You right! Like 64-bit may be? HDR lighting?

You do know FSX has HDR lighting don't you? It's called Bloom. While it doesn't perform well in DX9, it does in DX10.

We're delving into FSX vs XP territory again.

You are right Goran, but sometimes I cannot help myself reading this staff.

 

Anyway, what is Bloom? Does it calculates the how every light in the scene will affect objects around it? Like a strobe light in the night that lights up the nearby hangar? 

I understand how you feel..all too well.

I have to question how light bloom can be compared to X-Planes HDR.  

I've seen both and, by far, I prefer X Planes HDR.  

From what I have seen, bloom does not calculate light effects on objects around it, such as a rotating beacon on the landing gear.

I could be wrong and would welcome a correction.  It's been a while since I did a night flight in FSX.

 

I wonder why XP users sometimes have this implicit tendency for trying to convince FSX users to switch, and I really wish this would stop, as it is very counterproductive and lets parts of the XP community look like a strange cult.

 

Well, actually it's very human and attached to many psychologic reasons, but maybe beyond this stuff, there is a reasoning like "the more FSX users switch to XP, the faster XP development and addon development will be".

 

On the first sight, this sounds reasonable, but I fear it won't work very good:

 

1. The egg and hen problem of users wanting addons and addon devs needing paying users is on the side of the addon problem currently. Currently, users have a very small range of available products they could choose from, and the quality of many products is simply not on par with even average FSX releases. Of course, there are exceptions, and it's getting better. But this needs time, much more time, and if I was still an FSX user today (which I was until 2010), I would never change to XP currently. And the initial reason I changed to XP 9 in 2010 was that I tried to get away from Windows and using MacOS instead, so XP was the only option for me.

 

2. XP itself develops in the way Austin and Ben decide, and this has always been not quite compatible to the "mass market". XP has always been Austin's personal simulator, created for his own needs. Now, XP is also more and more a platform for developing and testing his other products (like XAvion). This defines which features are important and which are not. Not what FSX users might want to have.

 

 

So I really wish these FSX vs. XP debates would stop after an objective table with feature lists. Every user can decide on her or his own what is important, and if the features of one simulator are sufficient. There is no need for arrogant behavior in this "FSX is the past, XP is the future" style.

 

 

-- I apologize for any grammar and spelling mistakes in this rant. --

Bloom seems to be more a texture improvement, looks like it creates some nice flare effects for the lights. I think that is impossible to be a real HDR, cause that means altering the rendering engine of FSX...

 

Back at the topic, while PMDG has raised the bar, I have a feeling that XP developers (like Goran) will get XP addons at least very close!

FTX Global and PMDG 777 have changed the Face of FSX for good. Put it this way if every Dev walked out on FSX tomorrow never to come back I would be in flight sim Heaven for ever with what I have now.

 

But that all costs lots of money. The newbie simmer who wants quality at a low entry price should choose XP

I wonder why XP users sometimes have this implicit tendency for trying to convince FSX users to switch, and I really wish this would stop, as it is very counterproductive and lets parts of the XP community look like a strange cult.

 

Well, actually it's very human and attached to many psychologic reasons, but maybe beyond this stuff, there is a reasoning like "the more FSX users switch to XP, the faster XP development and addon development will be".

 

On the first sight, this sounds reasonable, but I fear it won't work very good:

 

1. The egg and hen problem of users wanting addons and addon devs needing paying users is on the side of the addon problem currently. Currently, users have a very small range of available products they could choose from, and the quality of many products is simply not on par with even average FSX releases. Of course, there are exceptions, and it's getting better. But this needs time, much more time, and if I was still an FSX user today (which I was until 2010), I would never change to XP currently. And the initial reason I changed to XP 9 in 2010 was that I tried to get away from Windows and using MacOS instead, so XP was the only option for me.

 

2. XP itself develops in the way Austin and Ben decide, and this has always been not quite compatible to the "mass market". XP has always been Austin's personal simulator, created for his own needs. Now, XP is also more and more a platform for developing and testing his other products (like XAvion). This defines which features are important and which are not. Not what FSX users might want to have.

 

 

So I really wish these FSX vs. XP debates would stop after an objective table with feature lists. Every user can decide on her or his own what is important, and if the features of one simulator are sufficient. There is no need for arrogant behavior in this "FSX is the past, XP is the future" style.

