Perhaps they could make a DX11 version alongside an OpenGL, it would be extremely tasking for laminar but give it 5 years development and its quite possbile, of course by then it would probably need to be DX12

Can the same be said about FSX:

 

From X-Plane's website

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Prepar3D = ESP (Commercial version of FSX) + their own enhancements. Both marketed to Military, and Commercial clients. and yes ESP like XP can be FAA certified when used in conjunction with the appropriate hardware. One application Redbird flight simulators.

 

 

http://www.flyingmag...ght-simulations

but but those sexy damn roads in xp10 with those yummy HDR Lights and that annoying Cop(not Bimmer) chasing down speeders on the freeway is so freakin awesome! :lol:

and that annoying Cop(not Bimmer) chasing down speeders on the freeway is so freakin awesome! :lol:

 

lol

 

on extreme max settings, I can fly over my street and land in my driveway :lol:

I think I have some credibility. Afterall, I did build & fly the aircraft in these two pics. The FAA database has my name on it.

 

Take my statement in context. I am of course referring to the credibility of your opinion with regards to X-Plane. If you can rattle off half-a-dozen positive things about X-Plane 10 then I will apologize and withdraw my comment.

 

And when I say "positive things", I mean substantial things and not stuff like "the trees look nice". Or perhaps we could narrow the focus: how about half-a-dozen positive statements about X-Plane 10's flight modeling capabilities. Can you do it?

Perhaps they could make a DX11 version alongside an OpenGL, it would be extremely tasking for laminar but give it 5 years development and its quite possbile, of course by then it would probably need to be DX12

 

I doubt they would ever do that. One of the main reasons XP uses OpenGL is for platform independence, so that the main source code of the program can be compiled to run on Windows, Mac and Linux systems.

I can completely understand the cross platform appeal, its smart, however a big part of flying is the visual aspect, I am not saying that X-Planes visuals suck, I am just thinking of how awesome a "next gen" flight sim using DX11 with tessellation would look. To get an idea all you have to do is watch Battlefield 3's Going Hunting gameplay from singleplayer, its visually stunning and the engine runs very smooth for lots of machines.

Actually it does! The demo includes a detailed KSEA, for the uninitiated, who may not read the forums, using the demo for the first time, may then buy the full product, only to find all other airports are completely barren. Then they'll feel like they were given the old bait and switch!!

 

Fair points, fair points indeed.

Boy did I have fun times on Avsim back in the days of FLY. But this X-Plane forum really is to be avoided.

 

Unfortunately, it's usually the ones who come in blasting X-Plane, while vigorously defending FSX like a religious zealot that gives this forum a bad vibe. On those rare occasions when we're left to discuss X-Plane without bringing FSX into the equation, you'll find that even when pointing out issues, the tone of the conversation is civil and gregarious.

 

I think the biggest difference between the two sides is that even the most ardent X-Plane enthusiast is willing to admit the limitations or faults of the program, while the strongest critics of it refuse to point out any thing positive of substance. Sure, both sides are couched in subjective opinion, but why let it get in the way of intellectual honesty?

 

For example, I'm obviously a supporter of X-Plane. What I'd love to see is a working ATC and AI system, better ground representation when seen from altitude (as in, urban areas not blurring into green fields as seen from flight levels), regional architecture and trees to represent the different climates and cultures around the world, seasons, and a longer period of time between major versions once the code has been declared completed, so as to give 3PDs a longer period of version stability to be able to make their magic.

 

I can feel free to say this with full confidence that I have not offended Laminar or the inanimate, unfeeling code of X-Plane itself. By the looks of it, some folks would appear to fear dire retribution from some unseen force, should a positive comparison of X-Plane vs. FSX be made. It's almost as if X-Plane's very existence in the simming world is anathema to them.

I agree with everything JonRD463 just said.

I would recommend if you want to avoid FSX user input then you might want to title your threads differently, especially since thread titles now appear in the AVSIM community recent thread list where folks who don't frequent this forum will be drawn by your "superior" statement in the title, and while I agree with your good original post in this thread, the title is sure to bring this type of controversy IMHO.

