Remember also that you're looking at a 64-bit sim, which eases the load (although maybe less than you might expect) for these graphics.

 

Well, only if the memory usage of the app is past 4gigs.

 

I get the feeling the pics are probably not cheating, but they probably have Dual SLI Titans running or something.

Looking at the PC System Requirements for X-Plane 10 Global - 64 Bit; I can see this:

 

Processor: 3 GHz, multi-core CPU (or, even better, multiple processors).

 

So how many multi-core processors did they use, and how would it perform with only a single i7 Processor?

Looking at the PC System Requirements for X-Plane 10 Global - 64 Bit; I can see this:

 

Processor: 3 GHz, multi-core CPU (or, even better, multiple processors).

 

So how many multi-core processors did they use, and how would it perform with only a single i7 Processor?

 

Careful, that belongs to the recommended system requirements.

Looking at the PC System Requirements for X-Plane 10 Global - 64 Bit; I can see this:

 

Processor: 3 GHz, multi-core CPU (or, even better, multiple processors).

 

So how many multi-core processors did they use, and how would it perform with only a single i7 Processor?

 

As I understand it, there are some rendering-related advantages to multi-core, but the big advantage with multi-cores is the number of AI aircraft you can run. So it depends on how much you care about that.

 

Each flight model is a separate thread that can use its own CPU, and the AI aircraft use the same flight model engine as the player (specific to aircraft type), not a stripped down version. If you have a 20 core system, you can run 20 AI aircraft with zero impact on frame rate. On an 8 core system, you can still run 20 AI aircraft with very high frame rates because the threads will be distributed. On a single core system, you'll get a bigger frame rate hit from AI aircraft, because all 21 flight models (including yours) will be crammed in there and running at the same time. 

 

There is also an option to use more than one flight model cycle per video frame on the player's aircraft, which can smooth things out a bit (especially for things like helicopters). I usually run at least 2 flight model cycles per frame. I don't think this makes a major impact compared to the AI aircraft and other rendering settings. 

 

That's how I understand it anyway, someone correct me if that's not accurate.

 

Bottom line, if you're shooting promotional stills and videos, you're probably going to have AI aircraft turned off anyway.

One could have said the same about Microsoft when they released FSX. This is so common in the software industry that it's actually the standard now. Software almost always gets released prematurely

 

Flight was released very prematurely. Unfortunately Microsoft has the product attention span of a Gerbil.

 

Fortunately, DTG seems to be a long-term thinker. They tended their DLC garden with care and patience, and I only hope they show the same skill with their upcoming Flight sim offering.

 

 

Careful, that belongs to the recommended system requirements.

 

I'm pretty sure the video was not shot on a "Minimum" configured system; if it was I want X-Plane now!!

I'm sure we would all be on XPlane right now if they add more 3rd party dev support. And the flight model.

 

 

And the flight model.

 

And the ATC system

And the AI Aircraft system

And the seasonal textures

And the 23,000 empty airport sceneries

Jim, you're sweating the small stuff!

Nah, it's all my imagination, that's it.

For XPlane to be a "complete simulation" , all things mentioned by Jim are needed.

 

If XPlane only has "correct flight model" or it's capable doing 64-bits, that just isn't enough. Lots of things still missing...

 

Think about the "big picture" instead of concentrating solely on flight model or 64-bit capability....

I have sent Dovetail games an email congratulating them and reminding them of how unsuccessful MS Flight was. I made a few suggestions and I intend on sending wish lists often to them. If we all do a part in sending a strong message about flight simulator issues that have not been tolerated in the past, maybe we will have an ear,  maybe they will take a risk, invest greatly in the product, and listen to us during development. 

 

I think they know that we will pay for a great flight simulator that exceeds the features and quality of P3Dv2 (default/green installation) and we will stifle it if its not as good as P3Dv2 (default) or at least our FSX setup.

 

 

 and we will stifle it if its not as good as P3Dv2 (default) or at least our FSX setup.

 

Sounds familiar! Fortunately, we've been assured in this selfsame thread that we have no such power.

For XPlane to be a "complete simulation" , all things mentioned by Jim are needed.

 

If XPlane only has "correct flight model" or it's capable doing 64-bits, that just isn't enough. Lots of things still missing...

 

Think about the "big picture" instead of concentrating solely on flight model or 64-bit capability....

 

Addressing Jim's points here, and I'm not trying to sell anyone on anything here, just providing perspective because I know both programs and the full FS legacy... I've been here from the beginning when FS came on a floppy disk:

 

* And the flight model.

 

Not sure what the complaints are there, but I know there are still some problems with X-Plane's transsonic modeling. One beef has been inability to touch the core flight code by 3rd party plugins, but this has just been opened up for plugins. Might be why PMDG is finally releasing an XPX model soon?

 

* And the ATC system

 

Yep, the vanilla ATC is broken. The devs know that, and it will be improved but you'll have to wait. Meanwhile, there are 3rd party efforts like Pilot2ATC to explore.

 

* And the AI Aircraft system

 

Likewise, broken in vanilla with things like 777's showing up at small airports. But huge potential here, especially as the weather modeling keeps improving. That multi-core threaded thing I mentioned earlier, means that every AI plane in a departure and arrival pattern is experiencing and reacting to weather effects exactly the same way your plane is. Crosswinds, sudden downbursts, ice on the runway, whatever. When this is finally polished up and linked with internal ATC, I think it's going to be amazing.

 

* And the seasonal textures

 

Yep, summer only for now. There have been 3rd party add-ons for this ("Winter World") but it needs to happen eventually. Just not yet.

 

* And the 23,000 empty airport sceneries

 

This is where some digging into the current available scenery would help provide context. Because there isn't much payware yet, the user base has been making their own big and small airports. Recently, Laminar has (finally!) developed a system for users to submit their own "certified" airports that will be distributed with the main program. Because many users are outside the MSFS mainstream, you'll be seeing a lot of airports in areas that wouldn't normally interest big eye candy developers like Orbx. There are already a bunch of airports in places like South America, Australia, and Asia, as well as the more popular "traditional FS" places like New Zealand, the PNW, and Europe. 

 

For the stuff outside airports, the devs are integrating Open Street Map data, which not only means the 3D roads and buildings will be more accurate in the auto-gen scenery, but because OSM is being constantly updated all over the world, the database can continue to evolve and stay accurate over time, instead of relying on one-shot handmade scenery.

 

X-Plane's big weakness is scenery right now, because the traditional handmade scenery authors haven't come onboard. So it's pursuing an alternate -- potentially better path -- which is integrating the flood of real-world digital data that's available now. You won't have to worry about your runways and city buildings not looking like the real thing, or updating to follow real-world changes. The real thing is the source of the data, instead of someone laboriously constructing handmade scenery for every destination. Look at the screenshots linked above, if you don't think this can work for "plausible realism," which is the main goal here... not perfect accuracy (except for runways and navaids, where yes we need it to be perfect).

 

Again, not a sales job here... I desperately want XPX not to be the only one in full development going forward because I believe competition is good for us all. And I know why many FS pilots aren't ready to move. But keep an eye on what's happening over on the other side of the fence. The progress may be slower than many of us would like, but it's actual progress in a civilian flight sim that isn't hamstrung by license deals with legacy code.

And that's part of what I meant before about the bar to entry. The whole thing has gotten so complex, sometimes just to get things up and running, that the process self selects for only the most technically minded and committed, discouraging the "casual catch" and the numbers and money necessary for more robust development.