And If I am not mistaken quite a few stuff from Fsx works in P3d V2 (please correct me if this wrong)

 

Quite a lot of basic scenery seems to work already in P3D V2 without too many issues, definitely better than FS2004 stuff works in FSX at least.

Some complex addon aircraft are already compatible and most likely a lot more will follow so I think it looks quite good...

 

Now I wonder how well FSX stuff can be converted for X Plane, I know there's a some kind of tool available for that.

 

When I have some time I'm going to reinstall X Plane and see how much work it would make to convert my latest airport scenery for it... Definitely as a developer I hope to do scenery for both platforms. 

 

Regards

 

Joona L

 

 

not to mention it being a far more realistic flight model.

 

That I do not believe. I've tried X plane, in particular the 747, and hand flew it around a circuit. I compared it to PMDG's 747 and could find no difference whatsoever.

 

Iain Smith

X-plane isn't the answer Open GL sucks and to me the lack of seasons and an overall very grey drab feel makes XP a rather dull future sim. With all the issues that XP has you'd think they would fix them but they don't its been years since XP10 and really nothing has changed since 9 and I swear the ground textures look the same as they did back when I bought XP5

 

You maybe right with Open GL. The problem could be that LR wanted to make it a multi platform so they may have  stuck to OpenGL. But Open GL is not that bad.

Good post Greg.

If indeed one developer that could tip the scales for good it would be PMDG although that other new 737 is looking very impressive.

I've seen several posts about XP being sparse scenery wise. That has not been my experience XP10.25.

XP is lush with scenery.

The PNW looks as good or better than ORBX.

The ground textures / landclass I've seen so far has been beyond outstanding.

From the Bayou Country of Louisiana to the Arkansas Ozarks to the western deserts, all looks like exactly like it should look.

in fact Louisiana and Arkansas look far better and more realistic than the FSX Photoreal scenery I have.

The Grand Canyon winds hands down over the FSX desert oatmeal textures.

As far as airport scenery, FSX is less than impressive with a few generic hangers tossed about at each airport. Hardly what I would call populated.

XP with it's scenery builder leaves the world wide open for users to build their own hometown or favorite airports.

At X-plane.org I see at least 5- 20 airports per week being released and as I searched by date of release I see over 700 airports have been released in the past 7 months.

XP ships with 33,000 airports worldwide.

 

To be fair as all is not wine and roses with XP 10.25.

I think the autopilots are wonky, the nav map is tiny (100 miles) surrounding the aircraft. The GPS (being addressed) is terrible.

The clouds are in need of some serious improvement.

Those are the few gripes I have with it so far.

 

Do you want to see my FSX gripe list?

 

Gene

Who has a realistic FM ?  Flight gear

 

 

IMO PMDG / Carenado etc.... will eventually move to X plane (Of course P3d will be by default). FSX may still be the workhorse but it is moving away slowly back in the box

 

Which again is not based in any level of fact!

 

AVSIM 2012 survey

 

What is your PRIMARY flight simulator?

1. FS9 or earlier (227 votes [18.59%])

    

2. FSX (926 votes [75.84%])

    

3. FLIGHT (23 votes [1.88%])

    

4. X-PLANE (25 votes [2.05%])

    

5. Prepar3D (16 votes [1.31%])

    

6. Other (4 votes [0.33%])

AVSIM 2013 Results

 

 

       SIM                1-Least Time            2                 3                4                  5          Respondents

Microsoft FS 2004     43% (653)    11% (173)    8% (125)    7% (118)    29% (445)       1514
Microsoft FSX              8% (212)      3% (90)      4% (100)    5% (137)    78% (1916)     2455

X-Plane 10                61% (469)     13% (102)    9% (73)      5% (44)        9% (73)        761
P3D                          55% (407)      11% (83)    10% (79)      7% (57)      14% (108)      734

 

If anything FSX has gained user support, not lose it.