I would recommend if you want to avoid FSX user input then you might want to title your threads differently, especially since thread titles now appear in the AVSIM community recent thread list where folks who don't frequent this forum will be drawn by your "superior" statement in the title, and while I agree with your good original post in this thread, the title is sure to bring this type of controversy IMHO.

 

I'm not against FSX user input at all. I'm only against the ones who cannot abide the fact that FSX (and derivatives) aren't the only players in town and must come in here to tell us all how inferior we and our simming platform of choice are. But you're right... maybe my thread title was asking for it. I still stand by my reasoning for declaring it superior, however.

What I'd love to see...

 

This is the kind of info I'm looking for. I don't care about ATC/AI, the urban/green doesn't bother me, regional autogen would be good but I'm not going to complain unless the differences are really glaring. Having seasons is a major requirement for me.

 

By the looks of it, some folks would appear to fear dire retribution from some unseen force, should a positive comparison of X-Plane vs. FSX be made.

 

It's nice to see actual overpasses modeled rather than flat roads crossing in a jumble at ground level. Road traffic looks good too. I fly around Dallas occasionally with a lot of major freeway interchanges, and that always bothers me in FSX.

 

I find LAdamson's posts to be neutral, not bashing XPlane at all. Perhaps he's done some actual bashing in the past, but I haven't seen it. I've seen some overreaction to his posts here, as if someone feels the need to defend when there's no attack in evidence. Those who feel the need to draw lines in the sand can't expect a good outcome. XPlane is obviously superior to FSX in some areas, but so was Flight, and I'm still using FSX because of certain limitations in Flight.

 

I think I disproved the idea that FSX people can't say anything bad about FSX a few posts back. I even posted a screen shot showing FSX at its worst. Jon's post that I quoted is the only evidence I've seen that an XPlane enthusiast can say anything about the limitations of XPlane, so that works both ways.

 

As for the Thousands of Dollars Worth of Addons crowd, I have no custom scenery and only a handful of payware aircraft, and still fly default aircraft fairly often, like the Goose in my screen shot above, which is repainted and tweaked, but still a default aircraft. XPlane is obviously going to have similar amounts of addons available at some point in the future. While Orbx scenery in FSX looks better than default XPlane, it's moot because that same scenery will eventually be available for XP. It looks better than default FSX, too... I think that was the point of making it.

 

If someone says, "This isn't working for me," it's not necessary to go on the offense. That will end up polarizing both sides who will then be in an argument, with neither willing to concede any points, and end up generating more heat than light. If someone says, "I prefer the way FSX does this," it's not a put-down of XPlane, it's nothing more than a personal preference. If someone says, "I require this feature," it's not bashing XPlane, and an appropriate response might be, "I do too, we expect that to be included at some point."

 

Hook

Hook,

 

All reasonable comments, there. Believe me, it's greatly appreciated. I'd say the reason why some of us-- and myself in particular-- tend to get edgy about these things is due more to the cumulative effect of hashing and rehashing the same arguments, usually done by the same handful of people. While it can be argued that constantly bringing the same topics up keeps them in the forefront and allows LR to focus on the things people desire from X-Plane, I think at this point those desired features are well-known.

 

And then there is the dismissive tone some of the comments seem to have. While it's true that a limitation of text is the lack of nuance behind the words, all we can reasonably do is take the text at face value. The impression one is left with some-- not all, but some-- comments is one of "This program is made by amateurs who don't know a thing about flying", which isn't exactly conducive to productive discourse. Not to mention there seems to be a lot of confirmation bias at play. Take the recent posting of the video of the payware 777 doing a reverse thrust J-turn take off. Certain individuals who are already set on dismissing the virtues of X-Plane (and by extension, its addons) will look at that and say "HA! See? I told you it sucked!". You can see hints of that already in the comments of both the posting here in the X-Plane forum and the dupe post over in the FSX forum. Nevermind the fact that when used as intended, the aircraft and its host platform perform wonderfully. Not perfect, perhaps, but good enough that even an aerospace engineer I work with was impressed. That, to me, is as good an endorsement as one can get, considering said engineer can list the real 777 on his resume.