That is a fallacy.



The sample size in professional surveys is maybe smaller, but is chosen to be representative, not random.



Avsim users are not representative as it is, even less so the part of users that are active and chose to partake. That is a survey of avsim users, not survey of simmers in general.

 

That's not the point we are trying to make. I'm sure if we went over to the X-Plane forums, the results would be polar opposites, but no one is suggesting XP users are moving over to FSX. The question here is are FSX users abandoning it to move to another sim, in which the AVSIM poll is directly representative. This was the same with the shift from FS9 to FSX. When FSX first came out people compared it to the current state what they had in FS9. With FSX's teething pains with performance, the lack initially of good 3PD addons, many stayed with FS2004. It wasn't until hardware caught up and the influx of addons, that far surpassed what FS9 was capable of, that the majority of users made the switch to FSX. Now the same is being done with X-Plane and P3D. People are comparing what the have and invested in FSX to those sims, and as this survey shows, XP is about where FSX was when it first came out with few adopting it. In this case though it doesn't appear to be because of performance, but missing features, that users have been accustomed to in FSX Scenery for one. Having default scenery in airports, even if generic. Having real world looking major cities and landmarks. When I fly over Chicago, I want it to look like Chicago. The 3rd parties, are really improving in this area, so this will become less and less a problem as time goes by. The lack of a good weather engine, like Active Sky or REX. Environmental scenery and visibility. 3PD's again is helping with things like Clouds (SkyMaxx Pro for one). One of XP's big problems is how it handles scenery at altitude. When clouds are present it looks pretty good, but on clear days like you see in the Western US, it just looks horrible. This is important to tubeliner flyers, which make up a large percent of FSX users. At lower altitude X-Plane looks pretty good quality wise, but not necessarily accurate wise (Depending on scenery used - default, 3PD). It's biggest issue remains to be lack of a good AI/ATC system. It makes even FSX default look good..  The survey shows a rather large number has bought or tried X-Plane 10, but only a fraction of them has stated it's good enough to become their primary sim. Which tells me most don't feel XP in it's current state, offers them more or similar then what they currently have invested with FSX to warrant a switch. The same goes right now with P3D, although it appears that sim may be picking up a little faster then XP is at present. How each sim fills in the gap of what FSX users precieve to be missing or lacking, to bring it up to what they currently have, will determine how much of that market they can capture.

 

 

If you run 32 bit FSX in a 64 bit system the size of your video card RAM has no effect on the address space FSX uses. FSX can use all of the 4GB available. 4 GB really should be enough for a flight simulator. It's only the relatively recent arrival of very demanding addons such as the NGX and 777X that has brought the VAS limit into common experience in FSX. As long as developers are aware of this limit then this should not be a problem. PMDG have said they will add ways to tune the VAS usage of the 777X in SP1. Also it's not difficult to reduce FSX memory usage and so increase the amount of space such addons require.



FSX itself is now just a platform for the addons we load to run in. The ingenuity of developers such as PMDG has increased the experience we can have in FSX dramatically. Majestic have shown that you can have an extremely realistic external flight and engine model unaffected by FSX limitations. There's no pressing need to abandon the 32 bit ship, and all the development that goes with it. Maybe when a 64 bit version of P3D is available (and legal to use) an orderly transfer can ensue at the pace users can choose for themselves, with good commonality between old and new. Moving to X-Plane, with no such commonality, represents a much more dramatic change and a lot of burnt bridges.

 

Here we go again...another thread in which you have the "######" of a particular product that will argue to their death whether they are right or wrong or whether it's the truth or not without regard to any logic.

