Guys! Default X-Plane Ain't That Bad! (pics)

[Mountain Man]

 Mountain Man they are free in 10 right? I don't see your point......Just playing the advocate to the assistant advocate to the devils assistant

 

My point is that picking out two, specially developed high-fidelity models isn't necessarily representative of the sim as a whole, and it could be construed as somewhat misleading to point to them as proof that the default scenery "ain't that bad".  All I'm saying is that you're not going to see that level of detail flying over a random city.

[jspahn]

I may not be understanding his intentions with this post, but I think he was highlighting his impressions of just two elements associated with xpx.

 

Now if his intentions were to disrupt the community and to create a wormhole that makes any other simulator disappear then shame on him. The intergalactic council frowns on these types of actions.

[GoranM]

I think we know who's on the "intergalactic council".

:ph34r:

[scotchegg]

Come on guys. You know better than to publicly talk about the council.

[jspahn]

 

All fixed

[jcomm]

What are this guys talking about? :blink:

[HiFlyer]

What are this guys talking about? :blink:

Begin Star Wars reference

 

(Waves hand slightly)

 

"This isn't the thread your looking for. Move along........."

 

End Star Wars reference  :lol: 

[TOGA-saurus]

This is exactly how I imagined this discussion ending up

[HiFlyer]

I actually go back and forth on Xplane. For instance, I was just flying over the XPX version of New York and was very impressed at the huge numbers of buildings it could display, and at a very high framerate. (most of my settings are on extreme) Contrast that with how most depictions of that city, while much more realistic, tend to chug along pretty badly on the competing sim platform. XPX could make a jaw dropping New York! 

 

So, a lot of potential.

 

On the other hand, XPX New York doesn't look anything at all like the real city; not even close. There are very few recognizable buildings, and they seemed out of place. There wasn't even a statue of liberty, which is almost a no-brainer. And there's this weird construct where the George Washington bridge should be.......

 

I was left with a feeling (that has been growing on me since getting the full version) that there is almost no reason to go anywhere other than the Ksea demo area right now. The XPX world all looks pretty much the same so far, and its going to take an awful lot of work to change that.

 

Work that LR is too small to do by itself apparently, and that the large third parties are not yet fully committed to.

 

At the moment, its hard to imagine how long it will take XPX at the current pace to match the beauty and variety of FSX, for instance.

 

On the other hand, its already at parity probably, and maybe even ahead in some areas as far as systems simulation.

 

Which means if you are a pure "plane guy" and scenery is a definite second, I would yell "Go for it"

 

For a whole package on the other hand, I think it might be quite a while, and I'm never sure if that's the real focus of this sim anyway. Jcomm reminded us recently that it started out as a tool to help with pilot training, and I kinda think that's where its heart still remains.

[scotchegg]

As a visuals first person I agree with much of what you say Devon and as the northern hemisphere gets colder and I have to turn real weather off to make my temperature gauges match the scenery I see with my eyes I'm getting ever more frustrated with the lack of seasonal textures. I still can't get any indication of when they'll be here, although I've seen some speculation that they're on the way.

 

Having said that what XP does do it does extremely well. The quality of cockpit textures in a Carenado or the Saab or Mu2 or Jetstream are outstanding, little effects here and there like reflections off the gauges, the lighting and shadows which are second to none, scenery textures aroun mountains and valleys, the quality of water reflections etc. all combine to make an amazing experience on the fly. Try flying the Swiss alps, or around the Tetons, much dryer feeling of being there than I ever got from FSX or even MSFlight.

 

I absolutely agree so much more needs to be done, but there's an awful lot ring done just right already.

much *better* feeling

 

Damn autocorrect!

[Mountain Man]

I may not be understanding his intentions with this post, but I think he was highlighting his impressions of just two elements associated with xpx.

 

Now if his intentions were to disrupt the community and to create a wormhole that makes any other simulator disappear then shame on him. The intergalactic council frowns on these types of actions.

 

Yeah, like I said, I was just playing devil's advocate.

