I'm an ex X-Plane 10 convert

[drumsonly2002 3]

If X Plane had Orbx graphics that would be Xcellent X 10!

[JonRD463 146]

It's the whole experience that counts. I've tried Xplane and as good as it is with its rudimentary physics and graphics engine etc.... it still seems like a dull toy by comparison. Beautiful at first glance but then what?

 

:blink:

 

I'd say the physics and graphics engines in X-Plane are leaps and bounds ahead of FSX's. Sure, X-Plane lacks content, but the engine it's built on is far, far superior. The rendering capabilities are phenomenal. Antialiased shadows on everything-- including shadows from clouds-- along with real lighting effects on objects in the 3D space and HDR elevates the sim to near levels only seen before in compact, experience focussed games like FPSes. The physics engine is based on the motion of air over surfaces, which is why X-Plane in the past has been referred to as a "virtual wind tunnel".

 

Criticize the lack of AI, ATC, airport buildings, and all the other usual complaints about the sim, and I won't disagree. But to make a statement such as the above makes me question whether you even know what you're talking about.

[BilboBaggins 82]

How very melodramatic of you.

 

All you've claimed in your response is guess what, a great rendering engine for scenery and a few models (a far simpler project than, say, Epic Games' Unreal Engine on that score, which like FSX has been in development for a very long time), and..... a fluid dynamics system.

 

So you've confirmed exactly what I've said.

 

Give XPX another decade, I'll check back then.

 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Well, i have no x-plane experience but i've recently ordered it. And because i like doing things properly i've bought a carenado, some uk photoscenery and an aerosoft airport - so i can compare it fairly to fsx with payware.

[jjjallen 37]

Its not hard to convert FSX to 64bit. Just Get the source code and recompile with a 64bit target. Done. Cheers jja

[JonRD463 146]

How very melodramatic of you.

 

All you've claimed in your response is guess what, a great rendering engine for scenery and a few models (a far simpler project than, say, Epic Games' Unreal Engine on that score, which like FSX has been in development for a very long time), and..... a fluid dynamics system.

 

So you've confirmed exactly what I've said.

 

Give XPX another decade, I'll check back then.

 

I was merely commenting on where you stated the physics and graphics engine of X-Plane was rudimentary, when clearly it's not. I've confirmed nothing you've said.

[GoranM 3,764]

Its not hard to convert FSX to 64bit. Just Get the source code and recompile with a 64bit target. Done. Cheers jja

 

LMAO!!!

You ARE joking, right?

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Well, i have no x-plane experience but i've recently ordered it. And because i like doing things properly i've bought a carenado, some uk photoscenery and an aerosoft airport - so i can compare it fairly to fsx with payware.

 

Will be interested to see if the famous 'Virtual wind tunnel' fde is better than fsx - i hear mixed opinions on this.

[BilboBaggins 82]

Well, i have no x-plane experience but i've recently ordered it. And because i like doing things properly i've bought a carenado, some uk photoscenery and an aerosoft airport - so i can compare it fairly to fsx with payware.

 

Will be interested to see if the famous 'Virtual wind tunnel' fde is better than fsx - i hear mixed opinions on this.

 

I'll be interested to hear what you think.

 

While the approach in the physics is an interesting one, unfortunately FOR ME at least, the results tend to feel very generic and unrealistic. It's nice and smooth, though.

 

 

 

I was merely commenting on where you stated the physics and graphics engine of X-Plane was rudimentary, when clearly it's not. I've confirmed nothing you've said.

 

Not in any absolute sense are they rudimentary, far be it from me to say that; I'm sure lots of thought, science and ingenuity have gone into them.

 

But again, in comparison with FSX, XPX is just clearing its throat despite all that, and I feel has a very long ways to go, hopefully on a solid foundation for such future evolution.

 

It's good to have a 64-bit system, at least. But I don't think I'll live long enough to see it evolve into anything remotely as sophisticated as FSX, with all its foibles and legacy warts.

 

May I be proven wrong.

 

[GSalden 4,656]

The time Xplane will look almost like FSX, Prepar3D will have DX11 , 64 bit and a tuned engine....

[tonywob 4,768]

The time Xplane will look almost like FSX, Prepar3D will have DX11 , 64 bit and a tuned engine....

 

I wouldn't hold your breath too long waiting for that to happen. I know I'm not alone in thinking Prepar3D has a somewhat cloudy future, and development has been incredibly slow. Switching to 64bit and DX11 will likely prevent many FSX plugins from working, and then we're back to square one again. We'll have a vanilla "64 bit and tuned" FSX, without the plugins that give FSX that edge. To top it all off, this version is unlikely to attract developers, as you can't even buy it in the shops or use it legally for entertainment purposes.

 

I'd love to be wrong and see FSX continue, I've spent a lot on addons for FSX, and it would be nice for my investment to continue to function. Already some won't work in P3D (i.e. RealityXP, Flight1), or require another license purchasing. I'm worried than P3D 2 is not going to be the holy grail everyone believes it will be.

 

X-Plane is very much capable of doing what FSX can do and better, just not many are interested at the moment in actually doing it. John Venema of ORBX has said they're not interested, as X-Plane as it is too unstable. However, I'm happy we do have Carenado and Aerosoft onboard. Now just convince RealAir, A2A and PMDG, and I'd say goodbye to FSX :-)

[JonRD463 146]

The time Xplane will look almost like FSX, Prepar3D will have DX11 , 64 bit and a tuned engine....

 

Do you suppose that by then, LM will offer an entertainment license so that the 99% of it's non-commercial users won't have to use it illegally?

[GSalden 4,656]

Do you suppose that by then, LM will offer an entertainment license so that the 99% of it's non-commercial users won't have to use it illegally?

 

I have no problem paying 9,99 per month if I can have 64 bit and a faster engine.

Regarding DX11, I suppose the best thing they could do is make a DX10 version.

 

BTW : DX10 for FSX is getting better and better. I do not fly in DX9 for 3 months now... Now a faster engine :Party:

[JonRD463 146]

I have no problem paying 9,99 per month if I can have 64 bit and a faster engine.

Regarding DX11, I suppose the best thing they could do is make a DX10 version.

 

BTW : DX10 for FSX is getting better and better. I do not fly in DX9 for 3 months now... Now a faster engine :Party:

 

That would be the developers' license, yes? I look forward to seeing the progress on whatever product for P3D you're working on, then. ^_^

[GSalden 4,656]

Belgium 2013 ...