X-Plane 10 vs Prepar3d 2.2 - CYCD (Nanaimo, BC) - Comparison

[alulekk 3]

I tried to get these as close as possible in terms of time of day and both are using the respective Carenado T210 aircraft for each platform

 

Real Time Shots with Real Weather - Just taken:

 

CYCD (Nanaimo, BC)

 

 

X-Plane 10.3beta4 & FS Real WX Pro Beta for X-Plane

http://i.imgur.com/aBz75k2.jpg

 

 

Prepar3D v2.2 & FS Global Real WX, REX4 & OrbX PNW

http://i.imgur.com/ByT8ofr.jpg

 

 

Love to get everyone's thoughts on the comparisons between the two.

[ryanbatc 13,125]

Your image quality is excellent that's for sure!

 

Two different sims - both shots are nice.

 

Obviously the Wx is a bit different between the two.  Honestly I've never been a fan of FSX/P3D addon UHD cloud textures.  I always run 1024 as it looks more realistic to me.  In your P3D shot the clarity of the clouds is far overdone (REX maybe?) but in XP shot the clouds are too fuzzy and aren't even dramatic.

 

Other than that I'm glad we have both sims.  I actually am running all three FSX, P3D2, and XP10 - in fact I've now run all three on Pilot Edge (highly recommended: http://www.pilotedge.net/ )

 

My breakdown is as follows:

 

FSX primary sim, many glorious addons I can't part with still, precious RXP gauges etc, not as flashy as XP10 or P3D but I always go back to it - trustworthy etc

 

XP10, bought before I got into P3D (wanted to try the "other" sim, something fresh).  Definitely getting better but during daytime still prefer FSX.  XP10 is THE SIM to fly at night though.  Best realistic lighting exists compared to any sim.  Flight modelling has issues just like the other sims.  A good "techy" sim to play around with.  Much like Linux to Windows, XP is to FSX.  FPS aren't great in big cities with OSM, and my 1.28GB GTX570 is not cutting it - I had to turn down textures to normal or high at the absolute max to run Carenado King air 90.... grrrr.  Development ongoing and the new GNS is a good start to keeping me hooked!

 

P3D2, bought just last month - Academic version don't judge me.  I've installed it on my 7200rpm HDD rather than the two above which reside on my 500GB Evo SSD.  Another fun-to-mess-around- with-sim.  But I have noticed Orbx products run better on it than FSX.... so it tends to be my offline sim in the daytime now.  But since I can't run cloud shadows without destroying my performance I turn those off - now I'm basically down to FSX in DX10 mode with Steve's fixer, less the VAS issues of FSX.  Still I have no regrets now that I realized cloud shadows were killing my performance and since turned those off.  Generally FPS less than FSX by at least 30%.  Also stuttering from time to time - apparently LM knows about this.

 

Worst of all I've now noticed I always want more....  each sim has something that bugs me and I'm constantly hoping for improvement!

[alulekk 3]

Interesting thought about the REX clouds.

Think I will dial those down and try it.

 

I also totally agree that XP clouds are lacking.

 

Finally, I also get so frustrated because each sim has different strengths and I end up having to switch all the time. Haha

[JeremyWM 6]

I'd love to see this same comparison shot with X-plane using SkyMaxx and with HDR/Dynamic shadows. Putting REX sky in FSX against plain jane XP clouds and FSX will always win. Add SkyMaxx (reasonably priced payware from X-aviation.com) with the Fly with Lua hack for the distant blue haze/horizon effects and Aerosofts color tools which are both free and I bet X-plane could make a much better showing in this comparison.  

 

Also the dynamic shadowing goes a long way towards realism. In P3D I noticed you have it on but in the X-plane shot there's no cockpit shadowing. I know that XP does nice real time lighting and shadow effects. Are you unable to turn on HDR and Dynamic shadows for XP? 

 

Nice comparison shots. I'd love to see more. I do believe X-plane can do better than this though, with HDR, shadowing, SkyMaxx, Fly with Lua, and Aerosofts Sky Tools. :) Anyone else have both who would like to show some more comparison shots? Hopefully this topic can stay as civil as it is right now without diving into another VS. flame war, because I would love to see some more shots and to continue the discussion.   

