It's a shipping product, I can buy it right now. If I buy it right now, I want to fly it right now.Are you saying I should lay it down like a fine wine while it matures?

It's a shipping product, I can buy it right now. If I buy it right now, I want to fly it right now.Are you saying I should lay it down like a fine wine while it matures?

So don't buy it now. You certainly don't have to if it isn't up to your standards. And no one is forcing you to.

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.

It may not look exactly like Barcelona, but it does look like a plausible urban area, which is all Laminar has ever promised, and out of the box, XP10 does plausible way better than FSX ever did.

Do you really want to show those city images as demonstrable proof of X-Plane 10's graphical superiority?

It depends on what you're talking about. If we're talking about graphical quality then it's no contest as XP10 clearly has the better quality. If we're talking about how accurately a real-world area is replicated then FSX arguably has the edge since Microsoft, having more resources, was able to hand-detail certain cities, but the quality is fairly low across the board, and that accuracy goes right out the window for areas that weren't given special attention. But then XP10 has the advantage of using real-world street map data, so you can fly VFR following real highways which is something you can't do with FSX out of the box.To be perfectly frank, you're coming across as someone who is dead set against changing his mind and just wants to bag on XP10.

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

At first I thought you had posted a satellite photo until I read your description. It may not be a perfect replica of Seattle, but it certainly looks plausible, doesn't it?Anyway, taking pictures from orbit isn't really the best argument, because while the photo textures in FSX might look pretty good from an extreme altitude, they look terrible when you're coming in for a landing and you're looking across a flat landscape with blurry pictures of houses with over-sized 3D buildings on top of them.

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.

Actually, I can. Realistic depiction of Seatlle at 20fps in FSX, fully maxed out (I just checked).Poor depiction of Seattle at 0.15fps in X-Plane 10 (fully maxed out) as per screenshot earlier.FSX is able to deliver a better depiction of the same real world location for less CPU/GPU resources.

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.

I don't love FSX, its a product that I paid for. How can you actually physically love a piece of software? similarly, how can I hate X-Plane? it is a piece of software I don't even own yet but I was considering buying it.I'm here to find out what I'm going to get for my $80 if I buy it. I'm also interested in the new AeroFS flight sim, should I love it or hate it or just coldly evaluate if it will improve my simming life and then plunk down my cash?

At first I thought you had posted a satellite photo until I read your description. It may not be a perfect replica of Seattle, but it certainly looks plausible, doesn't it?

I think you're kidding. This is what they call trolling, right? is there a hidden camera around here somewhere?

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

Now that's really silly. Care to look up the definitions?Plausible def. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible.Realistic def. Tending to or expressing an awareness of things as they really are.

I think you're kidding.

Nope. 100% serious. Glancing over your post, I really thought that was a satellite image.

Actually, I can. Realistic depiction of Seatlle at 20fps in FSX, fully maxed out (I just checked).Poor depiction of Seattle at 0.15fps in X-Plane 10 (fully maxed out) as per screenshot earlier.FSX is able to deliver a better depiction of the same real world location for less CPU/GPU resources.I don't love FSX, its a product that I paid for. How can you actually physically love a piece of software? similarly, how can I hate X-Plane? it is a piece of software I don't even own yet but I was considering buying it.I'm here to find out what I'm going to get for my $80 if I buy it. I'm also interested in the new AeroFS flight sim, should I love it or hate it or just coldly evaluate if it will improve my simming life and then plunk down my cash?I think you're kidding. This is what they call trolling, right? is there a hidden camera around here somewhere?

I don't really have the energy to try and debate the coding issue with you. If you believe FSX is coded more efficiently, then ok. I'll make you happy and say it is.If you want to see what you're getting for $80, then try the x plane demo. It's free. It has a 10 minute limit and it has Seattle area covered.We cannot make your decision for you.