AVSIM 2013 Results

 

 

       SIM                1-Least Time            2                 3                4                  5          Respondents

Microsoft FS 2004     43% (653)    11% (173)    8% (125)    7% (118)    29% (445)       1514

Microsoft FSX              8% (212)      3% (90)      4% (100)    5% (137)    78% (1916)     2455

X-Plane 10                61% (469)     13% (102)    9% (73)      5% (44)        9% (73)        761

P3D                          55% (407)      11% (83)    10% (79)      7% (57)      14% (108)      734

 

If anything FSX has gained user support, not lose it.

 

 

That is because FSX is still the one main sims being used after FS9 , I have mentioned "it will move away slowly"         and don't expect it to disappear even after a couple of years.

 

 

The PNW looks as good or better than ORBX.

 

Show me, please.  Could you post screen shots comparing XP, FSX standard and FSX with ORBX, with descriptions of what to look for?  This should be very interesting.

 

Hook

Again you mention this survey. A survey made on this site, which has, is and probably will be heavily FSX centric for a long time to come. It's like asking who likes coca cola amongst the workers in a Pepsi factory.

 

Anyway, I enjoy, indeed love X-plane, I welcome PMDG's move into it and for now I bid farewell to this post and returning to the silky smooth, immersive environment that is my platform of choice.

 

 

Again you mention this survey. A survey made on this site, which has, is and probably will be heavily FSX centric for a long time to come. It's like asking who likes coca cola amongst the workers in a Pepsi factory.

 

Yes but if the goal is to woo those FSX users over to X-Plane 10, then it is a very pertinent measurement on how that trend is going. Right now it appears to be increasing, but very slowly.  

 

 

Again you mention this survey. A survey made on this site, which has, is and probably will be heavily FSX centric for a long time to come. It's like asking who likes coca cola amongst the workers in a Pepsi factory.

 

Gallup, Reuters, AP, Zogby...All of them sample far fewer people in their polling, in any one poll, than responded to the AVSIM polls, and they generally come within a +/- 3% margin of error.  AVSIM has more than 125,000 members from all over the world of which close to 3000 participated in our poll.  I think that's a pretty fair representation of the entire flight sim community, with the results a close approximation to what you'd find had every flight sim enthusiast participated. 
 

Cheers,

Jeff

Show me, please.  Could you post screen shots comparing XP, FSX standard and FSX with ORBX, with descriptions of what to look for?  This should be very interesting.

 

Hook

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you want to see Flightgear PNW plus you can fly on Vatsim too 

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

 

vs3.jpg

 

vs4.jpg

 

vs5.jpg

 

vs6.jpg

 

Hmmmm interesting...to me they ALL look good!  :lol:

 

Hence one of the reasons why I use both I guess. Also, are those FSX shots with DX9? Should maybe also do a comparison with FSX DX10 (Steve's Fixer) and XPX using the North America HD sceneries + mesh from AlpilotX (which are free), would be interesting to see.

 

I will say though that in XP details in distance look more defined and lighting seems a bit more 'natural'.

 

It is a tough one, even though I've been getting into XP more lately I still find it difficult, and find little reason to let go of FSX especially since installing the DX10 Fixer which seems to give an overall performance boost.

The comparison pics look good.  I do prefer the lighting of the FSX pics.  I also prefer the general style of FSX, but that may be just a personal preference.  The XP pics are generally way too dark on my screen, although I have seen others complain that FSX is too bright.

 

Some of the lighting in Froogle's video was just bizarre.  The general terrain was good, but he did say this wasn't stock XP10. 

 

I've landed at the same airports in MS Flight and FSX stock, and while the buildings were obviously better in Flight, if there hadn't been ANY buildings it would have been just wrong.  Flight matched Google Earth pics, and the FSX buildings weren't as bad as you're indicating.

 

 

I will say though that in XP details in distance look more defined and lighting seems a bit more 'natural'.

 

The draw distance in the FSX shots was somewhat longer.  As for details, we didn't see any closeups and the resolution on both versions was pretty poor. 

 

 

 

Do you want to see Flightgear PNW

 

I don't know... does it compare favorably to what we've seen?  

 

Hook