This is not hi res VFR. Its a freeware mesh addition, the rest of the ground scenery is stock standard

So what? All your screenshot proves is X-Plane's autogen looks better than FSX (which isn't difficult). I fly around a lot of stock FSX airport scenery which looks as good, if not better.

 

I don't doubt there are advantages to X-Plane. The point surely is are they enough to make it worth leaving behind the extensive library of fantastic addons that FSX has. It will take years for X-Plane to catch up with that level of third party support

Why don't people see the point? This isn't an FSX v X-plane argument; rather more of a question as to when developers will move away from a dated platform and develop for a next gen platform. 

It could be X-plane, it could be P3D, or it could be MR X, who knows!? It's more of a question of when rather than who.

 You can not have a Sim  which has everything. Lose some win some.

 

 OP probably decided on XPX, it's a personal choice of sim one is comfortable with, and yes P3d should have come out with a 64 bit version or maybe it is an update like XPX that would be a game changer and a good challenge to XPX.

 

Time to close this thread me thinks.

Hey, enough of the "f.a.n.b.o.y" stuff (my email notification didn't censor that out). I'm speaking up for the staying with FSX, not as a fan but because it's still the best overall package available. I think you'll find it's the X-Plane enthusiasts who are calling for everyone to come and join them.

Sorry. This wasn't intended to be a shot at you but more an example of what we see all over. People that are fans of one thing or another for whatever reason cannot see past their love for the product to realize there are other, usually even better, options out there. Yes, FSX is the best overall package currently available. But, that gap is closing in a hurry and some day, FSX will no longer be the best. That day isn't looking too far off.

 

 

My point was that with a 64 bit system you have the whole of the 4 GB VAS limit for FSX. If you only run 32 bit windows, then yes you have to be more careful what you load in FSX. But for me that means not leaving all the scenery addons checked, just the ones I'm going to need. I can use the NGX and the 777X without any difficulty or noticeable loss of quality.

And, my point on this topic is that even with the whole 4GB VAS limit available from a 64-bit OS is that this is not enough. Because FSX is still 32-bit and that's the most it can use. The OS can give more. But, FSX can't do anything with more than 4GB. So, we all have to make compromises that we wouldn't have to make in a 64-bit sim, at least not for a long, long time.

 

 

What compromises do you have to make every flight in FSX? I don't feel I'm making any.

I have to be selective on exactly what scenery I choose to enable per flight. Every single flight I only enable photo real areas for the area I'm flying into and possibly even disable 3rd party airports to get into an area.

 

For example, I have Mega airport LFPG and LFPO. They are in a notoriously dense area and even with default airports and scenery, FSX takes a noticeable hit there(at least for me). When I fly there, I disable one or the other airport. I also have to be very careful I'm not enabling too much photo real scenery as well. I attempted a flight a couple weeks ago in the NGX from Aerosoft's ENGM(v1) with my own home made photo scenery for Norway and openVFR autogen for Norway to LFPO and couldn't make it. I died about 5nm on final approaching LFPO. In a 64-bit sim, that would not have happened. So, again, I must compromise. Sometimes even on routes if I know I have two HUGE airports I'm going between.

 

So, again, my whole point to all of this is like others are saying, FSX is at its limits and even past its limits. Whether it's X-Plane, P3Dv2(if/when it gets to 64-bit) or something else, that IS the future. At least if we want to keep pushing boundaries and getting better and better add ons.

 

Am I wrong in that assessment? I am always open to being shown when I am wrong. But, to me, this seems like a very logical answer. Like 1+1 is 2. It can't be something in between. It is what it is. If I'm wrong in that, please let me know so I can learn myself and no longer make the statements that I'm making.

 

And, again, I really mean no offense to anyone I've quoted. I just wish we(including myself) could find ways to post facts or as non-biased info as we can. I bought FTXGlobal and many people were saying it was FSXI. That couldn't be further from the truth. It's better than default. But not FSXI!!!! No where near that! So, that's all I'm trying to say when people come in and just flat out believe something is GREAT despite their being truth to the contrary.

Sorry. This wasn't intended to be a shot at you but more an example of what we see all over.

 

Fair enough.

 

 

And, my point on this topic is that even with the whole 4GB VAS limit available from a 64-bit OS is that this is not enough. Because FSX is still 32-bit and that's the most it can use. The OS can give more. But, FSX can't do anything with more than 4GB. So, we all have to make compromises that we wouldn't have to make in a 64-bit sim, at least not for a long, long time.

 

True, but only relatively few addons with extreme levels of detail get close to giving this problem. And it can be managed.

 

 

I have to be selective on exactly what scenery I choose to enable per flight. Every single flight I only enable photo real areas for the area I'm flying into and possibly even disable 3rd party airports to get into an area.

