My thoughts about the XP10 demo

[lsteere 0]

I own XP9 but haven't flown it in a couple of years. I installed the XP10 demo and after a lot of initial frustration managed to get it running fairly smooth on my modest and aging AMD quad core 2.1 GHZ computer. At the default settings the start up times were an absolute horror - I'm talking like around 8 to 10 minutes on my computer! Then every time I made a change to a graphics settings to improve performance I had to wait all over again. Very frustrating, and I almost gave up on it! After several very frustrating hours adjusting the settings I'm now getting decent frames rates and the load times have improved considerably.My impressions:The stock Cessna 172 looks and flys pretty much exactly like it did in XP9 - like a paper airplane dangling on a rubber band caught in a hurricane. I purchased the Carenado F33A to give the sim a fair shot, and was pleasantly surprised! Flies like a dream! I've now loaded that aircraft up in XP9 and my impression of that sim has changed substantially as a result. XP9 will be getting used a lot more than it was.Seattle seems to show off the strengths and weaknesses of their new plausible world engine. At my lowered graphics settings Seattle looks pretty barren, and what is their often looks ridiculous - small clusters of buildings and houses sitting in grass fields, often with no roads leading up to them. If I jack up the number of objects and roads to their maximum settings it starts to look like a plausible world. With those settings maxed the area is filled with buildings and houses and they all line up perfectly with the roads. Very nice! Still when I look out across the landscape I'm hard pressed to get the impression that I'm flying around Seattle, and when I drop the settings down to a usable level on my PC I don't feel like I'm flying over a large city at all - it's pretty sparse with lots of fields. This is a big issue IMO. For people like myself with fairly average computers and lower settings, the city isn't even close to plausible - grass fields everywhere! In XP9 and FSX you are at least looking at proper city textures. Night lighting is great. Especially runway lighting where lights are only visible at the proper angle. Reminded me of the time on my first dual night cross country when my instructor and I had a hard time finding the runway at the destination airport because we were flying parallel to it.Haven't tried ATC because the demo is too short but am looking forward to what others have to say about it now that the full version is available. ATC is pretty important to me even though I only fly GA so I'm hoping XP10 delivers.Anyway the demo hasn't yet convinced me to upgrade, though I will be flying XP9 more, now that I have a really nice aircraft to fly.

[m_av 0]

I am not associated with Laminar or any of it's people, so I DO NOT speak for them. In fact, some might say I am a harsh critic. I just say that I have been a long time user of X-plane, MS FS and other FS products and I have opinions.I posted my comments on another topic, which essentially, may address your concerns :Comment #13 at this link : http://forum.avsim.n...tvideo-request/I always get disappointed with X-plane when I see it's potential, as almost anyone can. But for Laminar to produce a demo like they put out for v10, doesn't do justice to X-plane or it's potential. It makes the upcoming Flight look like a luxurious Rolls Royce versus X-plane's economy Chevy. Sure both will provide hours of immersing entertainment over the years but what would you rather watch, a Broadway play or a local high-school production ?Based on what I see, I will most likely get both, X-plane and Flight, but I know where I will be spending more time in - ASSUMING M$ doesn't put it's foot in it's mouth and disappoint as X-plane seems to be doing so well now with v10.

[lsteere 0]

After re-reading my post I realize that it comes across a bit harder on XP10 than I intended. There's a lot in the sim that I like!*All the options are great*Control configuration is very logical and straightforward.*The weather seems well done.*Clouds, fog etc are very nice.*Once running and with the graphics adjusted the performance is pretty good on my computer considering the level of eye candy I still get.*The Carenado F33A in X-Plane is about the best flying airplane I've ever experienced in a flight sim. The flight dynamics beat the Carenado A36 in FSX IMO.*Water effects are great.*It's great seeing other aircraft active in the sim - adds a lot to the enjoyment.There's lots of other things I like as well. I would just like town and cities to look more like towns and cities at lower settings even if that means resorting to city textures to fill in the the areas that autogen leaves blank.

[BobP 56]

I also have 'invested' in X-Plane over several versions. Outlying airports have no buildings in the demo (within the demo area), is that true throughout the world with the full version? I do have RXP's Garmin 430 plugin. Has anyone tried it in X-Plane 10? I removed X-Plane 9 a year ago. Thanks.Bob.. :)

[Andydigital 93]

Outlying airports have no buildings in the demo (within the demo area), is that true throughout the world with the full version?

Still exactly the same now unfortunately, they say that the new Lego brick building system will encourage people to make and share their work, we will have to wait and see if it really does make any difference.

[fvapres 7]

I also have 'invested' in X-Plane over several versions. Outlying airports have no buildings in the demo (within the demo area), is that true throughout the world with the full version? I do have RXP's Garmin 430 plugin. Has anyone tried it in X-Plane 10? I removed X-Plane 9 a year ago. Thanks.Bob.. :)

Sure is. Unless someone took the time to place them there, the airports are as barren as my wallet (the time of the year, not regarding my purchase of XP10 - I have no qualms about what I received and that in time, it will be better than it is now)