Thanks for the post, Murf! Speaking from a person's point of view, probably one of the most honest posts in these forums.

 

Thanks for the kind words, GoranM. You can be sure I'll continue to be hanging around here to watch for further development of X-Plane.

 

As to learning how to install Photo scenery in conjunction with OSM2XP and other tools, I was serious about that. If I can learn how to do that, you can be sure that I'll be spending some of my flying time with X-Plane. It's just that, as a new user, the task seems a little daunting to me right now.

Hi, if you switch from FSX to Xp10, you will found the graphic in xp10 is much sharper than FSX, no blurriness at all. However, you need to keep in mind that xp10 currently only draw those detail scenery up to 40km around you, after those 40km boundary, all you get are blurry texture.

 

The other thing you may like is the lack of autogen 'pop up' which I felt very annoying in FSX even after years of use. You may also like the dynamic sun lighting that cast true 3D shadow on every object (except cloud). With HDR on, its quite an experience seeing the sharp cockpit shadow and all autogen buildings/trees that cast shadow, you can 'feel' the sunlight . Yes, in FSX, you can have fake shadow backed on ground texture but its just not look as good as in xp10. One thing that annoy me is the flicker shadow in cockpit. I don't know why I got some flicker shadow in cockpit. I watched youtube and found the flicker shadow also happen in addon aircraft.

 

Performance wise, for your setup, you should have no frame rate issue flying in xp10 because almost all airports has no terminal building or even a tower. You can then get payware or freeware airports and then the performance hit will greatly depends on the complexity of the download content.

 

When you are on ground, the cloud in FSX look great at distant, and I also feel the cloud in xp10 look awful. But when you fly 'thru' those cloud, the 3d cloud looks far better in xp10 compared to fsx. But bear in mind for the moment, the cloud draw distance in xp10 is far shorter than fsx though.

Hi, if you switch from FSX to Xp10, you will found the graphic in xp10 is much sharper than FSX, no blurriness at all. However, you need to keep in mind that xp10 currently only draw those detail scenery up to 40km around you, after those 40km boundary, all you get are blurry texture.

 

The other thing you may like is the lack of autogen 'pop up' which I felt very annoying in FSX even after years of use. You may also like the dynamic sun lighting that cast true 3D shadow on every object (except cloud). With HDR on, its quite an experience seeing the sharp cockpit shadow and all autogen buildings/trees that cast shadow, you can 'feel' the sunlight . Yes, in FSX, you can have fake shadow backed on ground texture but its just not look as good as in xp10. One thing that annoy me is the flicker shadow in cockpit. I don't know why I got some flicker shadow in cockpit. I watched youtube and found the flicker shadow also happen in addon aircraft.

 

Performance wise, for your setup, you should have no frame rate issue flying in xp10 because almost all airports has no terminal building or even a tower. You can then get payware or freeware airports and then the performance hit will greatly depends on the complexity of the download content.

 

When you are on ground, the cloud in FSX look great at distant, and I also feel the cloud in xp10 look awful. But when you fly 'thru' those cloud, the 3d cloud looks far better in xp10 compared to fsx. But bear in mind for the moment, the cloud draw distance in xp10 is far shorter than fsx though.

 

Hey Oliver, thanks for those bits of information. That's the kind of stuff that is really helpful. Everything you mentioned is very helpful, in particular the lack of AG pop-up which I have not read about before.

This is an X-Plane forum for X-Plane users. It seems that giving warnings to non X-Plane users about coming here and promoting other sims (by cleverly comparing relative strengths and weaknesses in favour of other sims) has largely been useless.

 

Even though previously warned personally, a number of people continue to do just that. I'll say this one more time before I start handing out suspensions to the repeat offenders: "If you do not fly X-Plane, this forum does not belong to you, so go elsewhere."

 

Kind regards,

Stephen,

 

Absolutely no disrespect for your thoughts and threats, but, if you shut this type of dialog down, where are we to go to get up-to-date information that we can use to make decisions about migrating to new or newly improved platforms for fight sims? After all, the name of the forum is for X-Plane General Discussions, isn't it? I guess I missed the memo that we had to be actual users of a specific platform to post in that forum. Is this someting new at Avsim?

 

Heck, I have gotten more useful information about X-Pane from this one thread than all the reviews and press releases in the last 6 months. It appears the OP is happy with the responses; I'm happy with the responses and was looking forward to more folks stepping up and posting their experiences, and others seem ready to share their experiences from FSX or maybe just from XPX.