[alulekk 3]

Hi Jeremy.

 

The XP shot did actually have HDR (with 8x AF and 4x AA+fxaa) on and I went with stock clouds instead of SkyMaxx as the stock clouds offer shadows that SkyMaxx doesn't as of now.

 

(SkyMaxx doesn't offer cloud shadows yet, as that's a new feature as of 10.3 and 3rd party can't do it yet on XP)

 

Also, cockpit shadowing was on in XP, just that the time of day was just slightly off as I had to guesstimate since each sim was showing rather differently with the same local time setup. Odd for sure.

 

I will say that the P3D cockpit lighting and shadowing is better overall in my opinion. Just more dramatic and complete overall. I especially notice this when doing a few patterns around early morning hours.

 

 

--

 

I just want to add that I use both of these sims extensively and am trying to make them BOTH look and perform their best. Not trying to bias this comparison at all.

[JeremyWM 6]

Huh, strange. I wonder why it was that it wasn't showing any cockpit shadowing.

 

Basically thats what I noticed that really made the differance in favor of P3D was the dynamic shadowing and the much more interesting cloud formations, though as ryanbatcund mentioned, I think the super high rez clouds make them look a bit odd. I feel that they tend to look more like flat billboard sprites when presented in such high resolution. I have good ol' FSX with REX Essential Plus and I never use the highest resolution cloud texture set for that reason.

 

Have you ever used Aerosofts Sky Tools for XP? It might give you some control to give Xplane a bit more "visual Pop" if you will. The default lighting in Xplane always seems to lack contrast and often ends up looking a bit boring and homogenous. Thats why I mentioned Fly with Lua with the Religh Scattering script as well.

 

The first time I saw these shots, I was totally floored at the realization of the graphic rendering power kept under the hood of Xplane 10.

 

http://graphie.org/ressources/forums/images/xplane-raleigh/ATR72_244.jpg

http://graphie.org/ressources/forums/images/xplane-raleigh/ATR72_197.jpg%C2'>

[alulekk 3]

Yep. I have used sky tools and Lua extensively.

 

I'm a bit torn on those, as they add "pop" In certain scenarios, but often make things unrealistic looking in others.

 

Also, I'm away from those tools right now after reading Bens XP dev post about the art controls possibly changing.

 

When Laminar is working on the new version and releasing all these betas I think it's important to keep things mostly stock so I know what the betas are doing performance and graphic wise.

[JeremyWM 6]

I wouldn't be suprised if the community work that's been done ends up being put into an official release from Ben and the Laminar team pretty soon, with as good as some of the results have been. I agree the tools need polish though. I've seen a fair amount of weirdly "electric blue" screenshots from some who have gone a bit crazy with the effects at times.

 

Glad to see you're on top of all the latest tools and techniques to make XP as good as it can be Turbine. Me personally, I am most excited about Xplane 10 with all thats been happening with it and then I often go back to FSX for much of my sim time as well, just because I have almost every A2A Accusim aircraft made so far including Captain of the Ship for the B-377, the PMDG J-41, maaannnny Carenado aircraft, the Realair Duke, Air Hauler to give realism and meaning to the flights, and FS Commander for the flight planning. It's pretty much simheaven when everything is working well in concert.

 

I just don't feel like I have much impetous to move to P3D when it's so similar to FSX in so many ways and has quite a bit of compatibility issues from what I've read in the forums. That screenshot you show really does look nice however. :)  

[User72 28]

 

The first time I saw these shots, I was totally floored at the realization of the graphic rendering power kept under the hood of Xplane 10.

 

http://graphie.org/ressources/forums/images/xplane-raleigh/ATR72_244.jpg

 

 

All that can be done for a fraction of the cost too. Nice shot. That's the XPX that I fly in, the original comparison doesn't come close to capturing that. That's why I uninstalled the other sims, there was just no comparison to be made in my mind any more, the winner for me was clear.

[alulekk 3]

It is a nice XP shot there for sure.

 

Take that at pattern altitude or even on the runway before rolling though.

 

That's where I get bummed with the ortho/autogen approach.

 

Interestingly it makes me hope for better autogen placement at the least (talking all over, not just the few areas where OSM is accurate around the globe) - Maybe something like Nuvecta does for the FSX/P3D side.

