X-plane 10 video at FSweekend.

[rojantrojan 17]

Blimey!!!

[Murmur 3,941]

Judging from the video, it appears we'll have the C172 with the maneuverability of an F22 in X-P 10 too!

[rojantrojan 17]

Judging from the video, it appears we'll have the C172 with the maneuverability of an F22 in X-P 10 too!

I was surprised when he said that this was the same 172 from X-plane 9. I knew they had kept backward compatibility but I thought they may have updated the 172. Oh well. Maybe we'll have an F22 with the manoeuvrability of a Cessna 172! On second thoughts, let's hope not!

[FloB 34]

Hm, not sure what to think of this. Autogen itself looks good, but placing and overall impression are kind of disappointing to me. Lacks some artwork. Sure, this is just a random fly-by, but otherwise it maybe shows a shortcoming of the new osm-approach to city-building. Time will tell...

[rojantrojan 17]

Hm, not sure what to think of this. Autogen itself looks good, but placing and overall impression are kind of disappointing to me. Lacks some artwork. Sure, this is just a random fly-by, but otherwise it maybe shows a shortcoming of the new osm-approach to city-building. Time will tell...

I see where you are coming from. Parts of it does feel like some of the roads have been plonked on top of a field of green. But as this is x-plane 10.0 the artwork can always be tweaked and worked on. I'm sure by version 10.5 it'll look completely different or maybe a 3rd party could change this to better suit the vector roads. However, either way I still think it looks very, very impressive with bags of potential and I think that's what is important at this early stage.

[FloB 34]

Agreed. Potential is there, hope there will be enough manpower and money to unlock it (even more). But if PMDG really joins in, with carenado already in, with Aerosoft and JRollon, with 737classic-project it is very likely that this is just the very beginning...

[flyerkg 62]

I agree that we are seeing just the beginning of great things to come our way.The artwork and placement might be less than ideal to some degree, but the vertical displacement of the elevated roadways in whatever city it might be, brings a new level of immersion that has been lacking in my flightsim experience. We not only need landmarks in the correct location, but accurate elevation of those landmarks as well.FSX even with patches and enhancements still presents cars that travel directly on top of runways in locations were tunnels have been placed under the runway in real life. Also remember X-plane produces updates at a frequent rate so what might be seen as a deficiency in 10.1 might be completely eliminated as a problem by 10.17 or 10.2. This is how fast we saw updates in XP9.By the way was this another time elapse videos? That 172 was zooming along pretty fast!

[tf51d 284]

“XP10 will work on every computer that runs XP9, but maybe on minimum settings. There isn’t a computer made at this moment that can run XP10 with all the settings at maximum. "Looks like history is going to repeat itself, this is the exact reason people turned away from FSX when it was first released. It was capable of greater detail, then systems of the day were capable of! They moved the sliders to the right, saw a slide show, pooh poohed it and went right back to FS2004. I fear the same thing will happen here.

[rojantrojan 17]

“XP10 will work on every computer that runs XP9, but maybe on minimum settings. There isn’t a computer made at this moment that can run XP10 with all the settings at maximum. "Looks like history is going to repeat itself, this is the exact reason people turned away from FSX when it was first released. It was capable of greater detail, then systems of the day were capable of! They moved the sliders to the right, saw a slide show, pooh poohed it and went right back to FS2004. I fear the same thing will happen here.

Hi Tom,“XP10 will work on every computer that runs XP9, but maybe on minimum settings. There isn’t a computer made at this moment that can run XP10 with all the settings at maximum. Because of code optimization XP10 could run smoother than XP9 on the same computer. XP10 is optimised for multi-core processors."This bit sounds good though. I'm quite hopeful.

[JSkorna 137]

I wonder if some of you could take a quote and twist it around so much to make it say that pigs are going to fly someday?Not directed at you, rojantrojan.

[rojantrojan 17]

No worries Jim. My wife does it all the time. I swear I'm going to record our next argument over who should do the dishes! Pigs fly frequently in my household. Lol

[Mountain Man 142]

Hi Tom,“XP10 will work on every computer that runs XP9, but maybe on minimum settings. There isn’t a computer made at this moment that can run XP10 with all the settings at maximum. Because of code optimization XP10 could run smoother than XP9 on the same computer. XP10 is optimised for multi-core processors."This bit sounds good though. I'm quite hopeful.

Just to be clear, that's not a quote from Austin, that's a quote from someone who watched the X-Plane presentation and is relaying the information in his own words.Original source is here: http://xplane10.word...ekend-coverage/

[Tierborn 188]

“XP10 will work on every computer that runs XP9, but maybe on minimum settings. There isn’t a computer made at this moment that can run XP10 with all the settings at maximum. "Looks like history is going to repeat itself, this is the exact reason people turned away from FSX when it was first released. It was capable of greater detail, then systems of the day were capable of! They moved the sliders to the right, saw a slide show, pooh poohed it and went right back to FS2004. I fear the same thing will happen here.

I dont .... you can turn back the graphical detail on xplane 10 and still have a better sim then xplane 9 (ATC, AI aircraft, dynamic airports). That wasnt true for MSFS.

[tf51d 284]

I dont .... you can turn back the graphical detail on xplane 10 and still have a better sim then xplane 9 (ATC, AI aircraft, dynamic airports). That wasnt true for MSFS.

It wasn't?? FSX didn't have sliders? Here's the first video I made for FSX back in Jan 2007 only 3 months after release. Scenery was extremely dense, AutoGen Dense Water 2X low, 100% traffic WOAI. (Brought over from FS2004 at the time). Still seemed pretty smooth to me! (Oh and I also had car traffic on this one.) Pardon the quality, Youtube has reduced it from the original at some point, which was 360P, the higher youtube resolutions weren't available back then.

[Tierborn 188]

It wasn't?? FSX didn't have sliders? Here's the first video I made for FSX back in Jan 2007 only 3 months after release. Scenery was extremely dense, AutoGen Dense Water 2X low, 100% traffic WOAI. (Brought over from FS2004 at the time). Still seemed pretty smooth to me! (Oh and I also had car traffic on this one.) Pardon the quality, Youtube has reduced it from the original at some point, which was 360P, the higher youtube resolutions weren't available back then.

of course it had sliders ... heres what I meant, FS2004 at full detail and FSX and lower detail only changed the graphical presentation/frame rates ... basically the FS2004 and FSX (ATC, AI, airport detail, etc) were the same.Based on what I have seen .... xplane X will have fundamental changes over xplane9 .. so going back to xplane9 will be a step down. With the MSFS series stepping down from FSX to FS2004 .. you didnt lose too much...... that was my point.