Hi there,I've downloaded the demo of x-plane 10 however it wasn't really playable, which is why I want to ask on here.Whenever I see the videos in-game on youtube or elsewhere, it seems to me that the populated areas look like a scene from sim city 4. The houses and roads look like they have been pulled straight from that game and into XP10. To be honest i'm very underwhelmed by it.As well as that, the water in XP10 to me, compared to REX in FSX, is also underwhelming. Clouds and fog look pretty good though.I really want to be impressed by XP10 since I've pretty much ditched FSX and havn't played for a few months because of the amount of errors/issues with it. The graphics/scenery are such a huge part of a flight sim and I really did expect it to look as good, if not better, than my current setup of FSX (REX + other addons). With so much time that has moved on since the FSX release, for this brand new game not to match up graphically with an 'old' game (albeit addon'd) like FSX, that's pretty disappointing for me.Does anyone else think similar?

Hi there,I've downloaded the demo of x-plane 10 however it wasn't really playable, which is why I want to ask on here.Whenever I see the videos in-game on youtube or elsewhere, it seems to me that the populated areas look like a scene from sim city 4. The houses and roads look like they have been pulled straight from that game and into XP10. To be honest i'm very underwhelmed by it.As well as that, the water in XP10 to me, compared to REX in FSX, is also underwhelming. Clouds and fog look pretty good though.I really want to be impressed by XP10 since I've pretty much ditched FSX and havn't played for a few months because of the amount of errors/issues with it. The graphics/scenery are such a huge part of a flight sim and I really did expect it to look as good, if not better, than my current setup of FSX (REX + other addons). With so much time that has moved on since the FSX release, for this brand new game not to match up graphically with an 'old' game (albeit addon'd) like FSX, that's pretty disappointing for me.Does anyone else think similar?

You want default X Plane 10 to look as good or better than FSX with REX and other 3rd party add ons?No, I seriously doubt anyone else will think similarly to you.

FSX was released 5 years ago.Populated areas in XP10 looks extremely underwhelming to me. Do you not think so? I'm not really sure what effect 3rd party add-ons can affect this.Water effects in XP10 don't look as good to me, (though perhaps I could be persuaded). For a simulator/game selling at 80$, I expect it to look every bit as good as REX in FSX, yes.Default aircraft/static aircraft also look disguisting. I refer you back to the price of the game.Are you happy with the graphics in XP10 (genuine question)?edit: Add-ons improving the experience is fine - hell I've got enough of them for FSX. But I expected more from the 'starting basis' of XP10.

Personally, I think XP10 looks better than FSX with REX (both of which I own, so this isn't just sour grapes). After seeing Austin's "plausible city", I'll have a lot of trouble going back to photo textures. Not to mention real 3D clouds are vastly superior to 2D cloud textures floating in the sky.

Mountain Man - do you have a link to that ("plausible city")?thanks

Boot up the demo and see it for yourself. Granted, it's not as impressive if you can't turn the settings up, but then, neither is FSX.

FSX was released 5 years ago.Populated areas in XP10 looks extremely underwhelming to me. Do you not think so? I'm not really sure what effect 3rd party add-ons can affect this.

Actually, I am very happy with how X Plane looks in many areas, especially the clouds. They are a real highlight, seeing as 3D volumetric clouds have never been done before.There has been many 3rd party add on scenery done XP9, and there will be again for XP10.

Water effects in XP10 don't look as good to me, (though perhaps I could be persuaded). For a simulator/game selling at 80$, I expect it to look every bit as good as REX in FSX, yes.

If the water looked as good as what REX can do, then there would be no reason for REX to develop add ons anymore.And X Plane still costs less than what I paid for FSX. FSX cost me $140 for the original package AND Acceleration. I bought it based on the fake promotional screenshot that was posted. Only to realize, it looked NOTHING like it in sim.

Default aircraft/static aircraft also look disguisting. I refer you back to the price of the game.Are you happy with the graphics in XP10 (genuine question)?

Have you seen some static aircraft in FSX? They are absolutely appalling. I don't know about default aircraft in X Plane looking "disgusting". I actually think they look quite nice and am more than happy with them. I think there are at least 30 default aircraft. Plenty to keep me entertained.Am I happy with the graphics in X Plane 10? Absolutely. I get Heat Haze in the engine exhausts, 3D volumetric clouds that actually behave like real clouds, runways that follow the terrain, INCREDIBLE night lighting and shadow effects and a plausible world. I'm not sure what more you would want in this flight sim.

edit: Add-ons improving the experience is fine - hell I've got enough of them for FSX. But I expected more from the 'starting basis' of XP10.

You might be surprised at the add ons available and the ones that are coming up. I bought Real Scenery Hawaii package some months ago and I can honestly say, without bias, that it looks much better than anything I have seen in FSX...including Megascenery.