 

 

I was left with a feeling (that has been growing on me since getting the full version) that there is almost no reason to go anywhere other than the Ksea demo area right now. The XPX world all looks pretty much the same so far, and its going to take an awful lot of work to change that.

 

To be fair, except for the handful of hand-detailed cities in "the other sim", everywhere in the world looked pretty much the same, too.  I fly mostly in rural areas that I've lived -- Ohio, Virginia, Alaska -- and I've never seen any of them accurately represented in any sim.  However, I will say that of the sims I've played, X-Plane 10 out of the box makes those areas look significantly better than any competing product.

[scotchegg]

Making simple (and free) additions to the default scenery like AlpilotX's fantastic HD meshes can make a big difference.

 

Andras, how long until HDv2?! My excitement is getting out of hand! Although that may just be Friday feeling...

[HiFlyer]

As a visuals first person I agree with much of what you say Devon and as the northern hemisphere gets colder and I have to turn real weather off to make my temperature gauges match the scenery I see with my eyes I'm getting ever more frustrated with the lack of seasonal textures. I still can't get any indication of when they'll be here, although I've seen some speculation that they're on the way.

 

Having said that what XP does do it does extremely well. The quality of cockpit textures in a Carenado or the Saab or Mu2 or Jetstream are outstanding, little effects here and there like reflections off the gauges, the lighting and shadows which are second to none, scenery textures aroun mountains and valleys, the quality of water reflections etc. all combine to make an amazing experience on the fly. Try flying the Swiss alps, or around the Tetons, much dryer feeling of being there than I ever got from FSX or even MSFlight.

 

I absolutely agree so much more needs to be done, but there's an awful lot ring done just right already.

much *better* feeling

 

Damn autocorrect!

 

I agree.

 

I've just been doing a lot of controlled experiments with the sim: I've been turning everything off, then building things up slowly in various combinations to see how stuff works together and how the sim and my computer react to various loads. I've also been looking at the marketplaces and seen lots and lots of great planes. In fact there are almost too many planes, because there's not a corresponding balance of other things like high (FSX) quality scenery. That's one of the things that makes me believe that XPX is mostly a technical and pilot oriented experience right now.

 

Its great that more believable clouds are coming, and that's going help a lot to really create the feeling of being there that I need to make a sim a pleasant experience. But just as important though, is that if I'm flying over a Place labeled New York for instance, I have at least some option (if its not in the default) to make things so that I can believe (at least a little bit) that that's what I'm actually doing.

 

I have high hopes that will eventually happen, but like you and your seasonal textures I don't know if "its coming" means in a few months or sometime within the next few years!  :Nail Biting: 

[HiFlyer]

Yeah, like I said, I was just playing devil's advocate.

 

 

 

To be fair, except for the handful of hand-detailed cities in "the other sim", everywhere in the world looked pretty much the same, too.  I fly mostly in rural areas that I've lived -- Ohio, Virginia, Alaska -- and I've never seen any of them accurately represented in any sim.  However, I will say that of the sims I've played, X-Plane 10 out of the box makes those areas look significantly better than any competing product.

I guess it depends on exactly what you mean by "better" Technically, XPX has no match. It shows more objects, has more effects, the roads are better and obviously has more potential........

 

But is it more believable? (Beyond the flight models!) I would actually submit that the Fs9 depiction of new York was actually more "believable" in certain important ways. It was a recognizable depiction of the city that you could identify without ever being told what it was. Same for Paris, or San Francisco or Los Angeles......

 

Those identifiable landmarks matter, because they differentiate and add variety to the world as well as add to the suspension of disbelief that leads to immersion.

 

I don't think XPX is bad in any majorly particular way. I like it in fact, but so far much more for its technical merits than for its plausible world.

[scotchegg]

Yeah I usually avoid the cities unless I'm night flying when they come into their own. European cities tend to look a bit better as they're better serve with osm stuff, but the osm autogen still needs work too.

 

The Aces / MS Flight guys who didn't go to LM should start making regional scenery for XP.