 

If you insist on dumping water on this type of information gathering post would it seem reasonable (maybe there is a better word) for Tom A. to set up a forum where we could go to hear the experiences of fellow simmers from different or several platforms with maybe a little more forgiving moderation. It seems to me each of the main forums are so protected from 'trolls' and I don't even know what a troll is, never met one, that if we get slightly off topic, or in the mind of the many mods, off topic, we are banned, or threatened within an inch of our forum life for such actions, or at the least made to feel very unwelcome there.

 

I really would like to be a multi-platform flight simmer, but it appears to me, you and a few others are dead set against that. Maybe I am just over-reacting myself, and if so, I do sincerely apologize to all that I offended, especially you and the volunteer Admin staff.

 

Would you mind reading this one post (#27 above) by me earlier in this thread and tell me what is wrong with it, in your considered opinion, and why I will be banned if I continue to post that type of post in this forum?

 

Ray

That is a well written post Ray and one well worth thinking about in several ways. I particularily like the idea of a multiplatform forum, where except for personal attacks and EULA debates etc, a discussion can take place. This is something to think about, and I will bring it up with senior staff.

 

Indeed, FS9, FSX, Flight and X-Plane forums are for discussions about that particular sim in principle. The vicious snipping that has occured in each of those individual forums between those who disagree on that platform are of almost mythical porportions. We are not going to go there again, ever.

 

We'll get back to everyone about this. However, please don't aggravate X-Plane users here, Flight users there, FS9ers over there, or FSX people in their place. Same goes for all the other sims/games either.

 

Kind regards,

raymar, couldn't agree with your post more.

 

I guess I missed the memo that we had to be actual users of a specific platform to post in that forum.

 

It is a dis-service to potential FSX (or any other platform) converts, OP and other readers/contributors to restrict views on one or the other platform since the topic title actually names the other sim by name.

 

Overall, the flow of posts has been positive and civil for the most part, except perhaps for a few personal attacks. Please, let's not restrict views and/or lock topics just because one or two posters have crossed the lines on ettiquette or behaviour on this or any other fora.

raymar, couldn't agree with your post more.

 

It is a dis-service to potential FSX (or any other platform) converts, OP and other readers/contributors to restrict views on one or the other platform since the topic title actually names the other sim by name.

 

Overall, the flow of posts has been positive and civil for the most part, except perhaps for a few personal attacks. Please, let's not restrict views and/or lock topics just because one or two posters have crossed the lines on ettiquette or behaviour on this or any other fora.

 

Thanks fs_av. It looks like the thread is still alive. I hope we get some more of these great insightful posts from those that have already made the move. I am so tired of being an 'early adopter'.

 

Ray

In order for a user of another platform to know what is different about another platform, comparisons HAVE to be made. You cannot purchase a product just on brand or title alone. You don't buy a Chevy just because you like the name. You look at the reputation, features and cost of a Chevy versus a Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi, BMW etc, then balance these differences and make the choice.

 

If users aren't allowed to make comparisons of one platform versus another, then the true multi-platform nature of AVSIM is nullified. The true comparisons, though, are feature to feature, not opinion to opinion. For example:

 

One thing I love in XP10 is the precipitation effect. It isn't drawn as a ring around the aircraft as in FSX, but instead over the screen in an almost 3D effect. While parked on the ground with widescreen and zoomed out, it always bothered me when it would look like my aircraft were under an umbrella, but XP10 the effect fills the visible screen.

 

There is a bit of opinion there in the fact that I like X versus Y, but what the actual difference is for any user, regardless of like or dislike of the platform, isn't actually debatable. It's fact that with the view zoomed out and a widescreen resolution, you WILL have a ring around your aircraft where you can see the precip ring effect, but in XP10, I haven't yet been able to muddy the settings to where the precip inside or outside the aircraft was visibly ended in an unrealistic fashion. There are many other comparisons that can be brought up, but the comparisons can't be that of opinion, but factual only. If making a comparison about a visible opinionated comment, screenshots comparing the two should be in order to let the reader decide for themselves which appears better to them.