Huh, strange. I wonder why it was that it wasn't showing any cockpit shadowing.

 

Basically thats what I noticed that really made the differance in favor of P3D was the dynamic shadowing and the much more interesting cloud formations, though as ryanbatcund mentioned, I think the super high rez clouds make them look a bit odd. I feel that they tend to look more like flat billboard sprites when presented in such high resolution. I have good ol' FSX with REX Essential Plus and I never use the highest resolution cloud texture set for that reason.

 

Have you ever used Aerosofts Sky Tools for XP? It might give you some control to give Xplane a bit more "visual Pop" if you will. The default lighting in Xplane always seems to lack contrast and often ends up looking a bit boring and homogenous. Thats why I mentioned Fly with Lua with the Religh Scattering script as well.

 

The first time I saw these shots, I was totally floored at the realization of the graphic rendering power kept under the hood of Xplane 10.

 

http://graphie.org/ressources/forums/images/xplane-raleigh/ATR72_244.jpg

 

 

Regarding that shot, do we know exactly where that was taken and the settings?

I'm guessing this is a SimHeaven situation over an ideal area in terms of OSM data.

Definitely cool to see what's possible, but this sadly isn't even close to the result you get around N America areas (which I realize maybe only I care about here)

 

Still, I'd love to know so I can download and test it out.

[MdMax 233]

I'm guessing this is a SimHeaven situation over an ideal area in terms of OSM data.

Definitely cool to see what's possible, but this sadly isn't even close to the result you get around N America areas (which I realize maybe only I care about here)

 

:wink: If you really care about North America, did you already start contributing to the OpenStreetMap project ?

 

When I started to contribute, my village was only a road. Nothing else. No streets, no buildings, nothing.

 

Today it's different:

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/444916-flying-with-world2xplane/

[User72 28]

Yeah I think the Europeans fare better with the photo/osm combination, I've often wondered why American OSM coverage is so poor in comparison.

I don't use Simheavens stuff, the resolution is too poor, I use G2xpl instead and I find at ZL18 I have clear sharp scenery at anything over 300ft or so. Again it depends on coverage in your area, for many years it was useless for me until Bing updated their maps and yippee, it was suddenly the best option for me by a long way.

[alulekk 3]

 

 

If you really care about North America, did you already start contributing to the OpenStreetMap project ?

 

It sounds nice to do this, but I barely have time to do my flight simming, plus real flying, plus work, plus life as it is.

 

This is one of my frustrations.  I personally need solutions that I can purchase or in some way acquire that don't take the level of time it probably takes to be contributing to map projects.

 

Just don't have the time or will to turn into a mapping contributor simply to try and make X-Plane as real as it should be already (in my opinion anyhow).  I just want Laminar to care more about this stuff and I will HAPPILY line up with my wallet wide open!  :-)

By the way, I really appreciate you guys sharing good thoughts here and having a nice chat.

 

I can't even seem to bring this stuff up in the X-Plane areas without it just devolving into fight.  Some people simply can't understand that being critical of the areas XP is lacking is out of frustration because we like the flight model and environmental lighting so much...and simply want the scenery data to be better out of the box.

 

And in my case the water.

[Noel 4,573]

XP looks like FS9, P3D looks a whole lot better to me.

[alulekk 3]

New Photos:

 

Here I'm using ZL18 Bing Maps from G2XPL, HD Meshv2, Dense Forests, Trees & Farmlines v2 in the new Carenado T206...all at pretty high settings (clouds on 50% puffs) on 1600p

 

The water.  GRR.  Either I have reflections turned on (any level) and they shimmer like all hell or I have them off and the water looks like a piece of tin-foil laid out on a table.  XP's water is awful to me.

 

This first one may look ok as a static shot, but when in the SIM, there's no level of HDR AA that can make it even watchable.  The reflections flicker and shimmer to a headache inducing level.  :-(

 

http://i.imgur.com/Fiy54wB.jpg

Here's some of the tin-foil water.

 

http://i.imgur.com/pzfZyIg.jpg

 

That said, the 3rd party KORS and the ZL18 Bing Map underlay looks good from this angle.