 

 

-- I apologize for any grammar and spelling mistakes in this rant. --

 

Go Mario!  

:wink:

 

FTX Global and PMDG 777 have changed the Face of FSX for good. Put it this way if every Dev walked out on FSX tomorrow never to come back I would be in flight sim Heaven for ever with what I have now.

 

But that all costs lots of money. The newbie simmer who wants quality at a low entry price should choose XP

 

Zoran, Can I ask what you mean by this?

X Plane currently costs more than FSX.

 

 

Bloom seems to be more a texture improvement, looks like it creates some nice flare effects for the lights. I think that is impossible to be a real HDR, cause that means altering the rendering engine of FSX...

 

Back at the topic, while PMDG has raised the bar, I have a feeling that XP developers (like Goran) will get XP addons at least very close!

 

Let's hope so.  It's been a long, rough road.  A vacation is long overdue.

what I was trying to say not very well is that fsx default is not flyable, its nasty and will cost a lot more than x plane (scenery,night lighting etc) to be able to compare them evenly.

I think we can all agree on that, then.

I have to question how light bloom can be compared to X-Planes HDR.

 

I've seen both and, by far, I prefer X Planes HDR.

 

I wasn't trying to compare them, in fact I don't even like FSX Bloom effect. It's too bright. (Although Steve Parson, with his shader mod, has discovered how to adjust the levels of it) I've always said XP10's lighting is second to none in the sim world, I was just pointing out that  FSX always had a form of HDR lighting, not insinuating that it's better then XP's, it's not!!!

BTW this topic is about the effect that an FSX add-on may or may not have on X-Plane, so comparisons are inevitable. There's nothing wrong with that between consenting adults.

 

Off the shelf, graphically X-Plane 10 is a lot better than FSX, at least under FL250-300 (XP has a terrain visibilty/distance issue which shows itself at high altitude). However..... that's where it ends. FSX has better default planes (C90 and B58 aside), seasons, global AI that works, and an ATC system that works. Okay not perfect but they work. Let's not forget also that currently default FSX has furniture in many more airports than XP10. That may change in the near future.

 

That said in its current state X-Plane 10 is probably more suited to GA or regional ops due to the current weather and terrain limitations, so I don't see people coming over in droves anytime soon to get their tubeliner fix.

I am not against a comparison of products or features. I am against what is implied based on comparisons by some people (not just here, by the way!)

 

 

 

BTW this topic is about the effect that an FSX add-on may or may not have on X-Plane, so comparisons are inevitable. There's nothing wrong with that between consenting adults.

 

(...)

That said in its current state X-Plane 10 is probably more suited to GA or regional ops due to the current weather and terrain limitations, so I don't see people coming over in droves anytime soon to get their tubeliner fix.

 

 

The initial posting of this topic was about PMDG now having resources for XP development:

 

 

Will PMDG now, since the released their newest B777, have more time to build aircrafts for X-Plane, as they announced a long time ago?

 

I admit that the thread title suggests something different.

 

 

The question if people switch from one sim to another is a completly different one. And indeed, even this question can be discussed.

 

But people should avoid fundamental statements like "XP is the future, so you should switch" or "XP has nothing to offer at all for FSX users". Such statements are often not written explicitly, but often implied between the lines. The recent HDR postings in this thread are just one example.

 

And yes, I am guilty of these things, too.

To me, XP and FSX are platforms only. I would never use any of them without good add ons. If I want to fly a 737NGX FSX and PMDG is my way to go, if I want to fly an A320 it's XP and the JAR 320. Whenever I fly on one platform I miss features from the other sim. HDR in FSX, OPUS weather and clouds in XPX. So my best solution is to use both. That might be different for MAC and Linux users, or those that have CTD's in FSX.

I wonder why XP users sometimes have this implicit tendency for trying to convince FSX users to switch

 

Wow that's a new one. Would you mind pointing out exactly where does anybody is trying to convince someone of such?

 

 

 

So I really wish these FSX vs. XP debates would stop after an objective table with feature lists.

 

Well this IS the XP forum, or haven't you notice that. I agree with you on one thing thought, lets stop the FSX vs XP useless debates. 

May I remind you that this debate started by an FSX user saying "FSX continues to offer things that XP lacks ..."