Hi,I have just read the AVSIM X-Plane 10 Preview. A couple questions that I would have liked answering are will it work on Surround Vision, Eyefinity or TH2Go setups with 3 screens correctly. Also, can it utilise an SLI GPU configuration to maximise graphics performance. I noted that it will utilise CPU's cores, so one would hope that the same would be true of GPU's!Does anyone know?Thanks,Ted.

Like many here, I was getting excited, about the upcoming X-Plane 10, based on the pre-release info, screenies, and videos. After this preview, not so much. First the fact that each AI will run with it's own FM in each CPU/core, is overkill, and a performance killer, which is admitted here, by stating X-Plane 10 will run with a single core system but only with a single aircraft. I have a dual core (an E6850) so that means I will only be able to have 1 additional AI aircraft? This seems a giant step backwards, not only to what we have in FS2004/FSX but also to X-Plane 9. It states, ATC will control each AI individually, something FS does now, without the restrictive limitations (1 AI per core, max 20 AI). I don't like feeling alone in the skies, which is one of the main reasons, I don't prefer X-Plane-9 now. Next the method of scenery placement, seems like it will be very good visually, but again it looks like you will need a 20 CPU/core system to take advantage of it, with statements like the one in the preview, if you have 1 CPU "But, you will have only one airplane, and the cities will be simply grass fields, and the air traffic controller will have very few people to talk to." My E6850, in FSX now handles all the AI UT2 can throw at it (100%) my scenery is extremely dense, and autogen dense, and still get fluid frame rates in most cases, especially with non complex (but detailed) aircraft like POSKY's. According to this review, I'll only get a fraction of that detail. I haven't seen enough of the method of cloud formation to come to a conclusion on, but so far I'm not impressed. This has always been a weakness in X-Plane IMHO, but REX has improved the situation considerably. Then they boast about the detail of the aircraft model's and proceed to show a 747-400, who's shape is all wrong! Hopefully this will be fixed in the final. On the plus side this is the first indication visibility has bee increased from 25nm to 100nm. So that's something!

TH2G works in X-P 9, so should work in 10.Bjorn

Hi,tf51d - I think that you will find that Austin was not suggesting that X-Plane 10 can only utilise 20 AI aircraft if you had 20 cores but made the comparison that if you had 20 cores you would experience the same performance that you would see from a single core running a single AI aircraft. In fact, whereas FSX is not a TRUE multi-threaded application, X-Plane 10 is and so should make use of multi-core processors very effectively.Crewcut - Unfortunately, when running resolutions of 5040 x 1050 using nVidia Surround Technology, I found X-Plane 9 did not scale the VC's correctly, the scenery was fine though - Hence my question re X-Plane 10's compatibility in this area.Regards,Ted.

Ted, have you tampered with FOV in the settings? Too wide or too narrow angle will distort image.Bjorn

I was really looking forward to X-plane 10 based on snippets of info I picked up here and there. But, after reading the X-plane 10 preview this morning, I'm not so sure.It's going to be a "plausible" world with "generic" airports? Come on, really? I don't care how attractive you make the objects, if it doesn't reflect the real world then I'm just not that interested. A flight simulator does not just simulate real airplanes, it also simulates the real world. I'm not interested in flying around in a 'plausible' fantasy world. I want to see the actual buildings and landmarks in their actual locations that exist in my neighborhood so that I have a sense of being in a real place. As a real world pilot I often compare my simulated flights with actual real world flights. On occasion this has allowed me to better prepare for a flight by having already flown it in the simulator. I certainly won't be able to do this in quite the same way in a plausible, generic world.I regularly fly FS2004, FSX, and X-plane. They each have their strengths and weaknesses. One of the main weaknesses of X-plane up to now, in my opinion, is the depiction of the visual world, and one of my biggest gripes with the current version of X-plane is the unrealistic 'generic' airports. I was hoping that X-P would catch up with it's MS counterparts in this respect, but apparently that isn't going to happen this time. It's really a shame, because X-P has a lot going for it. The only reason I keep going back to MS is because they are much better at showing me the real world as it really looks. I'm tired of having to buy photo-real add-ons just to make the simulator look the way it should ( I'm talking about all three here). X-plane has the opportunity to build in the right look from the ground up. I hope they don't blow it.My impression after re-reading the interview is that Austin has put more thought into how to draw clouds than how to depict my local airport. In my opinion, the MS versions simulate clouds just fine for me right out of the box. So apparently the technology is already there. Why try to invent something new at expense of fixing the things that really need to be fixed? My second impression is that he is continuing the policy of leaving it up to third party developers to fill in a lot of the missing content, which we will have to pay for.Don't get me wrong. I'll be one of the first to get a copy of 10. That's the kind of aviation geek I am. I was just hoping it would be something better.My two cents.

Ted, have you tampered with FOV in the settings? Too wide or too narrow angle will distort image.Bjorn

Thank you for the tip BjornRegards,Ted.