One of the reasons X-Plane 10 looks so good at night is because you CAN'T SEE the landscape. At night, XP10 is truly believable, credible... plausible. They did a terrific job with the lighting and it just knocks the socks off of the competition.When the veil of darkness is lifted, however... things change in the cities and suburban areas.Despite the attempts to make a credible and believable world, the implementation falls short of that goal. Although built up from "the blades of grass upwards", suburban and urban areas look sparse, barren, and frankly dated. Roads with no houses, roads with all the same houses, roads to nowhere, roads alone in the middle of nowhere... and cities of repeating structures which look like SimCity. Honestly - with the grasslands, segregated buildings, and patchy construction of an XP10 city, I honestly do feel like I am flying over one of my old SimCity creations.The attempt is a noble one, but it falls short of "believable" for me. In rural areas, X-Plane 10 looks competitive (as evidenced by these shots from another thread), especially with the improvements in their auto-generated forests. The graphics engine itself of X-Plane is also good - it seems to handle the rendering of things efficiently - I don't get the feeling that the sim is unduly bogged down - yeah, I can slow frame rates to a crawl with higher settings and details, but this is within reason for what I would expect.... unlike how FSX behaved in its early days.One of the comments Meyers made about his new scenery engine is that you'll never "see a roof" textured into the underlying ground - everything was to be built up from grass.... sadly, I think this is the undoing of the visuals. With grass as a base and everything else layered on top, you need robust mapping, land use, and GIS data to truly populate in a plausible world... not to mention the horsepower to get it all running together. The concept behind Austin's plausible world makes sense, but the computing horsepower as well as the in-game source data to do it justice aren't in existence right now.I was concerned about this when I saw the first urban/suburban screenshots of XP10, and I remain concerned about it today with the demo. Thankfully, Laminar has issued the demo to allow folks to evaluate whether or not XP10 is right for them, and hopefully they keep this demo up-to-date with any changes they make through the v10 life cycle. Perhaps they can change how cities and towns are created and perhaps hardware capabilities will come up to parallel what XP10 might need... either way, the current implementation of this much touted technology just isn't living up to the preceding hype.

I don't really have the energy to try and debate the coding issue with you. If you believe FSX is coded more efficiently, then ok. I'll make you happy and say it is.

Oh, that's a shame. I was waiting to hear why it should be that I need much more powerful hardware to get the same FPS when I'm seeing less buildings in scenery depicting the same location. Is that not related to efficiency then?In all seriousness I have spent far more time on the demo than I should have done because there are precious few flight sim products on the market and I like to check out all of them. The minute someone delivers a half decent sim I'll buy it and fly it alongside FSX. I have no loyalty, love or hate for any of the main franchises, I don't care, its just a piece of software.But you guys, seriously, it's like I'm sitting here and saying "the emperor has no clothes" and you're sitting there saying "no seriously, the scenery is better, can't you see??". That's the only reason this conversation has gone on as long as it has done. I just don't get where you're coming from at all.

Nuff said

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

Well done, you both still can't read properly.In reply to davew_uk's post: 'I cannot agree with this. FSX does a better job of depicting urban scenery with a fraction of the CPU/GPU resources.'You followed up by saying:

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

BTW, my GPU temp hits 60°C with X Plane 10. With FSX, it never goes above 43°C

You have neglected his opinion, and then tried to justify yours by using your GPU temperature as some sort of benchmark between the two simulators. Really? Really..?

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath. Enji, the thing is, you tried the demo, well actually it's a beta. A demo a lot of people are having issues with, while a lot are running it quite well. We don't have the answers to all questions in here. One thing I might suggest, is that you continue reading in this forum about the different setups, trial and error of others to better understand why you may have had problems achieving acceptable results using XPX. If you can get this sim running at the higher levels it can operate at, you'll be amazed.So hang in there, updates are made every few days to the demo and bugs are squashed expediently. I have added a video, not the most representative of what XPX can do but it's my first crack at this.

