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

convert d:\fsx.exe /x64 /nooom /++fps - enable gpu superpower
please wait..
wait..
BSOD

:lol:

 

More seriously, I think it helps to look at what P3D achieved after more than 2 years of extra development and on the things we care about. Namely oom problems and extra framerate. Well, one could even wonder about engine models and system details. It's still the same.

 

As much as I like FSX, I think its limits are close when it comes to running just some more addons. And we have a lot already. As seen in some other threads, we may even operate beyond them at times.

 

XP10 looks less limited to me but e.g. lacks the artwork some FSX devs have established. But you can use a modern GPU and tons of RAM over there. Not that shabby. And I like the cloud shadows.

 

Just some three years to go and our 'latest' favourite sim is ten years old. :ph34r: There will be cake.

P3D's next update V-2.0 will be DX-11. That being said, what is the advantage of DX-11? Thanks.

I've tried the demo version of XP10 from the beginning.

 

With several new updates some things were getting better, other were worse.

Several times: two steps forward, one step back, but it has to be said, updates come at regular intervals.

 

The "blade element theory" that XP10 uses instead of the "lookup tables" that FSX and also a lot of Level D full motion simulators uses, is very nice in theory but the question is: are there enough parameters taken into account in the XP10 implementation of this blade element theory.

Some people think not, some even say that it is not possible on a modern PC at this moment to use enough parameters, so extra added "lookup tables" or other modifications should still be necessary.

 

So i think, besides the lack of good ATC, exaggerated turbulence, missing landmarks, seasonal textures and airport buildings, the 2 biggest problems still are in the flight dynamics.

 

In this two threads you can read all about it:

 

1. the exaggerated roll:

 

http://forum.avsim.n...-aircraft-roll/

 

2. the exaggerated "wind vaning" even with modest sidewinds.

 

http://forum.avsim.n...good-after-all/

 

 

XP10 has of course great potential, and is slowly getting better, no doubt about that, but i stick to FSX, where i have the feeling of a living, breathing realistic looking world and good balanced flight dynamics. Since the ground behavior of the aircraft has been modified by Johan Dees and the implantation of this into FSUIPC (Peter Dowson) now, an important flaw in FSX (the exaggerated side slipping/skidding at correct landingspeed at dry runways) is now corrected.

 

Let's hope P3D can make FSX better in the future, if not there's aeroflyFS with it's good modern engine, (less stress on the CPU and more on the GPU: so very good framerates and stutterfree) great graphics, and very good flight dynamics. Of course it's still limited in features at this moment, but it can become a real challenger to XP10 in the future and hopefully for P3D to !

 

AeroflyFs development status see: http://www.ipacs.de/...elopment-Status

P3D's next update V-2.0 will be DX-11. That being said, what is the advantage of DX-11? Thanks.

 

Ability to move more of the workload from CPU/RAM to GPU/VRAM and much better/realistic graphic effects.

X-Plane 10 gives mostly my GPU a good thrashing, whereas with FSX it's mostly the CPU.

Even if P3D introduce v2 with DX11, it will still only be 32-bit. Too little too late.

 

Okay it's been said ad nauseum, but maybe if Austin sold just one of his planes he could hire 3 or 4 guys, who could have AI, ATC, airports, landmarks, and seasonal textures sewn up in a year. Thing is... maybe it's too late now as he's currently fighting a patent troll (not his fault). :blink:

Most want landclass, not a made up world.

 

+1,000. It doesnt have to be perfect, but it should be realistic.

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 :-)

 

PMDG has already began development for X-Plane as stated here:

 

XPLANE Development Update:

==========================

I mentioned awhile back that we were beginning the process of bringing onboard a developer to run the Xplane development process in house at PMDG. We have had Chris Powell with us for few months now and he has been leading the Xplane development process since hitting the ground back in October…

 

We have selected the airplane that will be our first release for the Xplane marketplace- and that project is well into development, although it is taking longer than we would otherwise like. Xplane is a completely new platform for us- and as such we are still fumbling and feeling our way through various tasks that come as second nature to us in FSX.

