Keep in mind xplane has no add ins (default) and my fsx has every add in known to mankind in it.The first thing I always do with a new sim is takeoff from my local airport, follow roads that I hope to be real to the small lake I live on. In default fsx if I recall it was completely missing or just a blob which one of the add ins took care of...Real shot from my plane:Xplane 10 :fsx :Real shot of takeoff from my home airport (kptk):Xplane 10:fsx:Takeoff from Heaven's Landing (Clayton, Georgia):Xplane 10:fsx:

XP certainly has more accurate roads, but I am not sure that it actually looks better in the first two. In the last one it beats FSX solely due to the sloped runway, imo.

XP certainly has more accurate roads, but I am not sure that it actually looks better in the first two. In the last one it beats FSX solely due to the sloped runway, imo.

I'd point out that fsx didn't even have my lake in the default and two that the autogen spread around my lake not only does not represent what is there-but is scattered in a haphazard way-the xplane actually matches what is really there-orderly houses based around real streets. (Xplane even tried to render the little island in the lake though it makes a mess of it!).In the second shot-well I've always said fsx autogen looks like legoland. Some have said xplane 10's looks like sim city. I think there is some truth to both-but I prefer the xplane 10 look. Also-you see the fsx autogen abruptly end in the distance and the blurries take over-the xplane goes to the horizon-and there are no blurries. The fsx airports always stick way too out..Of course the still shots are comparing only scenery-weather and feel of flight are something they can't show.

My observation: The FSX rendering has a lot of tall autogen buildings and other tall structures in places where the other renderings do not have tall buildings. At the same time XP10 depicts the same roadway with an inaccuracy due to the large number of homes appearing along the road. I guess we all pick which one works best for our own likings.

I believe that X-Plane 10 would beat FSX hands down if it had more  and better trees, especially around the houses.Anyway, I find your comparison shots very enlightening and always enjoy them.Sometimes I even compare them with my set-up which usually is completely different again! Cheers, Sascha

My observation: The FSX rendering has a lot of tall autogen buildings and other tall structures in places where the other renderings do not have tall buildings. At the same time XP10 depicts the same roadway with an inaccuracy due to the large number of homes appearing along the road. I guess we all pick which one works best for our own likings.

I had exactly the same impression. Xplane makes a mistake by adding neighborhood homes alongside an interstate-like road. I suspect the algorithm could be improved by checking if a road has a certain ratio of crossings per mile. If beyond a certain threshold, it is a connective road and not a suburb, and X-plane should not draw middle class homes all the 10 miles alongside the road. KTPK look smuch more like the real thing in FSX than in X-plane, I am afraid. But this is only a small sample. Still X-plane 10 wins by a small margin, in my opinion. Which is not bad for FSX when you consider that it was published when? 5 years ago? - while x-plane is brand, brand new, and puts "plausible world" forward as one of the key differentiators. Much work left to do for that, IMO. Interesting comparison, by the way!

For me, the homes beat the IKEA stores that used to appear on nearly every corner in a previous release of XP. I think it was XP8 or even older.

Imho xplane has better landclass but the graphics seem to lack.

I think FSX is visually the better sim. Although as Geoff pointed this is FSX + Add-ons. The mesh is clearly better with XP as seen in the last shot. Very nice shots.