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

[bonchie 2,305]

The runway is better in the XP shot. Really like the wear and texturing and coloring. I've never understood why REX doesn't include actual dark asphalt runways. They aren't some hybrid, light concrete color in real life. Same with taxiways.

 

But nothing out there is really going to match P3D2 + an Orbx region from surface to cruise. They do amazing work that looks good from rotation. 

 

[alulekk 3]

 

 

I have good ol' FSX with REX Essential Plus and I never use the highest resolution cloud texture set for that reason.

 

So an interesting follow up to this.

Just went to check my REX4 settings for P3D and I actually only have settings at:

 

Low Level Clouds:  2048

High/Mid, Runways, Taxiways:  1024

Tex Compress Alg:  DXT5, DXT5, DXT1

DirectX (sun/water/wave):  DX11, DX10, DX11

and P3D v.2HDR Tex: Checked.

The runway is better in the XP shot. Really like the wear and texturing. 

 

But nothing out there is really going to match P3D2 + an Orbx region from surface to cruise. They do amazing work that looks good from rotation. 

 

 

Should be noted that it's not a stock XP runway - Using the Enhanced HD v1.2 (I think it's v1.2) from the .Org downloads area.  Great great runway textures (but not stock XP, just so people know)

[MdMax 233]

The runway is better in the XP shot. Really like the wear and texturing and coloring.

 

I like it because it's not a flat runway. It follows the terrain contours.

[alulekk 3]

I like it because it's not a flat runway. It follows the terrain contours.

 

True.

[User72 28]

These I took just to give a very quick indication. My home field is EIME in Ireland which has a field altitude of 323ft depending on where you are on the field so these are all taken at 700ft within a hair on a very quick flight around the area. To me you see, no matter how hard ORBX try, they will never be providing a real representation of what actually exists at any given point which just irks me. To me they are selling fake scenery, I just can't get that out of my head when I fly over it. These are all G2xpl and World2XPlane. OSM data is not great for Ireland but it's good enough for me.

I certainly do agree that the water needs work and that quite a few other things need work but the great thing is, I didn't have to do any of the work that has already gone into the simulator code. I get to enjoy it. If at anything above 350ft I can see what really exists in the world as I fly over that spot in a sim, I'm gonna be happy as I can't afford to fly myself in the real world. I think considering all that we have in the simulated world, we should all be pretty content gven that none of us had to create the programs ourselves.

 

 

 

 

[alulekk 3]

 

 

These I took just to give a very quick indication.

 

Very nice pics!!

 

What time of day is it set at?  

XP just always seems so "drab" to me in daytime (I LOVE LOVE LOVE XP at night and dusk/dawn) and the water....grr.

 

The water frickin' kills me, especially since I fly so much around the PNW of N America - Bad water is ruining it all for me lately.

[User72 28]

Very nice pics!!

 

What time of day is it set at?  

XP just always seems so "drab" to me in daytime (I LOVE LOVE LOVE XP at night and dusk/dawn) and the water....grr.

 

The water frickin' kills me, especially since I fly so much around the PNW of N America - Bad water is ruining it all for me lately.

 

Within a few minutes of 20:00. It's pretty overcast here at the minute. I'll mostly use real world time and weather.

Yeah, I think XP beats all for night flights but the water does kill the framerates to have at any more than low for me.

[alulekk 3]

 

 

To me you see, no matter how hard ORBX try, they will never be providing a real representation of what actually exists at any given point which just irks me.

 

Are you referring to a particular OrbX that's older or you think is just badly done?

 

Have a look at these Sekiu shots.

 

First 2 are real photos, other 4 are from OrbX.

 

Real Sekiu:

 

http://i.imgur.com/ynHO8nL.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/xBgJ787.jpg

 

OrbX Sekiu:

 

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

http://i.imgur.com/BcMebI0.jpg

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

http://i.imgur.com/45LnoqI.jpg

 

 

There are some lighting differences due to angle and time of day, etc, but otherwise....very well done and a very accurate representation of what's there in real life.

 

I've personally flown into Sekiu a vareity of times and I think, on this scenery at least, the did a KILLER job.  

Very well represented.

[User72 28]

Are you referring to a particular OrbX that's older or you think is just badly done?

