The more I use it, the more I like it...

 

Just thoughts, feelings put into words, no screens yet .....

 

I have been playing around with the rendering settings, trying to see up to where I can go without stuttering, and I am speechless !

 

I can't even imagine the amount I would have to spend in the most detailed and fully featured add-ons for FSX to get the same amount of detail and realism I get, specially flying at night! Well, but also at any other time of day.

 

Smooth as silk, since the install - no problems, no crashes so far.

 

Next will be some adjustment to my X52-Pro sensitivities, because I am using the default settings. Not that I can complain, but I am aware that some users and some add-on developers recommend specific settings for the various axis.

 

Finally, I was really missing the helicopters!!!! This is yet another area where, IMHO, only very specific and detailed simulations like DCS Ka-50 can be considered on par...

"Realism" is a scary word to use when describing simulators. XPX at night is beautiful, though. Glad you're having fun! :)

"Realism" is a scary word to use when describing simulators

 

;-) I know....

"Realism" is a scary word to use when describing simulators. XPX at night is beautiful, though. Glad you're having fun! :)

And meanwhile not only at night ... go, fly out in the mountains (for example start from Aosta) with some low clouds hanging between the peaks.

And meanwhile not only at night ... go, fly out in the mountains (for example start from Aosta) with some low clouds hanging between the peaks.

 

I agree. XPX does have some great default mountains and forests. With some ORBX hand-tweaking, I don't think I'd ever leave :)

Orbx doing XP10 would seal the deal for me if it was 50$ a pop for their scenery. Lol.

 

RealAir would be nice too!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know nothing of scenery development so excuse a possible dumb question here, but can scenery for XP10 be done with the same quality as ORBX? I did not know if there might be any limitations. If that quality can be achieved, I wonder what type of impact that would have on performance?

 

Thanks

Bob

Short answer is yes.

It has been done. If you're talking about airports, there was a new airport scenery just released (KILM) that is very hi rez and very detailed.

Terrain scenery has been done by Real Scenery, and it is also very hi rez.

Performance is actually better than default scenery in many cases.

Isn't it crazy how that happens? I get better frames to be honest in KSEA with Orbx than I did with Default.

 

Same goes with KLAX by FSDT. It is almost comical how that addon runs so much better with such HighRes objects and all than default with horrible block textures all thought the place.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

but can scenery for XP10 be done with the same quality as ORBX?

 

All the tech is there to do what ORBX does and even surpass it with the night lighting. ORBX has a "system" of development that yields quality, consistency and productivity..and of course is funded by the larger MSFS market.....BUT technologically, X-Plane can do the same. It will just take time for authors to also get their system and art assets going. The link below shows KILM and what can be achieved.

 

http://www.x-aviatio...rport-p-87.html

 

and a cool video demonstrating it a bit more. (but with rendering goodies turned off during screen capture...gallery above shows it better)

 

All the tech is there to do what ORBX does and even surpass it with the night lighting. ORBX has a "system" of development that yields quality, consistency and productivity..and of course is funded by the larger MSFS market.....BUT technologically, X-Plane can do the same. It will just take time for authors to also get their system and art assets going. The link below shows KILM and what can be achieved.

 

http://www.x-aviatio...rport-p-87.html

 

and a cool video demonstrating it a bit more. (but with rendering goodies turned off during screen capture...gallery above shows it better)

 

 

That is very nice. The default grass is just boringly consistent. I wish they would have done what they have done here with the grass. A little bit of variety would make a world of difference. Not to take away from the rest of the images, which are incredibly well done, but since there is so much grass in XP10, a little bit of variety would have gone a long way.

a little bit of variety would have gone a long way.

 

They (that is those on autogen) may get to it. Behind water colors, wave patterns, beaches, rivers, sky colors, clouds, america residences, desert, euro residences, auto alignement, OSM road grid implementation, urban density, seasons, auto-downtowns, forests, airport markings, airport buildings, ATC, memory management, performance tuning for slower computers, flight model enhancements, lighting, shadows....eh, you get the point, everything gets it turns in time. I agree that you get a good return on investment for some grass diversity, but as with many things, the implementation isn't as straightforward as it looks...but I think it is in the radar to "get addressed at some point"

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar / IXEG

www.ixeg.net

Just completed my first successful flight in the Dash 8... Starting to warm to XP10 now, really nice. Would be nice to have knobs adjustable with the scroll wheel like FS, but there again I like the XP10 scroll zoom too...

 

Looking forward to more scenery and ongoing development, thanks guys. :-)

They (that is those on autogen) may get to it. Behind water colors, wave patterns, beaches, rivers, sky colors, clouds, america residences, desert, euro residences, auto alignement, OSM road grid implementation, urban density, seasons, auto-downtowns, trees, grass, diversity, airport buildings, ATC, memory management, performance tuning for slower computers, flight model enhancements, lighting, shadows....eh, you get the point, everything gets it turns in time.

 

Tom Kyler

Laminar / IXEG

www.ixeg.net

 

A lot to think about when putting something as complex as this together I know. You can't please everyone for sure. I am a die hard FSX fan and it is difficult not to compare the two products. It is without a doubt that high quality scenery, aircraft and many other areas within the realm, will need to come from 3rd party developers. It will be quite an investment for many, especially those who have a small fortune invested in FSX.

 

Bob

They (that is those on autogen) may get to it. Behind water colors, wave patterns, beaches, rivers, sky colors, clouds, america residences, desert, euro residences, auto alignement, OSM road grid implementation, urban density, seasons, auto-downtowns, forests, airport markings, airport buildings, ATC, memory management, performance tuning for slower computers, flight model enhancements, lighting, shadows....eh, you get the point, everything gets it turns in time.

 

Yep! That's certainly TRUE, although it took me a lot of time to embark on version10. I also think that X-plane as an excellent support for it's costumers, and I sometimes have difficulty understanding how Austin can live his days out of the X-Plane project - maybe he found some way to stretch time :-) I get prompt answers to my messages sometimes before I have had the time to close my email application!!! And I don't pay anything for it!!!!

 

Also, what we get with the default install, both in quantity and quality, is a lot more than what we get with the default FSX Gold.

 

Installation/configuration is easy and intuitive, and I don't have to spend days tweaking and editing this and that to get a few less stutters (in my PC, it can be my/it's fault, I can't say....). In X-Plane it is just a few sliders / ticks, and that's it, you go "flying"!!!