 

 

I don't regard disabling scenery I won't need for a flight as a compromise. It's more of an inconvenience, I haven't lost any realism. I've only had to start doing this since I bought the 777X. It wasn't a problem for me with the NGX, for example.

True, but only relatively few addons with extreme levels of detail get close to giving this problem. And it can be managed.

I don't regard disabling scenery I won't need for a flight as a compromise. It's more of an inconvenience, I haven't lost any realism. I've only had to start doing this since I bought the 777X. It wasn't a problem for me with the NGX, for example.

Again though, this IS the point I'm trying to make. With a 64-bit sim, I wouldn't have to do this. I could have photo real scenery enabled from departure to destination with autogen, with high quality 3rd party airports on both ends, in the NGX, with whatever kind of weather and not have a care in the world when it comes to OOMs.

 

So, yes, you can "manage" FSX so you can complete a flight. But, it is impossible to do what I'm saying above without it crashing with an OOM. Above is what I'd like to someday be able to do. And, I think I probably already can with X-Plane today - grant it, there maybe aren't enough add ons yet to try with yet. I don't know.

 

I will also add that yes, I do not know what the above scenario would mean to frames in X-Plane. But, to be honest, I can't see that being a problem either or a limiting factor there. If you have a good system, it should be doable.

I'm also not talking about maxing out settings. That, from what I've heard, isn't possible in X-Plane either yet with today's hardware. But, again, the advantage of 64-bit sim, someday with better hardware this should be possible. Once again, with FSX, it will NEVER be possible.

 

 

Again though, this IS the point I'm trying to make. With a 64-bit sim, I wouldn't have to do this. I could have photo real scenery enabled from departure to destination with autogen, with high quality 3rd party airports on both ends, in the NGX, with whatever kind of weather and not have a care in the world when it comes to OOMs.

You called that a compromise. That implies you've lost something by doing it. I don't see what you lose by disabling photoreal scenery en route. Nor do I see why disabling scenery you aren't going to see is a loss.

 

Of course,  the unmentioned compromise in X-Plane is no NGX, no 777X.  You see, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You called that a compromise. That implies you've lost something by doing it. I don't see what you lose by disabling photoreal scenery en route. Nor do I see why disabling scenery you aren't going to see is a loss.

 

Of course,  the unmentioned compromise in X-Plane is no NGX, no 777X.  You see, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Ok, so clearly, I am not explaining this well enough. I should have had a lawyer look over my latest posts to make sure I was crossing the "t"'s and dotting the "i"'s. I mean, come on. Really?

 

So, I want to do a flight from FSDT CYVR with Vancouver Plus v3, MSE states enable for every single state that I will be flying over and may even remotely come close to seeing from the air, and landing at FSDT KJFK with Drweiski's(spelling?) Manhattan X or whatever it's called enabled in the NGX or T7 with again, Opus or ASN injecting whatever kind of real weather there is, no matter how bad, and still be able to complete that flight.

 

In order to do that in FSX, I have to only enable a select few of the states I'd actually be flying over for MSE. Even then, with as hard as Manhattan X is from what I've heard and how CYVR is, I still probably wouldn't complete that flight.

 

Does that paint a better picture? Do I need to draw one? I really don't know how else to say this to get my point across. Maybe I'll try Spanish next time???

This is an automatic message.

 

This topic has been moved from "PMDG 777" to "Hangar Chat". This move has been done for a number of possible reasons.

• The most likely reason is that the post was off topic.
• The topic could also have contained images or a video that were not appropriate to the original forum it was posted in.
• The images might not have been "illustrative" or "explanatory" in nature.
• The topic could have been moved because we deemed it to be more appropriately placed elsewhere.

Please ensure that your posts are "on topic" and contain illustrative images or videos as appropriate. Do not post videos or images just for entertainment purposes anywhere but in the screen shot or video forums. See our image posting rules here.

 

Members who continue to post off topic posts can be denied entry to specific forums in order to reduce and remove the practice. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Wierd, I can. Never seen an OOM in my life!

yeah, right  lol :Yawn:

Ok, so clearly, I am not explaining this well enough. I should have had a lawyer look over my latest posts to make sure I was crossing the "t"'s and dotting the "i"'s. I mean, come on. Really?

 

So, I want to do a flight from FSDT CYVR with Vancouver Plus v3, MSE states enable for every single state that I will be flying over and may even remotely come close to seeing from the air, and landing at FSDT KJFK with Drweiski's(spelling?) Manhattan X or whatever it's called enabled in the NGX or T7 with again, Opus or ASN injecting whatever kind of real weather there is, no matter how bad, and still be able to complete that flight.

