Yes thats exactly why I don't as a normal rule use AA, I like all the fps I can get within reason :( I use 16x ansiotropic though, I have it in set inspector as application controlled. Set it in x-plane then at 16x.I do about the same for FSX and get about the same results in it too.I've always been an nVidia person. I quess so I can use anyglyph stereovision in FSX. Or is it, that that is just what I first started with? I think probably that is it. It seems most people like the first thing that they first started using. and tend to stay with that I'm afraid. :(

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by wb5okj

I have to say X-Plane without AA looks a lot better than FSX without AA! I still prefer to have it on though, I guess it's just what i'm used to!

Tom, are you talking about 10.03 rc2, I still have both AA and AF settings in my Rendering Options, over and above the HDR settings.Still like to here from someone in the loop about the difference in texture usage betwwen Nvidia and ATI. Maybe they don't really reflect much in the real world, just seems odd they can be that different with the same settings, on different video cards.Glen

I think these macines are notorious for being different at the same setting. They are like us in that no two are alike. I was lucky and have gotten a good build on this machine, though I cannot for the life of me overclock it. Just a 5% overclock on this chip (Quad Core 2 duo 9650), and it just packs up and goes home. I've had Vcore voltage up to 1.6volts, afraid to go higher, and this thing just will not run. I had a E88 someething chip 2.66 Ghz on it and I could get it up to 3.45Ghz with just stock cooling, This 9650 just won't do it, and I got the chip to start with for the OC. Oh well, "Shows to Go Ya", who really knows the intricacies of some of these things. I'm actually pretty happy with 3.0 Ghz speed.

Tom, are you talking about 10.03 rc2, I still have both AA and AF settings in my Rendering Options, over and above the HDR settings.Still like to here from someone in the loop about the difference in texture usage betwwen Nvidia and ATI. Maybe they don't really reflect much in the real world, just seems odd they can be that different with the same settings, on different video cards.Glen

Ah, I see, the AA and AF options moved from where they were (I have it set to 2X AA and 4X AF, further masked when you turn on HDR where it gets replaced with HDR AA, which I later did to try out Donald's settings. I'll turn off AA/AF in Inspector to see what I get. BTW taking out AI traffic (Actually setting it to 1 as it doesn't allow you to set to 0) bumped me up to 18FPS, and setting it to default (4) to 15FPS.Edit: Just tried turning off AA/AF in inspector, no discernable diference. I think the difference may be in the nuber of cores, mine is a 2 Core C2D. Most I think have quad cores these days.

Edited January 24, 201214 yr by tf51d

"im sure austin and laminar know what peoples concerns are and are doing everything they can"really? that's new to me. how come even in its 10th version:AI is buggyflight model unrealisticground handling baduser interface outdatedreal world weather turbulence unflyableflight planning missingall this 5 years AFTER fsx was released?on the positive side:instrument needles: much smoother animationfantastic night lightingbetter use of multi cores and GPUverdict: XPX has potential but needs more simming on the kitchen stove, I prefer it well done, not raw.

-Not to mention AI that doesn't develop their own flight plan and just follow eachother (and you) around... That is kind of an immersion killer.-No simple structures at 99% of the airports around the world.-No parking spaces at 99% of the airports, if you do spawn AI some of them start on top of eachother all sharing 1 spot, which will also be your spot if you choose to start at the ramp.I think it has potential but it feels like FS98 compared to where we should be.

The more one delays the purchase of a buggy and incomplete product, the more incentive Laminar has to produce an update that is worthy of being called a complete, finished, relatively bug-free product that Laminar IMPLIES.Laminar should deliver more than it promises and promise less than what it can deliver - TODAY - not a month, two months or six months from now !TODAY.WHAT IS LAMINAR'S ROADMAP AND TIMELINE FOR FIXING AND DELIVERING THE PRODUCT IT HYPED AND PROMISED ?

You my friend, take a week holidays from here and calm down.Single and last warning.

You my friend, take a week holidays from here and calm down.Single and last warning.

+ 1

I have a totally dark night in FSX, This runway 10 at Latin VFR'S SLLP, La Paz,with FSX approaching storms,and facing the mountains, You cannot see clouds or mountains.All tho I am sick of the rotating clouds in FSX,and was looking foward to the 3D clouds in X-Plane 10,they turned out to be un usable even with my machine.

The vids I've seen of XPX so far: The urban areas look disappointing - the residential areas are laid out in an unrealistic manner and go right to the downtown buildings with no row houses, parks, etc. However the sky and water look fantastic. I was just flying in FSX with my fave aircraft the Constellation and thinking the urban areas looked nicer than the vids I've seen of XPX. Of course my FSX is maxed out. I'm wondering is it worth the purchase. I'd like the opinion of FSX fans that have tried XPX, I am downloading the demo right now. Also, do you think developers will jump on the XPX bandwagon since MS Flight is a just a game? This is what I'm thinking and this is why I'm considering purchasing the new X plane.Edit: Ok I just saw the downtown Seattle vid (XP10) on youtube and it looks pretty good with decent FPS. Now if only California Classics Connie can be used in XP10.