 

You may recall that I said earlier that we will not be announcing the Xplane project until it is nearly finished… We made this decision in order to prevent ourselves from getting locked into a particular simulation when we might decide later on that a different airplane was more conducive to Xplane conversion and our own learning process with the new (to us) simulator platform. I am glad we made that decision, because just such a change took place a few months back- and we have a really great new airplane coming for you on the Xplane platform.

 

What happens after the first Xplane project releases? We’ll start working on the second one. :-D

Bought X-plane 10 when it came out like the flight model and feel over fsx. Still, no landmarks or eye candy in X-plane. The best thing X-plane could do is add landmarks, and more important than that add seasons. The auto-gen rollback to earlier version with just ranch houses is better than new update looks ghetto public housing projects and non plausible in most places. X-plane someday will support stereo 3d I hope not a big priority to me, but when fly low and slow it helps with immersion of it.

If XPX would be an FSX add on, how could we name it?

Nuked World X

Traffic Light X

Road Traffic X

Landmark SAR Mission

Seasons X, one fits all

Engine Torq Booster X

Snow in Summer Miracle X

Watch the 747 at your local FBO X

 

to be continued and please, take it easy...

 

I could need REX in XP10. There only is a XP9 version of it.

If XPX would be an FSX add on, how could we name it?

Nuked World X

Traffic Light X

Road Traffic X

Landmark SAR Mission

Seasons X, one fits all

Engine Torq Booster X

Snow in Summer Miracle X

Watch the 747 at your local FBO X

 

to be continued and please, take it easy...

 

Flight Model Upgrade X.

Rendering Engine Enhancement X

Shockwave 3D Replacer

Water Effects Xtreme

Street Traffic 2013

Autogen Booster

Talking about flight enjoyment, I like most FSX because of the moods that flying gives visually, something important to me. I find that visibility and haze more real IMHO in FSX.

 

 

FSX stock scenery with Shade add-on only, 40 miles of visibility:

 

 

XP10, same area and conditions as above, stock scenery, no add-on

 

 

XP10 @ 20k feet....igh!!! No comments (Hope this will be fixed, it is mandatory...)

 

 

 

BTW, it is near KHSN

Xplane not all terrible for version 10, just found high quality photo ariels of Las Vegas and laid OSM type data for buildings and I did not shut it off the Chicago Public autogen housing in Vegas went away. Its flawed beast but for the long haul X-plane is good back up software.

IMHO, the biggest issue in X-Plane 10 is the controls. While I know that I can be faulted for not wanting to learn new bindings, I do feel like it shouldn't be too difficult to do as MS did and tie some controls cyclicly - that is that I can press ONE key to raise AND lower the gear, I can press ONE key to toggle on AND off the landing lights, I can press ONE key to cycle views, etc. Which I could not do in X-Plane 9. While I did notice some improvement in that regard in the XP10 demo, there was still much to be desired.

X-Plane fans often cite the "learning-curve" as evidence that the sim is fairly realistic. In my experience, all that means is that the control bindings could use some streamlining - the program is the thing that is difficult to use.

Also, in reality, many pilots are certified on and fly regularly multiple types of aircraft. Even in the days of yor, when planes were built differently without all our fancy computer controls and could be a simple beast to fly, people didn't have to begin learning how to fly all over again just 'cause they switched aircraft! Take Ernest K. Gann and Gen. Doolittle as examples - each one flew hundreds of types up until they died - and both died in their old age of natural causes. Clearly, we shouldn't take a "learning curve" as evidence of superiority - and we should be clear what is the thing that needs time to learn!

X-Plane fans often cite the "learning-curve" as evidence that the sim is fairly realistic. In my experience, all that means is that the control bindings could use some streamlining - the program is the thing that is difficult to use.

 

That's about it. Just a different way of setting up controls. There is nothing new, that FSX is missing, that makes X-Plane more realistic. In fact, X-Plane has had a problem with perceived "torque" that requires constant roll trimming in cruise (right aileron). This may give the impression that real airplanes always require this, if someone assumes that XP is automatically more realistic in the flight dynamics department. It's also a reason for the "FSX flies on rails" statements....................just because FSX isn't constantly wanting to roll to the left, and the fact that FSX is using calmer weather conditions by default.

 

L.Adamson