By suggesting that XP10 out of the box should look as good as FSX with hundreds dollars worth of commercial add-ons.

So how do you feel about my suggestion that *default* XP10 should look as good as *default* FSX? because right here on my machine right now it doesn't at playable FPS. My machine exceeds the system requirements, is very well set up and will run the X-Plane 9 demo maxed out at 60fps. I have spent hours tuning my XP10 settings also.I've also been told not to judge the finished game based on the demo/beta but the game is shipping right now, so in what sense could it still be considered "beta"? should I take it then this is "beta" in the google sense and it'll be in beta for years?This is very frustrating!

http://www.aeroflyfs...flugphysik.html

I've never heard of this one, but the screenshots and videos are amazing. Going to see if I can download a demo of this.

So how do you feel about my suggestion that *default* XP10 should look as good as *default* FSX?

In my opinion, XP10 default, even at medium settings, does look better than FSX default. For that matter, I think it looks better than FSX with REX and FEX texture packs (both of which I own, so this isn't sour grapes).

...because right here on my machine right now it doesn't at playable FPS. My machine exceeds the system requirements, is very well set up and will run the X-Plane 9 demo maxed out at 60fps. I have spent hours tuning my XP10 settings also.

I have a feeling that you've either overestimated the capabilities of your hardware or the amount of time you've spent tuning XP10. That said, XP10 is a modern flight simulator, so of course it's going to require bleeding edge hardware to get the most out of it. Anybody who expects otherwise does not have expectations in line with reality. As I said, even at medium settings, I think XP10's visuals blow FSX out of the water. Personally, I've never been especially convinced by FSX's over-sized trees and random auto-generated buildings plopped awkwardly on top of photo textures. As far as I'm concerned, XP10 has proven that there's a better way to do these things (take a look at some of Flight's screenshots; it looks dated already).As I said earlier, if we want to talk about XP10's graphics capabilities then let's start with these photos as the baseline:https://picasaweb.go...capesOfTheWorld

I've looked at those pictures, and Barcelona looks like a village. I've been to Barcelona twice and it is dramatically more dense and urban than that as other posters have pointed out. If I was flying over that landscape I wouldn't know where the city was supposed to be. Do you really want to show those city images as demonstrable proof of X-Plane 10's graphical superiority?I agree that FSX autogen is oversized, and I agree that in many places you have a misalignment between the photoscenery and it doesn't look all that great. However, FSX is able to deliver, out of the box, a more realistic depiction of Barcelona's urban density on less powerful hardware. Overall, the impression of a flying over a city is dramatically better.I have tried the demo on maxed settings and, if I overlook the FPS issues, Seatlle still does not look as dense and urban in X-Plane 10 as it does in FSX - so even if I bought more powerful hardware just to run this sim then I'm STILL not going to be getting as good results as what I've already got in front of me now.

I've looked at those pictures, and Barcelona looks like a village. I've been to Barcelona twice and it is dramatically more dense and urban than that as other posters have pointed out. If I was flying over that landscape I wouldn't know where the city was supposed to be. Do you really want to show those city images as demonstrable proof of X-Plane 10's graphical superiority?I agree that FSX autogen is oversized, and I agree that in many places you have a misalignment between the photoscenery and it doesn't look all that great. However, FSX is able to deliver, out of the box, a more realistic depiction of Barcelona's urban density on less powerful hardware. Overall, the impression of a flying over a city is dramatically better.I have tried the demo on maxed settings and, if I overlook the FPS issues, Seatlle still does not look as dense and urban in X-Plane 10 as it does in FSX - so even if I bought more powerful hardware just to run this sim then I'm STILL not going to be getting as good results as what I've already got in front of me now.

I've been there too. THIS looks nothing like it. FSX, settings turned up to max.

I've been there too. THIS looks nothing like it.FSX, settings turned up to max.

Cherry-picking screenshots is fun.Seattle, XP-10, all settings on max (see attachment)

...and roughly the same view in FSX (extremely dense scenery, dense autogen) and in Google Maps.Now I am sure that there are rural areas or mountain areas that look a thousand times better in X-Plane 10 versus FSX - but as far as I can tell, for urban areas, even with the settings fully maxed out, X-Plane 10 does not deliver even a bare approximation of a city.

Cherry-picking screenshots is fun.Seattle, XP-10, all settings on max (see attachment)

It's been repeatedly stated. Plausible world. Not "realistic" world.If the scenery is not what you expected, and it's a huge drawback for you, then by all means, don't buy the sim. I was just pointing out that FSX scenery, in most cases, is not all that realistic either.

Are you saying that for you the depiction of Seattle in the demo with fully maxed out settings is a plausible representation of a major US city?I cannot agree with this. FSX does a better job of depicting urban scenery with a fraction of the CPU/GPU resources.

Are you saying that for you the depiction of Seattle in the demo with fully maxed out settings is a plausible representation of a major US city?