I bought XP10 Global after trying the demo and I kind of thought I should have done more researches to underestand the philosphy of XP developement before buying it and I suggest you do the same. The demo alone does not show what is there and what isn't and what is half there and what is completed...I suggest you read posts on forums reagarding what is missing comapred to FSX and evaluate if it is important for what you enjoy in a simulatorI now just open XP10 to do some cessna or 747 circuits around an airport at night because I love XP10 night, first it is very realistic with the 3D plausible lit world and second it hides the flaws and missing parts :)But I decided that for now I will keep enjoying FSX maxed with my O/C Sandy Bridge and very satisfied. In FSX I can simulate an airliner flight IFR / Flight Planning / ATC in a stormy Canadian winter with an immersive world of snow yet I will never compare the dynamics of FSX aircrafts to the real ones, the Wilco Airbuses I always like to fly convince me and entertain me. I can live an immersive virtual reality experience with FSX.XP10 has great potential as many said, excellent ideas being implemented but it is a bit here and another there. None of the ideas are finalized.For example, to me it's important to have an immersive world in a simulator like seasons variations, they are not there in XP10 and I did not know that... I can download any snow storm with real weather in XP10 in the middle of winter but it will happen on a super green land...My suggestion: read on forums and see if XP is for you. As for the demo, it is not representative of the final product in my opinionCheers

Edited January 31, 201214 yr by Claviateur

Bigsky - what aircraft is that, and where can I find it? Thanks!

Bobber,That is the PMDG 737-700.

Perfect, thanks - I misread your post, and thought it was X10...and got excited thinking this was available for X10! Thanks...

"im sure austin and laminar know what peoples concerns are and are doing everything they can"really? that's new to me. how come even in its 10th version:AI is buggyflight model unrealisticground handling baduser interface outdatedreal world weather turbulence unflyableflight planning missingall this 5 years AFTER fsx was released?on the positive side:instrument needles: much smoother animationfantastic night lightingbetter use of multi cores and GPUverdict: XPX has potential but needs more simming on the kitchen stove, I prefer it well done, not raw.

I fully agree with this, the flight model is the core of any simulator. It's a bit disturbing to know that Laminar has had 10 versions and the planes still have flight model issues like flight controls with excessive authority, pitch instability, unrealistic excessive turbulence. etc.. Maybe that's why they have the stability augmentation sliders. It is basically a way to say "OK we realize our models are much more unstable than real life, so you can stabilize them artificially and make the simulation even less realistic. There has to be a way to get Laminar focused on fixing the core of this simulator (flight model), instead of working on 3d houses with backyards, or ipad and iphone versions, or flying on Mars etc.. These are my top priorities for a rewarding computer simulation:1. Flight model - including realistic performance, static and dynamic stability, response, fidelity, feel, smoothness, reaction to weather events like wind shear and turbulence etc..2. Systems modelling - ideally all systems modelled exactly like the real aircraft, represented accurately by appropriate switches and instruments in the cockpit.3. Flight planning.3. Eye candy - scenery, 3d model, 3dcockpit, etc. 4. ATC system, AI aircraft, - not a big priority, can join VATSIM for extreme realism.5. Fun missions and scenarios - flying a challenging IFR flight plan by hand provides all the challenge i look for. Does the regular X-Plane user have similar priorities? I know some users are perfectly fine flying by autopilot all the time, or enjoying sceneries and 3d cockpit, or performing conceptual design of aircraft (the basic blade element model is perfect for that, but it is not uncommon for conceptual designs to be off by 30% to 50% which is too great of an error for a realistic, high fidelity simulation experience). I have found feedback from real pilots who say that flight controls are 100% to 300% overpowered for the stock aircraft. There are many things i like about this sim and i don't regret purchasing it, but fixing these core issues would make it much better and miles ahead of anything else out there.

Edited February 3, 201214 yr by 800xp

The stock aircraft are a rough concept. They didn't delve into the design parameters the way they should have in order to generate wholly realistic flight models. They gave it a rough once-over and got the aircraft a rough flight characteristic. Goran has already spent some time on the C172 and improved it by altering some values left at default and changed them to mimic values more closely to the real numbers (but may or may not have the real numbers, but can make an educated guess as he's worked on similar aircraft).The flight model of XPlane requires lots of cold hard engineering details that aren't widely available and thus, without this data, is impossible to get a 100% perfect FM, but if a manufacturer decided to give someone the information PlaneMaker requires, could get a 99.9% flight model according to theory (theory meets real world is never the same picture).