 

The bottom line is, Yes, you can run FSX 32-bit and a lot of add ons to make it look nice and the NGX.  But, you CANNOT run everything you would really want in FSX without an OOM due to 32-bit.  PERIOD!  I would love to be able to run the NGX, very high quality 3rd party airports on both departure and arrival, plus high quality photoreal scenery with autogen across the entire route and still be able to actually complete that flight in FSX.  You can't.  You have to balance what you have enabled and what you don't.  Even if you can get away with it sometimes, you still always have the VAS limit and OOM in the back of your mind now.  With a 64-bit flight sim, developers will be able to continue to go forward, without limits.  Producing better and better products that do more and more.  With FSX, as the developers push those same limits, we will be forced to make more and more trade offs to run it.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love FSX and it is very hard to think of leaving it with all the money I have invested in it.  But, the time will come.  X-Plane or something else will eventually raise the bar above FSX to a level where you can have it all(at least until 64-bit becomes too small).  When that happens, that platform will become THE sim.  That is what it is.  X-Plane isn't quite there yet but it is really good and from what I can gather here on Avsim, is definitely gaining in popularity because it has a chance.  A future.  One with potentially less or maybe even no comprimises like we have to make nearly every single flight in FSX now.

But, you CANNOT run everything you would really want in FSX without an OOM due to 32-bit. PERIOD!

 

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

 

 

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

 

You have had to have made comprimises somewhere.  I bet your sliders are no where near maxed and/or you really aren't running all the things I mentioned.  Can you fly from FSDT CYVR w/ Vancouver Plus v3 to Flightbeam's KPHX with MSE photoreal for all the states that you'd fly over turned on with a high LOD, bad weather, the NGX, etc?

 

Plus, I should have been more specific in my earlier post.  Yes, you can get it right for a flight here and there.  And, maybe even more often than not.  But, I guess the point I'm trying to make is there isn't a lot of headroom with FSX.  It shrinks more and more every day with each new development that pushes the limits.  Look all over avsim.  There is talk everywhere about VAS now.  It's a household term now when it never really used to be.  Even with P3Dv2 we are still talking about it.  So, at some point, it is just simple logic, 32-bits is less than 64-bits.  You can't argue with that.

 

 

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

 

In the beginning I didn't, but the more addons I added, the more unstable it got. I couldn't, for example use FSX with the NGX, REX, Ultimate Traffic and VFR Germany. No problems with frames, it just ran out of memory. This is the big problem for me, I can't use all my addons together without toning down the settings, so therefore I can't use my "now-dated" computer to its full potential, and the addons I purchased together. I have exactly the same problem in P3D, so I've moved on. However, if it works for you, then great, you don't need to try X-Plane and can enjoy what you have.

 

 

You have had to have made comprimises somewhere.  I bet your sliders are no where near maxed and/or you really aren't running all the things I mentioned

 

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

 

 

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

 

Certainly using insane amounts of scenery will bring FPS way down.

 

But you can easily use XPL10 with the amount of scenery quite comparable to what FSX can hold, even a bit more.

 

 

But, you CANNOT run everything you would really want in FSX without an OOM due to 32-bit.  PERIOD!

 

Goodness, that is bologna, PERIOD!  I have yet to have an OOM in FSX, and use the following:

• PMDG T7 & NGX
• FTX PNW, AU, FTXG
• FSG Mesh
• UTX
• REX3 E+
• AccuFeel
• FSPax

I do cross-country flights quite regularly, and have yet to have an OOM!

I find it quite strange how people believe that PMDG will make or break X-Plane/P3D. Don't get me wrong, I think their products are amazing, but it's not and has never been the defining factor that makes me decide on which simulator to use. I'm probably one of the few people on here who actually never bought the 777. 

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

 

How does XP10 look in Brazil, Singapore, Australia, and India? Are those 33,000 airports detailed? To compete seriously with FSX/P3Dv2 you need a global sim. With global scenery like Flight1's GE, Orbx, and others FS9/FSX/P3Dv2 looks great no matter where in the world you are. FS9 has the most detailed airports around the world than any option we use. The only major international airport not done in detail is Auckland Intl. FSX looks great for what it covers and P3Dv2 builds on that with the ability to use all that FSX has to offer (updates are coming for add-ons that don't work). XP10 can't compare with this. The horizon in XP10 looks like crap compared to what you get with the other options and it's a bit clunky to use. Something about it just doesn't look right visually. The lack of a decent AI option to reflect Airliner/GA traffic in the world is a show stopper. Real world weather needs to be modeled correctly. XP10 is nice and can be made into something great but up against P3Dv2 in the next few years is like a mouse against a mountain lion.