Do you mean this? http://www.x-plane.com/2011/11/The second screenshot (pulled from x-plane) is the kind of thing I was talking about before. It looks like a scene out of sim city 4.If that's not what you meant, then clearly I'm lost Thanks

Actually, I am very happy with how X Plane looks in many areas, especially the clouds. They are a real highlight, seeing as 3D volumetric clouds have never been done before.There has been many 3rd party add on scenery done XP9, and there will be again for XP10.If the water looked as good as what REX can do, then there would be no reason for REX to develop add ons anymore.And X Plane still costs less than what I paid for FSX. FSX cost me $140 for the original package AND Acceleration. I bought it based on the fake promotional screenshot that was posted. Only to realize, it looked NOTHING like it in sim.Have you seen some static aircraft in FSX? They are absolutely appalling. I don't know about default aircraft in X Plane looking "disgusting". I actually think they look quite nice and am more than happy with them. I think there are at least 30 default aircraft. Plenty to keep me entertained.Am I happy with the graphics in X Plane 10? Absolutely. I get Heat Haze in the engine exhausts, 3D volumetric clouds that actually behave like real clouds, runways that follow the terrain, INCREDIBLE night lighting and shadow effects and a plausible world. I'm not sure what more you would want in this flight sim. You might be surprised at the add ons available and the ones that are coming up. I bought Real Scenery Hawaii package some months ago and I can honestly say, without bias, that it looks much better than anything I have seen in FSX...including Megascenery.

good reply.In regards to your comment about the static aircraft - that's the kind of thing I mean. Surely XP10 default should look a hell of a lot better than FSX default, being that FSX is 5 years old. They both look disgusting, but I expect more from a new game.I think what we have to remember is that people shouldn't be expected to shell out a huge amount after buying a particular game if they want a great experience and something that lives up to the expectations of this day and age. Sure, the makers of XP10 will have taken into consideration the £££ they receive from add-on sales and therefore intentionally, in many cases, chose not to excel in certain aspects of the game - but as I said before, I expect the basis to look pretty good.Also, about the add-ons for XP that you said look great - do you have any screenshots you would be willing to show me? The only screenshots that i've seen of add-ons for XP were of aircraft.At the end of the day - the better XP10 is, the better Microsoft Flight is. And vise versa. I don't care which one I play - I'd be happy for a rebranded FSX as long as the FPS issues and other problems were fixed.

good reply.In regards to your comment about the static aircraft - that's the kind of thing I mean. Surely XP10 default should look a hell of a lot better than FSX default, being that FSX is 5 years old. They both look disgusting, but I expect more from a new game.I think what we have to remember is that people shouldn't be expected to shell out a huge amount after buying a particular game if they want a great experience and something that lives up to the expectations of this day and age. Sure, the makers of XP10 will have taken into consideration the £££ they receive from add-on sales and therefore intentionally, in many cases, chose not to excel in certain aspects of the game - but as I said before, I expect the basis to look pretty good.Also, about the add-ons for XP that you said look great - do you have any screenshots you would be willing to show me? The only screenshots that i've seen of add-ons for XP were of aircraft.At the end of the day - the better XP10 is, the better Microsoft Flight is. And vise versa. I don't care which one I play - I'd be happy for a rebranded FSX as long as the FPS issues and other problems were fixed.

http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/http://www.x-aviation.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=24

Have you seen some static aircraft in FSX? They are absolutely appalling. I don't know about default aircraft in X Plane looking "disgusting". I actually think they look quite nice and am more than happy with them. I think there are at least 30 default aircraft. Plenty to keep me entertained.

Well, now that you mentioned it.....X-Plane 10 still has those Van's RV's that are just grey textures, and fly like crap. Kind of surprised me actually. I thought they'd toss those. There is a Van's RV 7 for FSX from Baytower, that's just wonderful. Of course it's payware that has taken several years to produce, so I'd expect to be of higher quality. It's just the default RVs in X-Plane 9 & 10.............won't be selling any kits for Van's.And for those that don't know. I have a Van's RV6 (or did), and have flown numerous others.L.Adamson

Well, now that you mentioned it.....X-Plane 10 still has those Van's RV's that are just grey textures, and fly like crap. Kind of surprised me actually. I thought they'd toss those. There is a Van's RV 7 for FSX from Baytower, that's just wonderful. Of course it's payware that has taken several years to produce, so I'd expect to be of higher quality. It's just the default RVs in X-Plane 9 & 10.............won't be selling any kits for Van's.And for those that don't know. I have a Van's RV6 (or did), and have flown numerous others.L.Adamson

Thank you for reminding us that the Van's from X Plane is default and the Van's from FSX is payware that took a few years to make.Again, comparing default to payware.Moot point.I'm actually not surprised at the comparisons from FSX payware to X Plane default. But how about we start comparing apples to apples...like Geof and his F33 post.

Thank you for reminding us that the Van's from X Plane is default and the Van's from FSX is payware that took a few years to make.Again, comparing default to payware.Moot point.I'm actually not surprised at the comparisons from FSX payware to X Plane default. But how about we start comparing apples to apples...like Geof and his F33 post.

I have not tried the Vans so I just loaded it up. No VC was the first thing I noticed then I went external view. So Goran, I know what you mean about comparing apples to apples but can you really find an apple to compare this to? If it was being given away for free no one would download it.

I have not tried the Vans so I just loaded it up. No VC was the first thing I noticed then I went external view. So Goran, I know what you mean about comparing apples to apples but can you really find an apple to compare this to? If it was being given away for free no one would download it.

No one is saying the default aircraft are payware quality. As far as I know, the Van's has been recycled from V6. I wouldn't even compare the Vans in X Plane to any freeware in FS9 or FSX. But let's try to find some common ground between comparing defaults to defaults and paywares to paywares, no?

Sure, you shouldn't compare to default to payware and I agree there - unless the payware is of lesser quality then perhaps they need a slap! I think the point may have been missed, this Van's is really rubbish and can't be compared to any freeware I have come across. I wonder if the 2d cockpit even matches the actual aircraft. Even if he did compare it to payware it can't be ignored how bad it actually is and I dont believe in the first instance he was really comparing, just saying it's bad.