 

The 15 minute demo is a joke. Using that, it would appear that the world is far different when you buy it than what you will actually receive. Airport with buildings, landmarks and visibly touched up 3rd party modifications would make you think that besides the lack of variation of autogen building types, scenery globally in XP10 is similar in feature to FSX and that just isn't true. Without 3rd party intervention, airports and landmark data are completely missing. And the flight models of the default aircraft would make any user of another platform scoff at the notion that XP uses a highly advanced flight model when they get the continuous screeching at 5kt taxi speeds, over-reactive turbulence and other flaws caused by the inaccurate data that is a given in the default flight models.

 

The demo only shows that XP10 will work or not work on your system, not about what has been debated over and over again.

 

When I sink $80 into a sim, I would expect that I shouldn't have to sink more money into it just to get a complete and fulfilling flight by buying a 3rd party aircraft, 3rd party scenery. I still fly FSX without many addons. Once the art assets for the auto-gen get fleshed out, hopefully my biggest eyesore of residential as far as the eye can see will go away and I can resume flights in XP10. A lot of people may claim that FSX without Orbx or many other scenery isn't great either, but when FSX came out and was empty compared to Orbx and other scenery and aircraft, it was ahead of FS9 (computing power required aside). It wasn't until people had the hardware to run FSX came along that FSX realized it's potential. XP10 is out now and to many, is still incomplete; usable, but incomplete.

 

I love XP10, but am still unhappy with certain aspects of it and am appalled that LR released it well before it was so much farther advanced than it is. My biggest gripe with LR is that you don't know where they are going, only what you currently have in front of you, take it or leave it, and if you take it, hope for the best that you will get what you want in it before they stop development of the current platform and move to the next version.

I am an FS9 user, who is thinking about building a computer and moving to FSX. But this forum has been a fascinating read and has made me a lot more curious about XPX. By the way, I am continuosly amazed by where we are today in this hobby. To think both sim platforms have been used in some way for real world training is quite spectacular. Anyway, I'm going to keep reading everyone's answers to the OP's original question because it is a good one that more than one MSFS user is curious about. Great discussion.

 

Todd

Hay Rocky I think you should have ordered your version of xpx by now eh mate ?

I spent the 80 bucks on it and dont regret it. Its x plane 10 not fsx and no screen shots or forum banter will truly give you the answer you seek But a visit to xpx website and a charge on the old credit card will.! try it out if you dont like it it will make nice shelfware.

In order for a user of another platform to know what is different about another platform, comparisons HAVE to be made. You cannot purchase a product just on brand or title alone. You don't buy a Chevy just because you like the name. You look at the reputation, features and cost of a Chevy versus a Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi, BMW etc, then balance these differences and make the choice.

 

If users aren't allowed to make comparisons of one platform versus another, then the true multi-platform nature of AVSIM is nullified. The true comparisons, though, are feature to feature, not opinion to opinion. For example:

 

One thing I love in XP10 is the precipitation effect. It isn't drawn as a ring around the aircraft as in FSX, but instead over the screen in an almost 3D effect. While parked on the ground with widescreen and zoomed out, it always bothered me when it would look like my aircraft were under an umbrella, but XP10 the effect fills the visible screen.

 

There is a bit of opinion there in the fact that I like X versus Y, but what the actual difference is for any user, regardless of like or dislike of the platform, isn't actually debatable. It's fact that with the view zoomed out and a widescreen resolution, you WILL have a ring around your aircraft where you can see the precip ring effect, but in XP10, I haven't yet been able to muddy the settings to where the precip inside or outside the aircraft was visibly ended in an unrealistic fashion. There are many other comparisons that can be brought up, but the comparisons can't be that of opinion, but factual only. If making a comparison about a visible opinionated comment, screenshots comparing the two should be in order to let the reader decide for themselves which appears better to them.

 

The 15 minute demo is a joke. Using that, it would appear that the world is far different when you buy it than what you will actually receive. Airport with buildings, landmarks and visibly touched up 3rd party modifications would make you think that besides the lack of variation of autogen building types, scenery globally in XP10 is similar in feature to FSX and that just isn't true. Without 3rd party intervention, airports and landmark data are completely missing. And the flight models of the default aircraft would make any user of another platform scoff at the notion that XP uses a highly advanced flight model when they get the continuous screeching at 5kt taxi speeds, over-reactive turbulence and other flaws caused by the inaccurate data that is a given in the default flight models.

 

The demo only shows that XP10 will work or not work on your system, not about what has been debated over and over again.