 

Have a look at these Sekiu shots.

 

First 2 are real photos, other 4 are from OrbX.

 

Real Sekiu:

 

http://i.imgur.com/ynHO8nL.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/xBgJ787.jpg

 

OrbX Sekiu:

 

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

http://i.imgur.com/BcMebI0.jpg

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

http://i.imgur.com/45LnoqI.jpg

 

 

There are some lighting differences due to angle and time of day, etc, but otherwise....very well done and a very accurate representation of what's there in real life.

 

I've personally flown into Sekiu a vareity of times and I think, on this scenery at least, the did a KILLER job.  

Very well represented.

 

No I agree that their airfields are well done but the more general area sceneries, Orbx Ireland for example, because they are landclass replacements are essentially fake scenery as far as I'm concerned. Everything you see when you look down is just not real, doesn't exist at that geographical point. They do great airfields and could make a killing with them in X-Plane, conversions would not be difficult but JV seems opposed to XP on any level for some reason.

[alulekk 3]

No I agree that their airfields are well done but the more general area sceneries, Orbx Ireland for example, because they are landclass replacements are essentially fake scenery as far as I'm concerned. Everything you see when you look down is just not real, doesn't exist at that geographical point. They do great airfields and could make a killing with them in X-Plane, conversions would not be difficult but JV seems opposed to XP on any level for some reason.

 

Ohhh... I gotcha.

 

Didn't realize they had large areas of total BS.

That's a shame, as the airfield work sure seems great!

[Baylorguy 39]

I have both... regarding your shots the clouds imo there is no comparison.  Thus far REX4 has the best clouds, and couples with ASN, it makes a potent combo.

 

But... XPX is beautiful, especially if you fly GA.  I am on the sidelines with XPX until they get their high altitude figured out.

[Pascal_LSGC 310]

 

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.

 

Yes, that's in Switzerland, above the Jura hills. With Simheaven level 17 and OSM.

 

more precisely:

 

https://maps.google.ch/maps?saddr=47.388472,7.861547&hl=fr&ll=47.374175,7.871704&spn=0.242731,0.405464&sll=47.379289,7.899342&sspn=0.121354,0.202732&t=m&mra=mift&mrsp=0&sz=13&z=12

 

OSM data there is excellent, but that's true for all Switzerland, Germany, France, Netherlands...

 

The settings I used are detailed in the original thread where I posted these shots.

 

 

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.

 

That was exactly my feeling when experimenting with art controls, and some other parts of the scenery engine. Thanks Jeremy for your

appreciation.

 

 

Pascal

[strider1 579]

: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/

 

Those screens look amazing !

 

Are there any video tutorials on how to edit using JOSM ? I know how to use the web based editor but its limited on what you can do.

[JeremyWM 6]

No thank-you Pascal. If it wasn't for your work with the data ref editor in X-plane it would be far easier to just continue to dismiss XP as the ugly, inferior flight sim to FSX/P3D. I think you even challenged Laminar themselves directly to improve the sky rendering in the default setup of the sim, as I think your ideas are probably going to be part of the next release version. I really wonder sometimes who are the artists (or who is the artist) over at Laminar. I know Austin himself doesn't have a clue what looks good. Xplane has an amazing graphics rendering engine, but it seems so under utilized at times.

 

As for Orbx, my opinion is that their airports are absolutely stunning! However their large area projects are far less so. I have FTX Global and to be blunt, I feel like I wasted my money. Some areas do look very nice, much nicer than the default FSX with it's greens and browns "desert problem." But over all it's just a bit underwhelming unless you also add some of their other addons like the PNW packages. I live near Olympia, WA. This state is beautiful. I've also lived in San Francisco, CA. One of my favorite flights to do is the hop between Seattle and San Francisco; a trip I've made many times as a passenger. Flying that same trip in FSX with FTX Global however, is like flying over a mostly green pock marked carpet with the occasional town or city rendered as a flat little oasis of generic textures with some randomly places little 3D buildings. Not too impressive and as always the classic FSX blurries follow me wherever I go.

 

Xplane certainly has it's faults, but it's getting better all the time and gaining momentum. Anything from TruScenery equals Orbx IMHO as well.  :)           

[strider1 579]

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.

 

 

Is this what you mean by shimmer ?