage of new GPU tech (eg Hardware Instancing, Order Independent Transparency etc).

I know exactly what you're talking about. And it IS on purpose. Third parties are what made MSFS what it is. And MSFS invited them to the party. Without 3rd parties, X-Plane will never have a chance................ as a high tech sim that appeals to a lot of different people with different wants. I could care less about XP's core, if it doesn't have enough third party addons to interest people like me. So why compare cores without third parties? These days, without third parties, they're both "dead".L.Adamson

So how's it turning out? The alternative auto engines just keep getting installed...... usually weigh more, have a ton of cooling problems, and blow the gear housings in the gear reduction units. They require a backup electrical system, and they usually sound lousy too! Lycs/ Continentals still work the best!L.Adamson

Not as nice as the Merlin though!!! :(

"And as a final thought: Austin and I both live on the east coast of the US - this 100 sm visibility that everyone wants - it's a freaking myth! Seriously, I'm not denying that high vis is needed in some cases, but I think that high vis is one of those things that the flight community has gotten used to despite it being a rather unrealistic portrayal of what's really out the window when flying."Being from Michigan I felt the same too-till I started flying the west coast. Unlimited visibiity is often the rule rather than the exception out there. I remember once flying from Evanston, Wyoming to o05 (on the base of mt. lassen). When 100 miles away over Nevada I mearly put the nose on the distant Mt. Lassen-no navigation needed! By the way-xplane does a great rendition of o05..I agree though-if you are west of the Mississippi 5-10 miles will be more the norm-though on some really cold days in Michigan we get unlimited when a big high pressure moves in-but then who want to be flying when it is that cold! :(

And as a final thought: Austin and I both live on the east coast of the US - this 100 sm visibility that everyone wants - it's a freaking myth! Seriously, I'm not denying that high vis is needed in some cases, but I think that high vis is one of those things that the flight community has gotten used to despite it being a rather unrealistic portrayal of what's really out the window when flying.

Ben, I seriously enjoy, all that you contribute here. It's of high interest, and isn't rabid dog versus rabid dog........... like I and others seem to do. :)In regards to visibility, I can see mountains approximately 60 miles away from my back door. Except for when we get inversions, like at the moment. We do have much clearer air, than many. In the air, seeing 100 miles is more likely than not. I know, because I see it all the time. I keep an airplane at the airport next door, and fly often. Maybe Austin should get his plane out west more often.. So for me, limited visibility is a major setback and not a myth. Just wanted you to know.L.Adamson ---- KSLC, Utah

Not as nice as the Merlin though!!! :(

Everybody knows that the Merlin is the best sound possible! Followed by a Harley..............even though I have a Honda.L.Adamson

In the long term I think this will get better as we improve the quality of the "low res" planet and allow the DSF box to grow.

"Long term", so not in XP10? :( :( :( Was really looking forward to XP10 improving this, 25NM is really not enough for XP10. Please reconsider B)

You westerners with your clean air. :-) I've been out west, but not the right kind of west - I was in socal for 3 years.Actually Socal brings up an interesting case - I'd drive toward the inland empire and be able to see the _tops_ of mountains crystal clear...because they'd be above the haze...but then the lowest few thousand feet was pretty gross looking.It goes without saying that to handle such a situation, X-plane will have to handle the HIGHEST visibility we might see in any particular direction, and the highest visibility we might have anywhere in the world. I am not arguing that LR shouldn't look at the issue of increased visibility.But, the beautiful west aside, a lot of flying involves atmospheric scattering - to me a discussion of visibility isn't really complete if we consider how far we can see, but not how the view degrades as we can't see. So when I look at x-plane, I don't just think "We need to increase vis range", I think "we need to improve our scattering model, a lot."cheersBen

MatthewS: "long term" is an intentionally ambiguous phrase that neither confirms nor denies any particular feature in relation to any particular future release that may or may not happen at some possibly future date on some planet in some reality, perhaps.Basically I can't pre-announce ANY future features, and any "this tech is cool" on my blog is just that: me digging out new graphics tech that might be useful, maybe.So don't despair...or get your hopes up! :-)cheersBen

Ben, I seriously enjoy, all that you contribute here. It's of high interest, and isn't rabid dog versus rabid dog........... like I and others seem to do. :)In regards to visibility, I can see mountains approximately 60 miles away from my back door. Except for when we get inversions, like at the moment. We do have much clearer air, than many. In the air, seeing 100 miles is more likely than not. I know, because I see it all the time. I keep an airplane at the airport next door, and fly often. Maybe Austin should get his plane out west more often.. So for me, limited visibility is a major setback and not a myth. Just wanted you to know.

Mountains in the distance are about 100 to 125 miles out.

Mountains in the distance are about 100 to 125 miles out.

Spectacular! Love the cloud coverage, we need to see these types of vistas in XP10 please! :( :( :(

How about Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Ranier at least 60+ away...

Hi visibility is also not a myth down in Florida, where I can watch Shuttle launches from my backyard regularly 60nm away, and my Uncle who lives even further all the way across the state in St. Pete, can also see them 141nm away.

Hi visibility is also not a myth down in Florida, where I can watch Shuttle launches from my backyard regularly 60nm away, and my Uncle who lives even further all the way across the state in St. Pete, can also see them 141nm away.

Awesome! I had a friend on facebook who was taking a flight a few weeks ago and caught the whole shuttle launch from his cockpit and posted picts.Amazing stuff and records of high points of humanity. It must be unreal to see live...

Awesome! I had a friend on facebook who was taking a flight a few weeks ago and caught the whole shuttle launch from his cockpit and posted picts.Amazing stuff and records of high points of humanity. It must be unreal to see live...

You need to make the trip to see one live and in person, it will not disappoint I assure you of that.Even viewing from the visitors area many miles away is still awe inspiring. You truly get a feel for just how powerful this machine is when standing 5miles away and one can feel the ground physically shaking!