Can one actually run X Plane 10 maxed with huge amount of scenery while still getting acceptable FPS? 

 

Unless something has dramatically changed from when I last tried XP 10 FPS is still a limiting factor even if OOM isn't. 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

 

But FPS being limited is something that has a chance yet to be improved upon.  32-bit cannot be improved upon.  We will NEVER have more VAS available to us in FSX - NEVER!  It is not possible.

 

I don't have X-Plane so I don't know how maxed you can run before frames take a dive.  But, at least with X-Plane, you can buy a better computer and see improvement.  So, if that continues to hold true, you will always be able to upgrade to gain performance.  With FSX now, it doesn't matter what you throw at it hardware wise, it's done.  It's as good as it's going to get performance wise and you will never be able to match the amount of add ons in it vs a 64-bit flight sim.  FSX will OOM at some point.  Those that haven't had one yet just aren't creating the right scenario for one by using the right sceneries/add ons.

Default XP-10.25 vs FSX + ORBX PNW Olympic Peninsula + REX sky and water. 

Shots taken same time of day directly over airport WA45 Olympic Field.

Using Carenado birds.

 

vs1.jpg

 

vs2.jpg

 

Sorry I have to challenge these shots, What are your scenery and autogen levels set at. This is what I get with FTX Global + UTX, in the same area (Season set to Summer to match X-Plane, else there would be winter snow textures, which X-Plane isn't capable of.), which has the trees similar to the X-Plane shot, (and the roads in the area) so I have a hard time believing that is ORBX PNW, which is suppose to look better and more accurate then FTX global textures. Not unless sliders are to the left

 

Tom, you can challenge all you want but it is what it is.

I took the shots as fair and as unbiased as I possibly could and did not cherry pick lighting, time or season. 

I did not favor anything towards one sim or the other.

I could go back and take pics that try to make each look as good as possible but I wanted to take photos of an average flight on no particular time of day or season. Just an example of what one would see on an average flight XP vs FSX without hunting out a sweet spot.

Maxed out slider levels would not have changed the look and atmosphere of the FSX photo one bit but sliders are just about maxed.

My point was that XP10.25 looked as good or better than ORBX PNW and I think the photos prove it.

You don't have to believe as there will always be naysayers especially when a paradigm is challenged.

My point all along is to share my experience for those that want more than FSX can offer and want to move on to the next generation of simulators.

 

 

Tom, you can challenge all you want but it is what it is.

 

Skully, I'm not here to make accusations, but look at his pics and at yours.  His pic is 1280.  Yours are 1400.  His pic is very obviously higher resolution than yours.  In your pics, the XP pics are higher resolution than the FSX ones.  Given the problems with getting pics posted on Avsim, your originals may have been a lot better resolution.  But from what we see, there are problems.

 

I'm interested in seeing details from lower altitude.  You know, like shorelines, closeups of tree lines, small towns, etc.

 

At least your pics show something other than a barren wasteland, which is what you'd expect from what many have posted.

 

Hook

Tom, you can challenge all you want but it is what it is.

I took the shots as fair and as unbiased as I possibly could and did not cherry pick lighting, time or season. 

I did not favor anything towards one sim or the other.

I could go back and take pics that try to make each look as good as possible but I wanted to take photos of an average flight on no particular time of day or season. Just an example of what one would see on an average flight XP vs FSX without hunting out a sweet spot.

Maxed out slider levels would not have changed the look and atmosphere of the FSX photo one bit but sliders are just about maxed.

My point was that XP10.25 looked as good or better than ORBX PNW and I think the photos prove it.

You don't have to believe as there will always be naysayers especially when a paradigm is challenged.

My point all along is to share my experience for those that want more than FSX can offer and want to move on to the next generation of simulators.

 

Then there is something wrong with your installation, because this is the kind of scenery you should be seeing around WA45 (Olympic Field), with ORBX PNW

 

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=o2VDIpR5j1Y#t=286

 

I have PNW myself, but it's uninstalled right now due to VAS issues when the NGX came out (I'm using Vista 32 bit OS). Which is why what you showed didn't look right.

 

 

I have PNW myself, but it's uninstalled right now due to VAS issues when the NGX came out (I'm using Vista 32 bit OS). Which is why what you showed didn't look right.

 

You don't have to uninstall it to kill VAS levels.  There's a tool out there that can enable/disable various scenery in the Scenery.cfg, and save multiple versions.  I have one with no Orbx regions for airline flying, and another with the Orbx regions for flying low and slow.

Sorry I have to challenge these shots, What are your scenery and autogen levels set at. This is what I get with FTX Global + UTX, in the same area (Season set to Summer to match X-Plane, else there would be winter snow textures, which X-Plane isn't capable of.), which has the trees similar to the X-Plane shot, (and the roads in the area) so I have a hard time believing that is ORBX PNW, which is suppose to look better and more accurate then FTX global textures. Not unless sliders are to the left

 

fsx 2014-01-14 13-04-02-11.jpg

This indeed looks much better. But I still like the X-Plane look better, the fading seems to match reality better.

X-plane is a far more superior platform on which to build is all i am saying. I am not dismissing FSX as I use it myself. 

 

And...