I'm saying that overall, I prefer XPlane. And that's after having every FS title since FS5.I'm saying that I understand what the developers set out to achieve with their "plausible world". I'm saying I prefer the flight model, the HDR, volumetric clouds, gauge smoothness.Are you saying the people who prefer X Plane 10 to FSX are all wrong?

I cannot agree with this. FSX does a better job of depicting urban scenery with a fraction of the CPU/GPU resources.

Unless you know exactly how X Plane and FSX are coded, this is pure speculation.In saying all this, feel free to return to FSX and happy simming!Have a nice day

Plausible and realistic are exactly the same thing.How can something be plausible if it isn't realistic?

Are you saying the people who prefer X Plane 10 to FSX are all wrong?

No, they maybe prioritise other features. Are you saying that the people who prefer FSX to X-Plane 10 are wrong?

Unless you know exactly how X Plane and FSX are coded, this is pure speculation.

Nonsense, the evidence is in the FPS visible in the screenshots for all to see.

No, they maybe prioritise other features. Are you saying that the people who prefer FSX to X-Plane 10 are wrong?

My opinion doesn't matter. I encourage use of the sim that you get the most out of.

Nonsense, the evidence is in the FPS visible in the screenshots for all to see.

I didn't know FSX had HDR lighting and volumetric clouds for you to make that assumption.BTW, my GPU temp hits 60°C with X Plane 10. With FSX, it never goes above 43°C

I didn't know FSX had HDR lighting and volumetric clouds for you to make that assumption.

Sorry, are you saying that HDR lighting and volumetric clouds are essential to the accurate depiction of the urban sprawl of Seattle, or the skyscrapers in the downtown area? I might agree with that IF the buildings were actually there on screen to be lit and offset against a nice cloudscape, but they're not there.Let me see if i can state my perspective on this more clearly so you can grasp where I'm coming from.Seattle is a place in the real world, and although I've never been there I can call up photographs, maps, satellite images and 3D representations of the city from the comfort of my chair. In FSX I can fly over it smoothly at 30fps+ and it looks close enough to the photographs, maps, satellite images and 3D representations of the city that I've seen for me to navigate entirely by eye around the area.In X-Plane 10, I have to dial back all the additional features like HDR and volumetric clouds to get acceptable frame rates so even if they did impact on the building density they're not available to me. Furthermore, there are no tree/road/object density settings that deliver a realistic or even "plausible" depiction of Seattle's urban sprawl. At the settings which deliver the best balance of frame rates for me I don't actually hardly see any buildings at all where there is supposed to be a major US city.With my limited budget of CPU/GPU power I get more "bang for my bucks" if I want to fly over Seattle in FSX than I would in X-Plane 10.Forget Seattle for a minute, how does Manhattan look? can I do a helicopter flight around the various sights in X-Plane 10? I get the feeling that it would be optimistic of me to hope it would look any better than what I already have even if I went out tomorrow and spent $$$$ on an overclocked i7 with a top-end graphics card.

No, they maybe prioritise other features. Are you saying that the people who prefer FSX to X-Plane 10 are wrong?

You're not wrong, misguided I'd say. You assume FSX is better because you can't run XPX at its full potential yet. Give it time.

Sorry, are you saying that HDR lighting and volumetric clouds are essential to the accurate depiction of the urban sprawl of Seattle, or the skyscrapers in the downtown area? I might agree with that IF the buildings were actually there on screen to be lit and offset against a nice cloudscape, but they're not there.Let me see if i can state my perspective on this more clearly so you can grasp where I'm coming from.Seattle is a place in the real world, and although I've never been there I can call up photographs, maps, satellite images and 3D representations of the city from the comfort of my chair. In FSX I can fly over it smoothly at 30fps+ and it looks close enough to the photographs, maps, satellite images and 3D representations of the city that I've seen for me to navigate entirely by eye around the area.In X-Plane 10, I have to dial back all the additional features like HDR and volumetric clouds to get acceptable frame rates so even if they did impact on the building density they're not available to me. Furthermore, there are no tree/road/object density settings that deliver a realistic or even "plausible" depiction of Seattle's urban sprawl. At the settings which deliver the best balance of frame rates for me I don't actually hardly see any buildings at all where there is supposed to be a major US city.With my limited budget of CPU/GPU power I get more "bang for my bucks" if I want to fly over Seattle in FSX than I would in X-Plane 10.Forget Seattle for a minute, how does Manhattan look? can I do a helicopter flight around the various sights in X-Plane 10? I get the feeling that it would be optimistic of me to hope it would look any better than what I already have even if I went out tomorrow and spent $$$$ on an overclocked i7 with a top-end graphics card.

The HDR and vol. clouds was in response to your FPS/CPU/GPU issue. FSX doesn't have them. So you cannot say FSX is coded more efficiently. It may very well be. But I doubt you can say for certain.And if you love FSX that much, then by all means, enjoy it. I don't really understand why you are here if you hate x plane this much.