November 28, 201213 yr 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. Thanks There is still a lot to tweak. Especially avoid repetition when seen from far away while keeping a nice look from near. Agree with the scale, especially with some trees, which I hesitate to remove since they compliment the tree billboards well when seen from up. Will probably adjust the scale a bit. Please note that I concentrate on European textures for now. It's a bit harder because directionality is less uniform than in US, and I'd like too keep as much as possible the "spider net" visual structures given by the roads.
November 28, 201213 yr Further to my last post... Lisbon looks better, while no where near to RL Lisboa... The towns arround also look plausible, yes... And it's smooth... I still preffer FSX default autogen though, in many aspects, specially if we look into Lisbon AIrport, surrounding airbases, etc.... Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
November 28, 201213 yr Thanks There is still a lot to tweak. Especially avoid repetition when seen from far away while keeping a nice look from near. Agree with the scale, especially with some trees, which I hesitate to remove since they compliment the tree billboards well when seen from up. Will probably adjust the scale a bit. Please note that I concentrate on European textures for now. It's a bit harder because directionality is less uniform than in US, and I'd like too keep as much as possible the "spider net" visual structures given by the roads. So it's possible to have different regional ground textures in XP10 without having to swap out each time à la FTX Central? If so, excellent! :smile:
November 28, 201213 yr "Do you mean FSX has a better flight model ? But I have read XP has a better flight model." and I have read I will get to heaven if I pray enough.
November 28, 201213 yr So it's possible to have different regional ground textures in XP10 without having to swap out each time à la FTX Central? If so, excellent! :smile: absolutely, I think every art asset can be region specific: textures, autogen, roads, trains,...
November 28, 201213 yr "Do you mean FSX has a better flight model ? But I have read XP has a better flight model." and I have read I will get to heaven if I pray enough. LOL it's all in the eye (or joystick) of the beholder... With a good add-on plane they both can be excellent. Austin promotes XP as having superior flight modelling, but there again by his own admission he's only used FSX once or twice, and probably only with a default plane. I like both sims, and XP's flight handling can be very convincing but gets tricky when the frames get low (everything is supposedly calculated on the fly, whereas FS uses a kind of lookup table as I'm led to believe).
November 28, 201213 yr Commercial Member LOL it's all in the eye (or joystick) of the beholder... With a good add-on plane they both can be excellent. Austin promotes XP as having superior flight modelling, but there again by his own admission he's only used FSX once or twice, and probably only with a default plane. I like both sims, and XP's flight handling can be very convincing but gets tricky when the frames get low (everything is supposedly calculated on the fly, whereas FS uses a kind of lookup table as I'm led to believe). Austin believes Blade Element Theory (What X-Plane uses) is better at simulating flight than Look Up Tables (What FSX uses)
November 28, 201213 yr Austin believes Blade Element Theory (What X-Plane uses) is better at simulating flight than Look Up Tables (What FSX uses) It would be, provided it took much more aircraft components into consideration than it does... Presently I can't honestly opt for either. They're both good, and they're both not so good. If we sum up all of the pros & cons of each platform, just considering flight dynamics, I'd say they get pretty much the same score... With good add-ons, both are very nice to use. Flying gliders since 1980 Flightsimming since 1992 AMD Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, GPU Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti 8 GB, 1 TB and 500 GB nvme2 SSD drives, HP 27" 60Hz LED monitor @ 1920x1080, T16000, Hotas from old X52 Pro, Saitek Combat Rudder Pro (2010 model)
November 28, 201213 yr It would be, provided it took much more aircraft components into consideration than it does... Presently I can't honestly opt for either. They're both good, and they're both not so good. If we sum up all of the pros & cons of each platform, just considering flight dynamics, I'd say they get pretty much the same score... With good add-ons, both are very nice to use. And that's how it is!!! As they say.....
November 29, 201213 yr @Larry Have you tried the sequoia Falco from X-aviation, it's a kit version of the SF260, and it's very RV-like(x/c it has a retractable gear). I have an RV-9 IRL and it does a nice job of simulating that specific type of plane, aka slippery. The jump to 64 bit for XPX is huge, it's gotten so smooth and fast on my PC that I can't believe it. Now it has some more growing pains as devs get their add-ons to work in it, but once it's sorted, the sim will be just fantastic.
November 29, 201213 yr @Larry Have you tried the sequoia Falco from X-aviation, it's a kit version of the SF260, and it's very RV-like(x/c it has a retractable gear). I have an RV-9 IRL and it does a nice job of simulating that specific type of plane, aka slippery. The jump to 64 bit for XPX is huge, it's gotten so smooth and fast on my PC that I can't believe it. Now it has some more growing pains as devs get their add-ons to work in it, but once it's sorted, the sim will be just fantastic. Larry is allowed to his opinion because he owns the demo version...
November 29, 201213 yr Just to put things in perspective. MS have declared FSX clinically DEAD! The only people hanging on are the in-laws (third party devs) and even they are discounting his decease...I get emails every day, 40 to 50% off...
November 29, 201213 yr Just to put things in perspective. MS have declared FSX clinically DEAD! The only people hanging on are the in-laws (third party devs) and even they are discounting his decease...I get emails every day, 40 to 50% off... I haven't seen anyone working on the building of this planet for the last billion years or so.................but we're still here, ain't we? Microsoft built the "base" product called FSX. It's just like earth, and with all of those developers out there, to keep it going....... it's far from dead! In fact, I just bought a new copy of FSX for less than 10 bucks. I want it for a future, new computer install. I'll be looking forward to it.. L.Adamson
November 29, 201213 yr Who cares-dead or alive-I just want the best flight sim-and sometimes the dead ones look more alive in many areas... ..which admittedly is strange-really should not be that way...I'd like to see that change. I do like this though and am gonna take on a new flight sim slogan. WANTED DEAD or ALIVE-the best flight sim! :lol: Geofa WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE-the best Flight Sim!
November 29, 201213 yr Larry is allowed to his opinion because he owns the demo version... As well as disc versions of XP8 & 9. And I've owned the Falco, as part of my XP collection, for around two years now.
Create an account or sign in to comment