To buy or not to buy. XPlane 10

[Stoli151 6]

I just downloaded the new RC1 demo and I have to say the performance is much improved over the beta demo. It ran pretty well on my system at reasonable settings for my hardware. I love the overall realism. Can someone that owns the global pack give me an honest opinion of the scenery? It doesn't have to be hyper accurate but is it more than just a scattered collection of odd buildings? I would at least like to see the Eiffel tower if I'm flying over Paris or even the lights and hotels of Las Vegas if on an approach into KLAS. Also If the scenery is not on par with even default FSX are there plans to make it better? Any input is appreciated as it is helping make my decision as to whether or not to buy XPlane 10. Screenshots of a major city that has famous landmarks would be awesome if possible.

[John the Pilot 0]

X-plane 10 has accurate runways, roads and elevations around the world with "plausible" scenery. Don't expect much in the way of Landmarks or airport buildings outside of Seattle and select European cities in X-plane 10 default scenery.Fortunately X-plane has an active scenery development community, with lots of freeware developers and several commercial scenery developers like Aerosoft and my personal favorite, Tom Curtis.After playing around with Microsoft Flight, I REALLY appreciate having the whole world available with runways and NavAids for the world's airports, and open architecture that allows outside developers to create detailed scenery where needed.X-plane "landmark" scenery is not on par with FSX, but at least it's NOT 5 year old software with no hope of improvement. I personally have committed to X-plane 10 because I feel it's the Flight Sim for the next 5 years, not the last 5. But this may require a little patience in these early days.

[LAdamson 240]

X-plane 10 has accurate runways, roads and elevations around the world with "plausible" scenery. Don't expect much in the way of Landmarks or airport buildings outside of Seattle and select European cities in X-plane 10 default scenery.Fortunately X-plane has an active scenery development community, with lots of freeware developers and several commercial scenery developers like Aerosoft and my personal favorite, Tom Curtis.After playing around with Microsoft Flight, I REALLY appreciate having the whole world available with runways and NavAids for the world's airports, and open architecture that allows outside developers to create detailed scenery where needed.X-plane "landmark" scenery is not on par with FSX, but at least it's NOT 5 year old software with no hope of improvement. I personally have committed to X-plane 10 because I feel it's the Flight Sim for the next 5 years, not the last 5. But this may require a little patience in these early days.

Not exactly. With active 3rd party development, FSX still seems to improve, just about every day. The same goes for XP.

[sunninho 0]

I guess, another question is: How does XP 10 take advantage of CPU and GPU resources vs FSX? From my understanding FSX relies almost entirely on the CPU to maintain framerate performance, whereas MS Flight and possibly XP 10 utilizes more of the GPU to enhance performance.Is this correct about XP 10?

[J.P. 2]

To the OP:To be completely honest, I'll have to tell you it doesn't get any better than the demo area unless you are willing to enhance the Software with 3rd party scenery.I like to fly in weird locations (Africa, India, Nepal) and often see urban road grids with no buildings. Autogen Density set to maximum (whatever that setting is called since 10.04b6). X-Plane scenery is generated from OSM data. That means plausibility but no landmarks. I'd still highly recommend the sim, just don't want anybody to have a disappointment when they buy it.My advice is to go out and look for some custom scenery. There is tons of really good free stuff available...Okay, here it goes: ...especially at the .org :(

[Stoli151 6]

To the OP:To be completely honest, I'll have to tell you it doesn't get any better than the demo area unless you are willing to enhance the Software with 3rd party scenery.I like to fly in weird locations (Africa, India, Nepal) and often see urban road grids with no buildings. Autogen Density set to maximum (whatever that setting is called since 10.04b6). X-Plane scenery is generated from OSM data. That means plausibility but no landmarks. I'd still highly recommend the sim, just don't want anybody to have a disappointment when they buy it.My advice is to go out and look for some custom scenery. There is tons of really good free stuff available...Okay, here it goes: ...especially at the .org :(

Well, that is a little disappointing. It kinda takes away from the immersion when you know you should see a certain landmark but nothing is there but some buildings grouped together. For $80 I expect at least some basic landmarks. I do have hope, at this point it looks like a really good IFR sim. Maybe once the developers are done with the issues they are working on currently, they'll start adding scenery. Looks like I'm going to have a wait and see attitude with this one as well.

[jasonX 24]

For $80 I expect at least some basic landmarks. I do have hope, at this point it looks like a really good IFR sim. Maybe once the developers are done with the issues they are working on currently, they'll start adding scenery.