 

When I sink $80 into a sim, I would expect that I shouldn't have to sink more money into it just to get a complete and fulfilling flight by buying a 3rd party aircraft, 3rd party scenery. I still fly FSX without many addons. Once the art assets for the auto-gen get fleshed out, hopefully my biggest eyesore of residential as far as the eye can see will go away and I can resume flights in XP10. A lot of people may claim that FSX without Orbx or many other scenery isn't great either, but when FSX came out and was empty compared to Orbx and other scenery and aircraft, it was ahead of FS9 (computing power required aside). It wasn't until people had the hardware to run FSX came along that FSX realized it's potential. XP10 is out now and to many, is still incomplete; usable, but incomplete.

 

I love XP10, but am still unhappy with certain aspects of it and am appalled that LR released it well before it was so much farther advanced than it is. My biggest gripe with LR is that you don't know where they are going, only what you currently have in front of you, take it or leave it, and if you take it, hope for the best that you will get what you want in it before they stop development of the current platform and move to the next version.

 

Excellent post Aaron, with some great information. I share your observations about comparisons too. Of course we have to make comparisons, we do that with whatever we purchase, unless we are completely mad! As for the quality of the world scenery, from my own personla perspective, I couldn't really be bothered if it was completely barren. The way I look at FSX, is that I simply purchased a program that helps run all my sceneries and addons, in effect I purchased an engine. I didn't get into FSX to fly default anything! Why should I. IMO flying in any default scenery or flying a default aircraft is purely taking second best, except in the odd exceptional circumstance. I fly solely in Orbx scenery or when in Europe, with GEX and UTX. As for aircraft, all the usual offerings from PMDG, Realair, Sibwings, Carenado etc. So, this thread has proved very interesting for me and I'm glad others have found it rewarding. Although an avid FSXer and probably will, on reflection, move towards P3D when V2 arrived, I nevertheless believe XP has a very healthy future, not particulalry with how it is today, but probably in 12-18 months I think there will be a plethora of addons which may well equal the kind that we enjoy today in FSX.

This is an X-Plane forum for X-Plane users. It seems that giving warnings to non X-Plane users about coming here and promoting other sims (by cleverly comparing relative strengths and weaknesses in favour of other sims) has largely been useless.

 

Even though previously warned personally, a number of people continue to do just that. I'll say this one more time before I start handing out suspensions to the repeat offenders: "If you do not fly X-Plane, this forum does not belong to you, so go elsewhere."

 

I do have X-Plane. Bought version 8 from the org., version 9 from Walmart, and have the 10 demo. I also have four payware aircraft, with the Carenado Beechcraft being the most recent. In that respect, I suppose I can say something. In my mind, there is nothing wrong with using more than one sim. In most cases, a sim does not have to be deleated in order to load another. Sometimes, I'll even mention positive things about X-Plane on none X-Plane forums. That's because X-Plane just happened to have something that was superior. But.............what I do get tired of seeing and hearing is "blanket" statements, or "generalized" statements. For instance, just type in FSX versus X-Plane on Google, and see what you get. Besides a lot of my personal rants...........you'll see many statements saying the same thing. And that's the superior flight dynamics of X-Plane's blade element theory, versus Microsoft's use of lookup tables,,,,,,,,,,which just can't possibly tell a simulated aircraft how to really fly. And in most cases, these are just blanket statements.......supposeably covering the wide range of X-Plane products.

 

Of course many of us know, that many of the X-Plane default models, are not up to standards ...........that you'll find with numerous 3rd party payware products. Well surprise.................it's the SAME with FSX. There are payware products that border on excellence, considering the limitations of desktop flight simulation.

 

And this is where I get into the argumentative stage. I'd rather be more neutral, as I realize that both sims are capable of some very good software additions. These days, I have no hard feelings against X-Plane at all. I will admit, that I think more of Austin, for what he does with helping animal shelters, but that's another story. In the meantime, I do have a tendency to go against the grain of "blanket" statements, when I personally know from experience.........that's it's not the case. And when that happens, I say so. Doesn't matter if it's simulation forums, pilot forums, or plane builder forums.

It's just the way I am. I do not want to see a forum, in which everything is positive, and loaded with blanket statements. That might work well for vendors, but it's wrong.

 

L.Adamson

I think Stephens approach will make this forum readership greatly decrease..... since when do we all have to have the same opinion.

I find the more you use X-Plane the more it tends to grow on you. The things I really like are how the weather affects your plane, how it handles landings, and external model damage when you push your plane too hard.