These are very rough, and in some places I don't even know if I'm right. However;1. KSMX.Here is the google earth version - I can't find a host that Avsim will display the image on so just click the link and toggle between - http://imageshack.us...omparison1.jpg/2. This is LSZShttp://imageshack.us...mparison2v.jpg/Edit: Hang on this is a WIP.

Don't forget to put up the comparisons of FSX and google earth as well.Seeing as you want to compare a sim to the real world.

Where's the KSEA post you were talking about?And why are you comparing these with google earth, I thought you were going to compare with DEFAULT FSX (out-of-box) no-addon's or mesh.If you really don't like what your seeing, well, nobody's forcing you to purchase it!

Don't forget to put up the comparisons of FSX and google earth as well.Seeing as you want to compare a sim to the real world.

Where's the KSEA post you were talking about?And why are you comparing these with google earth, I thought you were going to compare with DEFAULT FSX (out-of-box) no-addon's or mesh.If you really don't like what your seeing, well, nobody's forcing you to purchase it!

I'm not sure what the problem is. I just thought I'd test out my new google earth plug in. I don't even have FSX on this PC, it wouldn't run it.Also, no doubt default FSX would be rubbish in comparison to XP10. I've never argued otherwise. After all, you'd definitely expect it to.

I'm not sure what you're getting worked up about, I just thought I'd test out my new google earth plug in. I don't even have FSX on this PC.

I'm not getting worked up at all. Emotion can be misinterpreted through text. I'm just saying if you're going to compare a sims scenery to google earth, then do it for FSX or Flight as well. You're comparing photos of the real world to what a small development team have made and saying it looks "poor". I mean, seriously, let's put things into a bit of perspective here.

Howard you need to go back to your other post and re-read what you wrote.

"and that even so the detail is easily on par with the best in MsFS/FsX (though I’m tempted to say it may be better even from these limited images)."Not even close. How on earth you can say that this is anywhere near the level of 'the best of FSX' is beyond me;manuthie, on 29 October 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:Yay - new stuff to look at:http://www.x-plane.c...rld-is-dawning/They look quite poor to be honest, barring the first shot in there. X-plane 10 has shown much better things than are demonstrated in those screenshots, which is a bit odd. The city scapes looked promising, but as yet the clouds havn't impressed me - nor have rural shots.

I'm not getting worked up at all. Emotion can be misinterpreted through text. I'm just saying if you're going to compare a sims scenery to google earth, then do it for FSX or Flight as well. You're comparing photos of the real world to what a small development team have made and saying it looks "poor". I mean, seriously, let's put things into a bit of perspective here.

Howard you need to go back to your other post and re-read what you wrote.

Separate the statement 'it looks poor' from this comparison thread.I wasn't saying it looks poor because it doesn't look like real life. This thread was just a completely separate afterthought. Similarly I don't think FSX is any better.My disappointment was based on the terrain mesh and textures, which I expected a little more from frankly.h2egc, I wasn't comparing default out of the box. When the writer of the blog said 'better than anything in FSX,' I'm looking at FSX as it is today. Yes, of course XP10 will look better out of the box than FSX.

Separate the statement 'it looks poor' from this comparison thread.I wasn't saying it looks poor because it doesn't look like real life. This thread was just a completely separate afterthought. Similarly I don't think FSX is any better.My disappointment was based on the terrain mesh and textures, which I expected a little more from frankly.h2egc, I wasn't comparing default out of the box. When the writer of the blog said 'better than anything in FSX,' I'm looking at FSX as it is today. Yes, of course XP10 will look better out of the box than FSX.

There may be reasons for that. They may need the resources for the autogen and drawing the OSM data, the realistic shadows that drape over other objects. The vast majority of people in the community are totally satisfied with what XP10 is bringing to the table. I always tell people, it's fine if you want to criticize, but be specific. Coming in here and saying it looks like crap (not quoting you...it's a hypothetical) without being specific is being far from constructive.

There may be reasons for that. They may need the resources for the autogen and drawing the OSM data, the realistic shadows that drape over other objects. The vast majority of people in the community are totally satisfied with what XP10 is bringing to the table. I always tell people, it's fine if you want to criticize, but be specific. Coming in here and saying it looks like crap (not quoting you...it's a hypothetical) without being specific is being far from constructive.

Hahahah we all know where it's comming from.....What I like about Xplane-10 is the roads and buildings placement, we don't see roads cutting through baseball field, parking lots or buildings like in FSX, should I mention golf course.... pretty good if you "wanna" fly on visual only...I can't wait to see what 3rd party developers (beside the one developing for MS platform only ) will do with DX11, as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) Xplane-10 will be able to use all the core you have in your rig, that's how today's game should be coded, get two cards in SLI (2 GTX 580 3GB) and you have a winner...you won't need to get your CPU at 5GHz to fly stutter free....what's not to like about Xplane-10?

Hahahah we all know where it's comming from..... I can't wait to see what 3rd party developers (beside the one developing for MS platform only ) will do with DX11, as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) Xplane-10 will be able to use all the core you have in your rig, that's how today's game should be coded, get two cards in SLI (2 GTX 580 3GB) and you have a winner...you won't need to get your CPU at 5GHz to fly stutter free....what's not to like about Xplane-10?

X Plane uses OpenGL. Not DirectX. That's why it is compatible with MAC, Linux and Windows.

I'm not sure what the problem is. I just thought I'd test out my new google earth plug in. I don't even have FSX on this PC, it wouldn't run it.Also, no doubt default FSX would be rubbish in comparison to XP10. I've never argued otherwise. After all, you'd definitely expect it to.

I dont expect it to be at all .... still not enough data to make that conclusion.

X Plane uses OpenGL. Not DirectX. That's why it is compatible with MAC, Linux and Windows.

Oops!....I was "gonna" ask for a free copy.... just kidding.

I dont expect it to be at all .... still not enough data to make that conclusion.

I'm not talking about the entire simming platform.I'm simply referring to out-of-the-box graphics.

I have been watching this forum with intrest for several days. Currently an FSX'er only; XP10 has captured my intrest. I hope it does well. I too like the fact that it should make better use of today's hardware but I do remember reading someplace that XP10 will still not benefit from sli or x-fire. Looking forward to giving it a shot, keep up the good work!

I have been watching this forum with intrest for several days. Currently an FSX'er only; XP10 has captured my intrest. I hope it does well. I too like the fact that it should make better use of today's hardware but I do remember reading someplace that XP10 will still not benefit from sli or x-fire. Looking forward to giving it a shot, keep up the good work!

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but 3GB card or SLI can be beneficial if using very high resolution or severals monitors.