And im sold

[FlyBoyMike 38]

Ok, I'll give you that from a distance, yes, my FSX REX clouds do look better than XP clouds. But as soon as you get close to and fly into FSX clouds, they are, IMHO, garbage.

 

You've hit the nail on the head with that one! 

 

For a long time I just couldn't quite put my finger on it, whenever I'd fire up FSX with PMDG 777 or NGX and do a flight it just doesn't have that 'immersion' factor it once had flying high up in the FL's, and this was after using X-Plane for a while. Then I realised that those fancy textures from REX (I use FEX, but same idea) are nice but they just give you the illusion of realism from a distance, or when on the ground. 

For example, I recently installed a 7-day  trial of ASN, fired it up first time at the gate with my 777, looked up and thought 'oh, this looks really nice!' I then took off on my flight and that feeling turned into 'hmmmm...actually it's not really doing much for me anymore'. It was particularly apparent when I flew around a few TS's that were very well depicted by ASN, but as I got closer to the big towering cloud formations they just looked like big 'cardboard cut-out' sprites, which they REALLY ARE!

 

I know what you mean about the overcast layer in FSX, it's just bizarre, I can see all the squared off areas that makes the whole thing look like a formation of white, fluffy tiles.

 

And that's the whole thing, despite it's flaws, X-Plane has ACTUAL 3D volumetric cloud masses which make the whole 'illusion' of passing through them that much more realistic IMO.

 

Yes FSX skies are covered all the way out to the horizon, and even though X-Plane has that weird blurry horizon, oddly enough it doesn't bother me so much anymore and when night falls you can't see it anyway.

 

Like yourself I'll continue to use FSX for my PMDG fix as I don't want to see that investment go to waste, but in 2014 FSX no longer has the same impact on me it once had a couple of years ago.

[tull 290]

Hi Guys

 

I'm so reading this thread and the rest of the topics regarding X plane 10 with much much interest. I'm currently downloading the demo and I am going to take at look at this much talked about platform, it's been Microsoft all the way for me since 98 including all the top notch paywere PMDG etc but I just gotta give this ago, it's got great reviews, maybe a bit of patience will be needed in setting my Saitek controls up etc etc, any advice will be much appreciated. Thank you.

 

Regards Paul

EGCC

[uhntissbaby111 58]

Hi Paul,

Happy to hear that you are giving XP10 a try. As far as controls go, I have the saitek yoke, rudders, and throttle and got them set up very quickly. When you first start the game with controls plugged in it will ask you to move all axises a few times. Then when you get into the game, you just go to the controls menue and it will list all the axises you have plugged in and you simply assign things to those axises, ailerons, elevators, ect ect. And also from there you can assign functions to buttons. I found it very easy to use

[exodus1977 37]

I just recently took at look at X-plane and was thinking of posting some of my thoughts (and questions)... so this thread may serve as a good launching point.

 

Let me start by saying that the first time I fired up FSX (a plain vanilla copy), I thought it looked pretty awful...everything from the cockpits to the sky/land environments were just dated looking (as compared to my other sim at the time, DCS). But I knew that FSX had potential because of the many amazing YouTube videos floating around. It didn't take long before I added the typical payware add-ons and tweaks and I eventually had a very nice looking sim.  Since then, I've moved on to Prepar3d and see progressive improvement.

 

So, the first time I installed X-plane 10 (just last week), I expected the same mixed initial impression... which pretty much turned out to be true.

 

On the plus side, XP10 has amazing night scenery and lighting.  It's really the best I've ever scene in a flight sim. The flickering traffic lights, building lights and airport lights are stunning. The roads and highways (as seen during the day) are also amazingly complex and realistic.  Also, I thought the dawn/dusk skys look great (although I agree the clouds are lacking).

 

On the negative side... well, there are a number of things that I don't like... some significant and some trivial. But, for me, the single greatest disappointment is the lack of city detail (which I believe is somewhat related to its "plausible city" model). By that, I mean that when I fly out of Chicago, or Seattle, or New York, or San Fransisco, etc..., it just all looks the same, and looks very "blah" at that (and even at its highest settings). I live in Chicago (and fly around here often) and to do so in XP10 is just disheartening--there is no downtown, just endless expanses of little autogen buildings. And because of the homogenous land/city design, to me, it doesn't feel like I'm actually "flying somewhere."  In other cities, (that I'm not familiar with), it is impossible to tell where the downtown/city center would actually be located.

 

Of course, if there were payware add-ons that would add FSX/P3D type of cities (and without having to buy individual cities in peace-meal fashion), I'd probably jump on it.

 

Any, just some of my honest first impressions and I look forward to seeing how XP develops.

[uhntissbaby111 58]

I do agree that the lack of custom cities is a big issue, at least in my opinion. I also am from Chicago and it is a bit odd taking off from KORD and heading out east and not seeing the skyline. However, this problem only bothers me for the major cities. I find myself doing less flights in the US and more flights in Europe. And for cities like Krakow, Poland, FSX has 1 or 2 landmarks and then just emptiness. So it makes it look a bit ridiculous I think. XP10 at least puts buildings there and makes it look like a city. I do miss the landmarks from FSX, but for a lot of the cities I fly into it just looks terrible having a couple landmarks then some Autogen buildings placed in ridiculous places. XP10, especially with updated OSM data from simheaven gives me a better experience, in my opinion

[Comanche 417]

Its true XP10 lacks default city scenery. Perhaps someday, LR will Add some default scenery to take care of this issue.

 

I was not very impressed with the default scenery in FSX either and I ended up purchasing all the aerosoft city scenery as well as others to fill the gaps and make cities more convincing.  I now use those same sceneries to enhance my XP cities and they work great!

 

Even if OSM, ends up filling the gaps someday for big cities, they will never look any better than the default FSX city scnery, so if you want it to look like the real thing, you almost always have to purchase an aftermarket product unless a few stray tall buildings is enough to convey a city for you.

 

I wouldnt let the lack of default cities stop me from enjoying XP, especially since its so easy to fill that void using WED or converting existing scenery.

 

Rob