 

In order to do that in FSX, I have to only enable a select few of the states I'd actually be flying over for MSE. Even then, with as hard as Manhattan X is from what I've heard and how CYVR is, I still probably wouldn't complete that flight.

 

Does that paint a better picture? Do I need to draw one? I really don't know how else to say this to get my point across. Maybe I'll try Spanish next time???

Clearly you didn't get my point if you think repeating yourself in greater detail makes any difference. I understood perfectly well what you meant the first time. I've done it myself and I just don't see it as a loss. It's inconvenient but it's just a few changes to the scenery library to make as part of the flight planning.

 

Now how about you drop the sarcasm and address the point I made to you in return.

I can't speak to XP because I don't use it, but I have spent loads of time configuring and testing both FSX and P3D v2. It's true that P3D is currently quite buggy and can suffer from OOMs; however, we have now learned that OOMs can be greatly minimized or eliminated simply by turning down the autogen setting to dense. While that might seem like an unacceptable compromise to some, the end result is far nicer visually than FSX at even maxed out settings due to DX11 shaders, shadows, lightning, no pop autogen, etc. Also, I think LM is making great strides with an upcoming patch release expected this month. They have identified a couple of memory leaks that will be fixed in this patch. Certainly, a 64 bit program would be nice, but 32 bit P3D still has a lot of life left and will, IMO, become the platform of choice for serious simmers. The eye candy, continued active development by LM, and ability to leverage modern GPUs with DX11 is simply too good to pass up once the remaining bugs are fixed.

Ultimately as much as we may deny it, us simmers are primarly interested in eye candy and flicking 3d switches. That is what we want from a sim.

 

A sim that has no real eye candy but a vastly more dynamic flight model simply isn't what we want and thus X plane's USP doesn't appeal to us, whatever the sim is modified to provide in addition to that.

Code doesn't die. I am still playing MULE for the Commodore 64 (c. 1984). It just becomes outdated. Have the add-on community buy the source from Microsoft, and release it to FlightGear. Within a few years, you would see wonders. Check out an example of this approach: http://code.blender.org/index.php/2013/12/how-blender-started-twenty-years-ago/.

 

As for X-Plane, don't fall into the trap you did with Microsoft. This company is small, with a few colorful characters that could close shop any minute. They also have a big lawsuit on there hands, and if it goes south, I don't think they will be able to operate. I think Austin even mentions this on his site.

 

Think about what makes FSX so great ... the add-ons, the community. Not the render engine. Get this code open, and everyone will win.

 

What do you think?

Ultimately as much as we may deny it, us simmers are primarly interested in eye candy and flicking 3d switches. That is what we want from a sim.

 

A sim that has no real eye candy but a vastly more dynamic flight model simply isn't what we want and thus X plane's USP doesn't appeal to us, whatever the sim is modified to provide in addition to that.

 

I'm going to agree with the "eye candy and flicking 3D switches".  There's really nothing wrong with this.

 

The thing is, the FSX flight model is "good enough."  Inject a little manufactured turbulence so you aren't flying on rails all the time and the planes feel just fine and are fun to fly.  (This is GA... tubeliners may be different)

 

I did like MS Flight's flight dynamics more than FSX's, but in the end I'm back with FSX.  I was just missing too much... not unlike the situation with XPlane, although XPlane does have a better selection of aircraft and a few more places to fly.  MS Flight was the first time I had a total suspension of disbelief, at least for a few seconds, while flying.

 

P3D has included more ways to easily hook into the flight model to allow aircraft makers to use their own flight models, so eventually I expect we'll be seeing some very good stuff for that platform.  Probably sooner rather than later.  I imagine that PMDG, if they go ahead with the deal to produce XPlane aircraft, will be doing a good job of this themselves.

 

And I do hope that PMDG does go ahead with the deal.  While I'm not interested in either XPlane or PMDG tubeliners, I'd like to see the markets expanded.  Maybe in a few years I'll be switching to XPlane, but not in the short term future.  Eventually XPlane will develop beyond being a "one-man shop" (Micro ISV might be a better term), and when it does, it would be nice if there were already a bunch of third party developers on board.

 

Note that "one-man shop" is a term used by industry insiders to denote an operation that probably has more than one man, but there's only one key person involved who does pretty much everything with a few people helping around the edges.  Look up "Micro ISV" on wiki for more info.  Austin will eventually want to retire and hopefully sell LM to a large developer who can take XPlane beyond what is available today, and that includes FSX and P3D.  I've been involved with several "one-man shops" and while the products can be very good, they're also limited;  just the nature of the beast.

 

Hook

 

 

I am still playing MULE for the Commodore 64 (c. 1984). It just becomes outdated.

 

M.U.L.E.!!  Danni Bunten for the win!

 

As for "outdated", have you seen Minecraft?

 

Hook