http://youtu.be/q27Ih1y7NxI

Unfortunately, I think a few of the 'big' things won't be improved upon at this stage, but who knows. One area where I do think they could improve without releasing huge updates is making densely populated areas look better. I imagine the other things will be left for companies who wish to release add-ons.I'm confident though about Laminar optimizing the game so people get the best performance possible. I have been impressed by the responses to problems addressed on their facebook page and hopefully by the turn of the new year, most of the major bugs will have been sorted. In fact, I'm pretty sure they will be.I know they havn't released round-system specs for certain levels of quality, but from past experiences with FSX, that's understandable. As long as it can run with high quality settings on powerful PCs/Macs without any bugs or issues, then I think most people would be happy. I imagine that a lot of buyers will have to be more realistic with their expectations, if going by the system specs a few people on the XP10 facebook page were saying. Games in general are moving on and more often than not, they require a higher performance unit to run them. I expect a lot of people to have a brand new, custom built computer within the next 6 months - 1 year. Luckily for me, I'm probably only looking at upgrading my graphics card.

Oh, that's a shame. I was waiting to hear why it should be that I need much more powerful hardware to get the same FPS when I'm seeing less buildings in scenery depicting the same location. Is that not related to efficiency then?In all seriousness I have spent far more time on the demo than I should have done because there are precious few flight sim products on the market and I like to check out all of them. The minute someone delivers a half decent sim I'll buy it and fly it alongside FSX. I have no loyalty, love or hate for any of the main franchises, I don't care, its just a piece of software.But you guys, seriously, it's like I'm sitting here and saying "the emperor has no clothes" and you're sitting there saying "no seriously, the scenery is better, can't you see??". That's the only reason this conversation has gone on as long as it has done. I just don't get where you're coming from at all.

You voiced your opinion. We voiced ours. Yet you feel like you're saying "the emperor has no clothes". Come on Dave. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. I learned that when I was 5.I have told you numerous times, don't like it? Don't buy it. It really is as simple as that. As hard as it is to believe.Enjiat least you make me chuckle at 2am. Not many people can do that.

One of the reasons X-Plane 10 looks so good at night is because you CAN'T SEE the landscape. At night, XP10 is truly believable, credible... plausible. They did a terrific job with the lighting and it just knocks the socks off of the competition......

Your Sim City comparisons, were they your own, or was it from reading my views earlier in this thread? It would be interesting if we both came to the same conclusion independently and if that's the case, I imagine many others would think so too.In regards to your comments about night flying - spot on. I'm not sure if I've said it in this thread, but the night lighting looks absolutely brilliant. If they can raise the bar to that kind of standard, then there are other areas of the game where that bar should be maintained. They are clearly capable of doing so.

Your Sim City comparisons, were they your own, or was it from reading my views earlier in this thread?

Independent - in fact, it was the first thing I thought of when I saw the XP10 cities/suburban scenery... the ground scenery just looks too "plastic".

Poor depiction of Seattle at 0.15fps in X-Plane 10 (fully maxed out) as per screenshot earlier.FSX is able to deliver a better depiction of the same real world location for less CPU/GPU resources.

You mean FSX is able to display a satellite photo that looks fairly decent when viewed from an extreme altitude. Big deal. Try it from 5000 feet and get back to us.

I have told you numerous times, don't like it? Don't buy it. It really is as simple as that. As hard as it is to believe

Not hard to believe at all. It's a product, on a shelf, I can take it or leave it. I'm fully up to speed on that, thank you.The problem we have though here is that our shelf in the global software supermarket is very, very small. It isn't really possible to overlook a major release from the main franchises because there are ONLY TWO main franchises in civil flight simulation.From my perspective, XP10 is a missed opportunity. They had years with the market to themselves since FSX was released, and even with the knowledge that the Aces team had been canned they failed to capitalise on that opportunity and deliver a sock-blowing-off moment. I read the pre-release hype, drooled over the pre-release screenshots and now right at the point where I can buy this thing, I have found out that actually it isn't actually anything like the hype promised. That is what I mean about the "emperors new clothes" - Laminar promised the best thing since sliced bread and delivered the empty green fields of Seattle. Surely I'm not the only one that sees that?

You mean FSX is able to display a satellite photo that looks fairly decent when viewed from an extreme altitude. Big deal. Try it from 5000 feet and get back to us.

Oh please, it looks fine from 5000 feet. The top-down view was to be consistent with Google Maps, that's the comparison you should be paying attention to.