That said, you do realize that we've all been waiting for X-Plane to get "miles ahead" for literally 5+ years now, right?

It totally depends on what you do and where you fly.

Helicopters? Sorry the FSX Helicopters are a joke nothing more. And with photoscenaries and World2Xplane they are an ORBX killer in Europe especially if you use GA aircrafts.

Hmmm, how about OSM

 

The OSM approach has potential, but unfortunately the OSM coverage of the world is very very spotty in places.

 

If Laminar decides to put resources into culling, correcting and enhancing the OSM data to be more accurate and widespread - including supplementing it with other data sources where needed, then we may have something.

 

But if you follow Austin's comments about it, it's an extremely low priority of his (scenery and realism of said scenery) which is sad.

 

Austin just looks at too many elements of the Sim experience as "meh....who cares...." for me.  He just says "let people make airports" and "let the more detailed scenery come from elsewhere"...

 

...all of which would be fine if XP got along better with 3rd party developers - which they don't for some reason. A mystery for sure.

It totally depends on what you do and where you fly.

Helicopters? Sorry the FSX Helicopters are a joke nothing more. And with photoscenaries and World2Xplane they are an ORBX killer in Europe especially if you use GA aircrafts.

 

I's tried out W2Xplane scenery and all the SimHeaven experimental areas.

It's "ok", but a huge performance killer and the textures are still odd looking to me for some reason.

 

And as you mentioned, the coverage is terrible other than some areas in Europe.

 

And all photo scenery suffers at low altitude.  I've tried it all, including my own G2XPL up to ZL19 (ridiculous level, but did it just to see)

Anyways....I'm on the same side as most around here.

 

I use both, and really want the competition (great for all!)

 

Just want XP to huuuuury up!  My whole life is going by while we wait for Laminar to make it better.

It totally depends on what you do and where you fly.

Helicopters? Sorry the FSX Helicopters are a joke nothing more. And with photoscenaries and World2Xplane they are an ORBX killer in Europe especially if you use GA aircrafts.

 

Agreed. Where I fly the phototextures are crisp and clear above 300ft at ZL18 and I fly heli's and GA mostly. Those textures with the World2XPlane stuff with almost everything maxed out using SkymaxxPro clouds and I get a good enough framerate to see no stuttering. I abandoned P3d and FSX completely when I got XP set up right, they were just too fake and cartoony looking but I guess it's a matter of taste. I suppose I'm a person who doesn't need everything now so the pace of development is fine by me. I do agree that the plausible world is anything but, but I have substituted that for one that is as real as one can get in a sim today. With the experiments I did at ZL19 I found that they were no better than at 18, there being no better resolution available but the file sizes are 4 times the size, there's just no point doing 19. Even if P3d goes 64bit in the long run, it will still just look awful to me, different strokes for different folks.

"Read METARs reporting visibility in meters instead of kilometers correctly"

 

Now it makes sense why I get all that unlimited visibility.

Love to get some thoughts from the crowd on this screen compare I just did between XPX & P3D..

 

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/444944-x-plane-10-vs-prepar3d-22-cycd-nanaimo-bc-comparison/

Love to get some thoughts from the crowd on this screen compare I just did between XPX & P3D..

 

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/444944-x-plane-10-vs-prepar3d-22-cycd-nanaimo-bc-comparison/

 

Xp is a bit darker and less clouds, any other comparison would be unfair and pointless.

I'm not sure I'm following you Mike.

 

Why is it "pointless"?

 

Just interested to hear opinions on both SIMs in reference to the shots I posted as well as in general of how everyone uses each.

I made some comments in that screenshot forum thread

Xp is a bit darker and less clouds, any other comparison would be unfair and pointless.

Darker because the plane is under a cloud shadow. A simple way to make XP look dark and P3D bright.

 

Agreed XP's clouds look thin and insubstantial. P3Ds clouds and lighting look cartoony and totally unrealistic.

 

Mr Seaplane for someone who doesn't like flamewars between the sims you seem to spend a lot of your time making comments about the disadvantages of XP, how much Austin is holding the sim back, how P3D will be game over for it, and concocting laughably biased screenshot comparisons.

Tried X-Plane 10 (64bit) New Beta demo this morning and its ahead of any MS Flight sim I've flown. Sheer smoothness and the ground scenery is just incredible. Only the clouds lack from Prepar3d 2.X. By X-Plane 11 this will be tweaked im sure. Everyone has their favourite sim but just to experience this is just amazing. Not wanting to start anything here either.

@Scotch:

 

There is nothing biased in that shot at all. I specifically called up real weather and the same time/date at the exact same spot with fairly maxed settings on both sims.

 

Why is that biased? The whole point is to try and show the different sim renderings of the same scenario.

 

By the way, I also never said which I preferred the look of either. Trying to gather thoughts from others here.

 

I extensively use both of these sims. Like and dislike features of both.

Tried X-Plane 10 (64bit) New Beta demo this morning and its ahead of any MS Flight sim I've flown. Sheer smoothness and the ground scenery is just incredible. Only the clouds lack from Prepar3d 2.X. By X-Plane 11 this will be tweaked im sure. Everyone has their favourite sim but just to experience this is just amazing. Not wanting to start anything here either.

I'd have to say the water is better in a lot of places in P3D (to me anyhow).

 

Agree about the smoothness. XP is wonderful for that.

This P3D 2.2 with Orbx PNW. It has a cartoonish look to it and the performance is awful. I think default XPX looks alot better ! There is no OOM errors, stutters or texture loading. Defualt PD3 is horrific looking, so you have to spend a fortune on ADDONS every month just to make it look half way decent. ORBX will never make any ADDONS for XPX since PD3 is a gold mine for them.   

 

Yep. I've got Prepar3d 2.2 and I Agree there. XP needs brighter lighting during the day and the clouds are slightly meh but overall could be called a beta FS11 if it was a Microsoft Product.

Yep. I've got Prepar3d 2.2 and I Agree there. XP needs brighter lighting during the day and the clouds are slightly meh but overall could be called a beta FS11 if it was a Microsoft Product.

 

He was using a plugin with really dark cloud shadows. As you can see from the pics I posted it's pretty bright.

Beautiful lighting. No fix needed there and not muddy looking like FSX too. Well im sold!