I fly almost exclusively VFR using roads, railways, waterways and various terrain configurations (ok I cheat a little and double check with ndb's etc) so even without most building landmarks it is still very usable for VFR. Scenery is being refined and added constantly with the updates. The reason you don't see much stuff around in the way of larger buildings etc is because Laminar is taking a very different approach to this issue. You can read about this at the link below.http://developer.x-plane.com/Regards

[MdMax 233]

With active 3rd party development, FSX still seems to improve, just about every day.

You can find very nice add-ons for FSX, 3rd party add-ons are still improving, but FSX does not improve, it's still a beta 2, called "SP2", and support had been discontinued.

[J.P. 2]

Well, that is a little disappointing. It kinda takes away from the immersion when you know you should see a certain landmark but nothing is there but some buildings grouped together. For $80 I expect at least some basic landmarks. I do have hope, at this point it looks like a really good IFR sim. Maybe once the developers are done with the issues they are working on currently, they'll start adding scenery. Looks like I'm going to have a wait and see attitude with this one as well.

Well, actually, in real life, VFR flying is done mostly by roads, railways, rivers, urban shapes (especially at night, which X-Plane 10 does much better than anything before) and antennas. What you want, I think, is sightseeing. X-Plane 10 does a really good job for VFR. As for the devs adding more custom scenery, I hate to disappoint you again, but that is highly unlikely. In the past Laminar has always focused on improving the base product while leaving most of the artwork to 3rd parties (private and commercial).

ok I cheat a little and double check with ndb's etc

Don't worry, you're not cheating. Any real life pilot does the same thing. Improving VFR accuracy with available Navaids (even GPS) is common practice in aviation.

[LAdamson 240]

You can find very nice add-ons for FSX, 3rd party add-ons are still improving, but FSX does not improve, it's still a beta 2, called "SP2", and support had been discontinued.

At the end of the day...............does it really matter? I just recieved one of newest & best flight models ever ( for FSX). And then I'm flying it, over Orbx's Pacific Northwest scenery, which is also a wonderful sim experience. I'll just consider the base product of FSX as the underlying "Earth". We don't have to replace the planet to change the scenery and what flies above it.L.Adamson

[Avcomware 1]

Hi Stoli.>>Any input is appreciated as it is helping make my decision as to whether or not to buy XPlane 10.<<If you do not own any sim at this point, I would get it.There is something very wrong with the feel, out the window, terrain upslope feel when things should be flat, views change with the direction that you looking at them from, view to right 45 vs straight on when looking at distant objects, under the least amount of xwind the aircrafts tend to turn on the runway, inability to set Null zone for some of the axes (view left right / left if assigned to the Twist), and many other small but overall significant things that add to the wrong feel of this sim.I fly the areas, in real life, and I compare it to the real life view. I want o look out and get at least a general feel that I recognize the area that I am in. If you do not have that experience some of these things may not make any difference, but these can and should be rectified before it can become a credible sim.While airborne there is a smoother feel than some other sims, but as you get close to landing / ground, especially in GA light aircraft with some xwind, everything is exaggerated and unrealistic.I hope they get serious about this sim and fix it, there is no good reason why they could not do it. If you are looking for a better feel, view wise, unfortunately MSFS and Fly Legacy, and some less known sims, are the only sims available that I know of that give you that feel. TV

[GoranM 3,772]

At the end of the day...............does it really matter? I just recieved one of newest & best flight models ever ( for FSX). And then I'm flying it, over Orbx's Pacific Northwest scenery, which is also a wonderful sim experience. I'll just consider the base product of FSX as the underlying "Earth". We don't have to replace the planet to change the scenery and what flies above it.L.Adamson

Ironic, isn't it. Here we have a bunch of people complaining about the platform (lack of seasons, lack of city scenery, lack of real world AI, etc...) and you say, regarding FSX and some of its shortcomings, "does it really matter...I'll just consider the base product of FSX as the underlying "Earth". We don't have to replace the planet to change the scenery and what flies above it."Oh, how the tables have turned...at least sometimes.

[fs_av 0]

Is it fair to compare FSX to X-plane v5 ?Why are we comparing X-plane v10 to FSX ?

[GoranM 3,772]

Ok, let's compare it to Flight.Then again, let's not. Flight has too much missing.No AI. No ATC. Hawaii only.... :(

[Arklight1 140]

My view on scenery for flightsims of all kinds:If I have not been there in reality, I won't know the difference.If I have been there in reality, I more than likely won't remember the difference.lol