 

Tom, you've got the scenery but currently don't have it installed due to a VAS issue!? This is exactly what i am getting at! This is 2014, not 2005!

 

As soon as IXEG, PMDG, Aerosoft ORBX etc start developing for x-plane, FSX will be only a distant memory. Visualise that world and perhaps you can see where I am coming from.

Tom, you've got the scenery but currently don't have it installed due to a VAS issue!? This is exactly what i am getting at! This is 2014, not 2005!

 

It's also because I'm still on a 32bit OS. It would be better on Win 7 64bit, but unfortunately I'm not in a position to upgrade. Still FSX gives me everything I want. I fly mostly tubeliners, so PNW scenery is nice, but not that important to me for the type of flying I do. What is important, is a good weather engine, decent AI/ATC (I use PFE).  Real World looking scenery. In this area, X-Plane is improving thanks to 3PD's freeware, and payware. I do believe XP will eventually get a good online weather generator, but seeing Austin's attitude in regards to AI/ATC, I'm not so confident. Also with the DX10 fixer utility, that fixes most of FSX's DX10 preview issues, OOM's can be significantly reduced just by switching to DX10. Since you gain alot of address space back because FSX won't have to keep a shadow copy of VRAM in it's address space, like it does in DX9.

The free demo of the Seattle PNW area is here:

http://www.x-plane.com/downloads/landing/

 

Take a week with it to explore and learn the program.

Only then can you objectively judge if it's right for you.

Addon airport scenery and aircraft work with the demo, freeware and payware.

 

Clear skies!

 

Gene

 

p.s. PMDG, please develop the NGX for X-Plane. Thank You!

 

 

At least your pics show something other than a barren wasteland, which is what you'd expect from what many have posted.

 

 

The free demo of the Seattle PNW area is here:

 

Are you saying your pics weren't stock XPlane, but this scenery area?  I got the impression from your description that the pics were normal, unenhanced XP.

 

Hook

My hunch is I can leave Flight simming for a decade, come back, and the discussions will be exactly the same:

 

1.  32bit compatibility forever - OMM-pa shuffle chapter 113 on how to avoid it (turn off everything except your aircraft)

2.  XP10 missing features - where's my autumn - there are no OpenGL drivers for Windows any more, who's on first

3.  I never want to upgrade my hardware or give up my "investment" (entertainment as an investment - hmmmm ... )

 

Oh wait, I did say exactly this almost a decade ago ... hmmm ... how nothing really changes ... no need to predict the future ... it'll be the same one you have now and a decade ago.  Eventually we'll all be too old to care and pass the unchanging torch on to the younger generation to continue the never ending cycle.

 

Personally I think we should go back to 16bit, it's faster and more efficient than 32bit ...

 

Enjoy, Rob.  :lol:

 

 

As soon as IXEG, PMDG, Aerosoft ORBX etc start developing for x-plane, FSX will be only a distant memory. Visualise that world and perhaps you can see where I am coming from.

 

I really can't visualize people who have invested in PMDG 777, PMDG 737NGX, and PMDG 747 & hundreds of addon airports suddenly throwing all that away to rebuy those same things for X Plane. 

 

 

Tom, you've got the scenery but currently don't have it installed due to a VAS issue!? This is exactly what i am getting at! This is 2014, not 2005!

 

And I don't have X plane installed because last time I tried it gave me FPS issues with default scenery & medium settings although I own a rather high end PC. OOM issues has never been a limiting factor to me with FSX, FPS has. 

 

Though I admit it has been quite a while from when I last tried X Plane 10, got to reinstall it some day now to see if the performance is better in the latest version. 

 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

 

 

Can one actually run X Plane 10 maxed with huge amount of scenery while still getting acceptable FPS? 

 

Unless something has dramatically changed from when I last tried XP 10 FPS is still a limiting factor even if OOM isn't. 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

That's somewhat of a self-answering question. There's no question that the unadulterated version of XP10 produces excellent frame rates, rock steady stability and a decent flight simming experience. Even P3d2 isn't close to it, without add-ons. But you can't "pile on" 3rd party add-ons to XP10, like you can to FSX and P3d2. There just aren't enough of them available for XP10 to be able to push the sim to its limits. With P3d2, you can add a variety of weather engines, new ground, water and sky textures, dynamic weather, complex aircraft,  AI traffic etc. and bring P3d2 to its knees. But damn, it sure looks good! I'm not saying that there aren't some add-ons that are equivalent for XP10. It's just that there is far less diversity and hence XP10 users tend to not be as "cutting edge" as FSX and P3d2 users seem to be.

 

This could all change in the near future, but there doesn't seem to be much movement on the part of third party developers to support all three platforms. Besides, FSX still has a commanding percentage of the installed base. Until that changes, 3rd party developers will keep cranking out new and improved add-ons for FSX (and P3d2).

Are you saying your pics weren't stock XPlane, but this scenery area?  I got the impression from your description that the pics were normal, unenhanced XP.

 

Hook

 

The photos are Default / Stock Out of the Box Un-Enhanced X-Plane 10.25 North America Regional Edition.

I chose this area because the discussion was about the PNW.

Try the demo and see for yourself.