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

Well that is a VERY convincing case! Lock, stock & barrel, hook and sinker!

 

Seeing this compared directly is actually somewhat astonishing, there is literally a world of difference with X10 looking quite real and FSX quite bland in comparison!

In the beginning I didn't, but the more addons I added, the more unstable it got. I couldn't, for example use FSX with the NGX, REX, Ultimate Traffic and VFR Germany. No problems with frames, it just ran out of memory. This is the big problem for me, I can't use all my addons together without toning down the settings, so therefore I can't use my "now-dated" computer to its full potential, and the addons I purchased together. I have exactly the same problem in P3D, so I've moved on. However, if it works for you, then great, you don't need to try X-Plane and can enjoy what you have.

Im flying X plane now as we speak . Also, I shall guarantee I have every piece of addon then some for FSX and still, never had an OOM with a completely dedicated Sim computer.!

 

 

Seeing this compared directly is actually somewhat astonishing, there is literally a world of difference with X10 looking quite real and FSX quite bland in comparison!

 

This really does show where X-Plane shines. These are just showing the default scenery, and IMO beats ORBX hands-down. It's even better when using the free HD Mesh v2. 

 

Just to show both sides of the argument though, I think X-Plane fails with:

 

1. The controls in VC mode. e.g. Being able to turn dials in the cockpit with the mousewheel is something I really miss from FSX.
2. Flying at altitude in clear weather looks bad, there's just no hiding this one. This is supposed to be getting fixed.
3. The awful default GPS and map. Again, this is supposedly getting worked on.
4. AI and ATC is terrible, and quite an embarassement. It's also quite funny watching a 747 trying to take-off or land on a small grass-strip .

But X-Plane lets me do the most realistic VFR flights possible in any flight-sim at the moment. It doesn't show blurries, run out of memory, and looks great.

Im flying X plane now as we speak . Also, I shall guarantee I have every piece of addon then some for FSX and still, never had an OOM with a completely dedicated Sim computer.!

Really? Do you have Aerosofts ManhattanX?

 

Do me a favour, tell me how much VAS you are using with FSX sliders for Scenery complexity and autogen at one click below max, with ManhattanX activated in the library, while on runway 31L in default FSX airport KJFK, fair weather, with the PMDG777 and with 30% airline and 30% GA traffic (no cars/boats), and GEX/UTX, detailed terrain mesh and REX clouds.

 

I am looking at 3.7 - 3.8 Gb VAS and as soon as I take off towards ManhattanX I get the OOM imminent warning chimes!

 

Of course that is asking a lot from FSX....and it is the max!

It can take no more!

Well,... my dedicated FSX PC cant take more.

Yours can??

 

So I agree that at some point many of us will have to change to Xplane if we want more (or P3D if that ever goes 64bit).

If we dont want more then we can stay with FSX.

I find it quite strange how people believe that PMDG will make or break X-Plane/P3D. Don't get me wrong, I think their products are amazing, but it's not and has never been the defining factor that makes me decide on which simulator to use. I'm probably one of the few people on here who actually never bought the 777. 

 

Tony, I don't own the 777 either but the NGX I do own and it is THE standard for airliner addons.

I don't feel that PMDG offering a product for XP will make or break but it will entice FSX flyers to make the jump to XP.

If PMDG did offer such a product it would indeed be a corrnerstone for XP into the future.

For all we know RR and AM are sipping pina colada's in the Carribean right now discussing the future, a future so bright I need to put on some welding goggles.  B)