Taken From the X-plane developer blog...http://www.x-plane.com/blog/2011/10/x-plane-sli-and-crossfire/Can X-Plane take advantage of Crossfire/SLI?No. Neither X-Plane 9, nor 10.0, will be capable of running with Crossfire or SLI. From what I can tell, there are a few sites in the code that need to be reworked a bit to be ready for these technologies. If you have an SLI/Crossfire setup, I would expect you to get the same framerate with only one of the GPUsMaybe they'll add it in later? but on the bright side it doesn't look like SLI will even be needed which you can apply the cost of a second gpu to another component in your system.

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!

If I remember correctly it will not support SLI or Crossfire, and it will not be a 64 bit application. It still only uses 2 (or 3?) gigs of RAM. They said that could change in an update though. It does use multiple cores, and that is the biggest news.Also those pictures were taken with meant to compare terrain, so autogen cannot be compared by those photos.

On Ben's blog he states that 64bit is coming after the release is an update form, but no timeframe for that.And DM123 your correct about no-sli support at this time.

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

In my opinion, XP9 is already superior to FSX as a flight simulator. The only reason FSX is still valid, is the massive influx of third party software on a weekly basis. This makes FSX desirable.The real problem is that people keep comparing XP9 out of the box to FSX with it's best addons, and that's not fair.Would you be using FSX today with no addons or any enhancements? Compare apples to apples, then the picture suddenly becomes clearer. Frames per second is the lifeblood of a simulator, and XP9 has that in spades.

airlinejets,How does the default AI Traffic compare in both?How does the default ATIS compare in both?How do the default airport buildings compare in both?How long ago was XP 9.0 released?

Been using G2XPL since X-Plane 8 with fantastic results getting Google imagery into X-plane. Have never gone back to any default scenery since.These shots were taken back in 2008.http://www.flickr.com/photos/1001jimk/sets/72157622431040787/show/

Those are some great shots!

airlinejets,How does the default AI Traffic compare in both?How does the default ATIS compare in both?How do the default airport buildings compare in both?How long ago was XP 9.0 released?

to add to your list .....How does the interface compare in both?

They are different interfaces and when you are used to one, it takes a bit of getting used to with the other. Took me about a week to learn and remember where everything was.

airlinejets, How does the default AI Traffic compare in both? How does the default ATIS compare in both? How do the default airport buildings compare in both? How long ago was XP 9.0 released?

Hi Jim,Certainly on the basis of your specific questions, FSX has a better grasp in those particular fields. However, I have witnessed that we have gone from a flightsim community to a sightseeing community. Honestly, take a look at X-plane, even version 9 is better than FSX if you're interested in flying.Michel

Sorry, no, XP9 default is not better than FSX default. If you like flying into airports with no buildings, with no ATC, and no AI traffic then XP9 is for you.I honestly await XP10.

In my opinion, XP9 is already superior to FSX as a flight simulator. The only reason FSX is still valid, is the massive influx of third party software on a weekly basis. This makes FSX desirable.The real problem is that people keep comparing XP9 out of the box to FSX with it's best addons, and that's not fair.Would you be using FSX today with no addons or any enhancements? Compare apples to apples, then the picture suddenly becomes clearer. Frames per second is the lifeblood of a simulator, and XP9 has that in spades.

This isn't like a boxing match where there are rules and weight classes and everything is on equal footing. This is reality.This is more like a backyard brawl and the fact that FSX has brought a gun while Xplane hasn't may not be equal, but it is what it is. So it's fair to compare the two.

Hi Jim,Certainly on the basis of your specific questions, FSX has a better grasp in those particular fields. However, I have witnessed that we have gone from a flightsim community to a sightseeing community. Honestly, take a look at X-plane, even version 9 is better than FSX if you're interested in flying.

You can always have your opinion of course. I enjoy real flight to look at the scenery. But as an aircraft owner, pilot, etc...........I won't agree with you, that X-Plane version 9 is better than FSX in the flying catagory. There are some excellent flight models available for FSX through 3rd parties. FWIW--- many of version 9's default aircraft fall far short of realism. Addons are a requirement for X-Plane too.Besides.....what fun is simulated flight, if you have nothing to look at. Sitting in a chair with a monitor needs a bit of "eye candy" to make that leap into a simulated reality.L.Adamson

In my opinion, XP9 is already superior to FSX as a flight simulator. The only reason FSX is still valid, is the massive influx of third party software on a weekly basis. This makes FSX desirable.The real problem is that people keep comparing XP9 out of the box to FSX with it's best addons, and that's not fair.Would you be using FSX today with no addons or any enhancements? Compare apples to apples, then the picture suddenly becomes clearer. Frames per second is the lifeblood of a simulator, and XP9 has that in spades.

With respect though, people are comparing XP10 against FSX stock, saying how aweful FSX looks. I agree stock FSX is pretty bad but once you get it up to date with addons there's not much difference between "updated FSX" and stock XP10, and we'd love to see XP10 look a bit better out of the box, considering it's brand new.

With respect though, people are comparing XP10 against FSX stock, saying how aweful FSX looks. I agree stock FSX is pretty bad but once you get it up to date with addons there's not much difference between "updated FSX" and stock XP10, and we'd love to see XP10 look a bit better out of the box, considering it's brand new.

That's because there are no 3rd party add ons for X Plane 10 yet. What makes me chuckle is the comparisons between X Plane 10 and Google Earth.That's a compliment to X Plane 10 if you ask me.