Other than that it looks excellent - except maybe that Laminar really should come up with a better city base textures. Something that adds a bit more visual clutter than pure grass. Could have a bit more trees in between too - oh well there is always room for improvement :rolleyes:.

 

something like that ?

 

 

 

:lol:

It is looking better and better , I think AMD and NVIDIA are going to have a good year after all.

something like that ?

 

Sort of.

Do you mean FSX has a better flight model ? But I have read XP has a better flight model.

 

What I do mean, is that I certainly wouldn't be transferring FSX scenery to X-Plane...............just because I "think" I'm getting a more realistic flight model.

In other words, all of this "stuff" about X-Plane having superior across the board flight models is only "fluff". A product of marketing and imagination! But........I'm not saying that XP models are inferior either. Actually I am..............but then that pertains to just certain ones. And yes, the same can be said about MSFS models in comparison to XP. Yep, just like X-Plane, numerous MSFS planes, just don't measure up!

 

Confused? You're not the only one. It's often written, that XP just has some sort of coding, that makes it the dream of real pilots. If you read it enough, you'll believe it! Do real pilots agree? Some do, and some don't. When it gets down to specifics, it's more a case of who modeled the airplane, and what talent & experience do they have?

 

I myself, am well aware, that when I want to purchase a FSX addon............for the pleasure of duplicating real flight...........that it's going to be from certain vendors. And realistically, I don't yet know of all the top FSX vendors, just as those who exclaim that XP is superior, have never tried some of the best for FSX either.

 

One thing for certain, is that you can never make generalized blanket statements...........to the effect of which simulator can replicate flight the best. *********Unless of course, you're a 3rd party designer for one specific sim... ********* ^_^

 

I'm just being honest here. I have enough background in real life aviation to get a good idea of what's realistic, and what's not. And for things I don't know, I read comments from many others who do. As to flight, I haven't been up in a real life GA.... since this morning (Van's RV9A). During this cross country flight in a friends airplane, I was again making mental notes, in regards to flight sims. I once again concluded, that there is still no clear winner. Not by a long shot! Neither sim will yet create an illusion that's perfected enough to fullfill my desire as a complete substitute the real thing. Someday, maybe, but not yet.

 

In the meantime, just realize that there are some excellent flight models for both sims, and it's better to move back & forth............or just accept that your options will be limited for years to come.

 

L.Adamson -- FS9, FSX, XP9, XP10 demo, real life Van's RV6A (builder/pilot)

Can't argue with you there. No sim can replace the real thing! Unfortunately for me, I'm grounded for a while.

My brother and I share an archer at kfrg. It's now written off thanks to hurricane Sandy.

Now my brother wants to get a cirrus with a third partner, but I'm afraid the cirrus is over my budget. I have to put away for my sons college and all. I can't justify it. So I'll have to go back to renting crap planes if I want my fill.

 

Rob

LAdamson,

 

 

I completely agree with you , nothing can replace the real thing, but I am talking about certain behaviours of the aircrafts, not all of it else I would need the wind tunnel from NASA , just want to know from a RL pilot about dyanmics that both sims hold, like drag , how is the aircraft performing in a stall config just a few things, hey it's just for knowledge.

LAdamson,

 

 

I completely agree with you , nothing can replace the real thing, but I am talking about certain behaviours of the aircrafts, not all of it else I would need the wind tunnel from NASA , just want to know from a RL pilot about dyanmics that both sims hold, like drag , how is the aircraft performing in a stall config just a few things, hey it's just for knowledge.

 

My RealAirs for FSX, the SF260 Marchetti & the new Lancair Legacy are my favorites. I'd come home from a real flight in the RV...........switch on the simulated SF260, and feel just as right as possible with the Marchetti. I've also flown the real Marchetti. But that's me..............I like speedy 2-place, full canopy airplanes. I also have a 2-place canopy ....Falco for XP-9. It's a nice plane, but doesn't beat the RealAirs.

 

 

When we talk about stalls, etc...............it just depends on who built the model. It's going to vary between the simulated airplanes & the sim itself. RealAir specialized with slips & spins. IMO, they're still the best "slipping" airplane with cross controls. Those default RV's that are "still" included with X-Plane are dreadfull. They pitch up with flap deployment like a Cessna, but they should actually pitch down........like a real RV. But I'm told, that that's just a programming error that can be changed. On the otherhand, my Baytower RV-7 for FSX is a masterpiece in comparison.

 

I finished my PPL in a Piper Archer. Flew it on many cross countries afterward. Morton's freeware Archer for X-Plane is wonderful! I really enjoy this plane. It flies very lifelike too! And that's how it is. When it comes to stall and drag, as well as much more..........it's going to be the programmer that makes the difference. NOT the sim......

it's going to be the programmer that makes the difference. NOT the sim......

 

 

I guess you are right. thnx.

Can't argue with you there. No sim can replace the real thing! Unfortunately for me, I'm grounded for a while.

My brother and I share an archer at kfrg. It's now written off thanks to hurricane Sandy.

Now my brother wants to get a cirrus with a third partner, but I'm afraid the cirrus is over my budget. I have to put away for my sons college and all. I can't justify it. So I'll have to go back to renting crap planes if I want my fill.

 

Rob

 

Aw, man... Sorry to hear that. I guess no insurance covers that kind of thing, huh? Sometimes I'm glad I live where I live. We just don't get that kind of weather here.

 

Skickat från min GT-I9300 via Tapatalk 2

 

 

Actually, Insurance covered it. In fact, we are getting back a few grand more than we paid for it, so I'm happy. But my brother wants to go for a cirrus now or something upscale from what we had. That's just out of my budget. (cool, but way more than I can spend)

 

I suppose, I could find a new partner for a more modest plane, but we had some bad experiences being partners with a third person who didn't care and treated things like crap etc. He abused the plane, complained about everything, couldn't agree with us on what needed upgrading etc.. I don't think I want to take a chance on going in with someone I don't know.

 

I think Ill wait and see what my brother does. If he gets a Cirrus with someone cool and things work out, maybe they will let me in and we can split it 3 ways. But honestly, I don't think my wife will allow it. We have a 7 year old and college costs are rising all the time. That's really my biggest priority right now. I think ill be renting again, at least for a while.

 

 

Rob

something like that ?

Just out of curiosity are those ground textures available somewhere?

Ive been looking for better alternatives and am not a great fan of the UrbanMaxx textures, although they do help fill the void.

 

Thanks.

Just out of curiosity are those ground textures available somewhere?

Ive been looking for better alternatives and am not a great fan of the UrbanMaxx textures, although they do help fill the void.

 

Thanks.

Not yet, I'm working on them, thanks for your interest. I try a different idea than UrbanMaxx, drawing no building on the ground, only flat surfaces and some vegetation. Just enough to have some structure.

Not yet, I'm working on them, thanks for your interest. I try a different idea than UrbanMaxx, drawing no building on the ground, only flat surfaces and some vegetation. Just enough to have some structure.

 

I like that approach since it probably fits the idea of a "plausible" scenery better than urban maxx. In the screenshot you showed the scaling of features on the ground textures looks off compared to the buildings. That is something you should tweak a little more.

I'm just installing beta 5, to see how Lisbon now looks in default X-Plane10.

Will take care to remove the OSM scenery I have for Portugal !

Not yet, I'm working on them, thanks for your interest. I try a different idea than UrbanMaxx, drawing no building on the ground, only flat surfaces and some vegetation. Just enough to have some structure.

That sounds like a neat idea Pascal, count me in they look promising!