Same thoughts on this subject, as JIMMY RFR. I do a lot of Rocky Mtn. flights. Did a lot in real life too, as it's the area I live in. I switch back & forth all the time, between X-Plane 10 & FSX with Orbx. Both sims can look sensational, depending where, and the time of day, such as sunset.  XP is very good at portraying the mountains & deserts of the western USA.  

 

 

Both sims can look sensational, depending where, and the time of day, such as sunset. XP is very good at portraying the mountains & deserts of the western USA.

 

While I do agree that the Orbx products are quite good, especially their newer regions such as NCA, I feel that XP is a step above in the mountains.  The mesh and the textures are just so much crisper at a distance, it's adds a heck of a lot.  I'm still enjoying FSX, don't get me wrong, but I never realized what I was missing!

Thanks for all the advice, guys.

I've made my decision and I will definitely get XP and use it right along FSX!

                                                                                                Regards,    Tom

You won't be disappointed.  I have X Plane 10 and Prepar3d v2.5 and find myself using X Plane more often due to the fact that I fly in the southwest US and enjoy the great sunrises, sunsets, and night lighting.

Thanks for all the advice, guys.

I've made my decision and I will definitely get XP and use it right along FSX!

Regards, Tom

Great decision - I use both XP10 and P3D 2.5 professional. If you ever want to fly in the UK W2XP GB Pro and Flight1/RC Simulations photoscenery will give you probably the most realistic and accurate portrayal of England & Wales available in a home sim - I am learning to fly in RL and use it to practice VFR. See these two links

 

South Lake District (mountainous)

 

https://youtu.be/sjATCkvvKGA

 

East/South Coast - a little slow to get going but then shows a number of towns/ports, estuary to the River Thames, white cliffs of Dover etc in quick succession

 

https://youtu.be/uq5pS7BLuwU

 

cheers

Peter

That looks fantastic Peter.

If they'd have covered Scotland and Ireland too I would have been well tempted stumped up the cash for the F1 photo scenery.

That looks fantastic Peter.

If they'd have covered Scotland and Ireland too I would have been well tempted stumped up the cash for the F1 photo scenery.

 

Sim Heaven generate European country sceneries from W2XP and they can be downloaded from here:

 

http://simheaven.com/?page_id=3262

 

I've got UK & Ireland installed (not UK VFR Pro) and it just needs the photo scenery underneath and you are set  :wub:

As both a P3D and X-Plane user, my thoughts on X-Plane are as follows;
(Note a lot of what I say about P3D is also true for FSX)

 

+++ NO OOMS! REJOICE! WOOHOO! 64 BIT I LOVE YOU!

+ The flight model is fantastic. Its very fluid and feels far more responsive, much better than P3D (although there are some top quality P3D addons that come very close).

+ The Carenado stuff seems much better in X-Plane to me than in P3D, so there's a bunch of decent GA aircraft to buy. (with the Reality Expansion Pack addon taking them even further)

+ There is a huge community of free addons, from utilities to airport sceneries to world meshes; a lot of which are of very high quality.

 

- I found X-Plane to have some pretty jarring limitations related to multi-threaded CPU usage once I started to pack it full of all the great free addons (plus some nice payware ones).

This is basically a gamebreaker for me and is why I haven't touched X-Plane in a while. Maybe the new Vulkan API for Open GL will help with this (I have no idea).

- The interface is difficult to get used to, but its mostly ok once you do.
- The lack of a weather engine as good as Active Sky Next sucks, though I hear FS Global have something in the works.

- A lot of the autogen just looks... really unconvincing and fake to me. Although I run P3D with ORBX regions so it has some hard competition there.

For me, X-Plane isn't quite ready yet. That being said, it has soooo much potential, and a lot of people are digging it already. I suggest at least giving it a shot for yourself.

Sim Heaven generate European country sceneries from W2XP and they can be downloaded from here:

 

http://simheaven.com/?page_id=3262

 

I've got UK & Ireland installed (not UK VFR Pro) and it just needs the photo scenery underneath and you are set  :wub:

Yep thanks, I've had it in the past, but the photo stuff is no longer available.

Anyway I'm quite happy with the default+ Andras's stuff, looks good enough at FLxxx for a tube jockey like myself.

While I do agree that the Orbx products are quite good, especially their newer regions such as NCA, I feel that XP is a step above in the mountains.  The mesh and the textures are just so much crisper at a distance, it's adds a heck of a lot.  I'm still enjoying FSX, don't get me wrong, but I never realized what I was missing!

 

It looks better at a distance, but close-up, FSX/P3D use much higher resolution meshes. Even the "Ultra" mesh for X-Plane (the one that requires a 6GB video card, 32GB of RAM and a 6 GHz CPU) is only 30m, while OrrbX is 5m.

 

As for the question whether you should switch? No, but you should definitely buy X-Plane and install it alongside your current sim(s). 

I bought the Steam edition on X-Plane 10 on sale a month or so ago. I have used FSX since it was released and currently mostly now use Prepar3D v2.5. I decided to try and switch to X-Plane because of the 64 bit capability and the hardware limitations of FSX and the ever growing addon availability of X-Plane. After several weeks of trying X-plane I shelved it. I couldn't get used to the user interface for aircraft/scenery selection, I didn't like the external camera views, despite being able to setup. I tried and tried to get to use it, scoured popular x-Plane Forums, watched countless videos but just couldn't get to like it. Like FSX, in it's base form X-Plane is pretty basic and needs aircraft/scenery addons to bring it to a 'real world' feel.

 

I still try to get-to-master X-Plane and will spend an hour or so every now and then to try figure out the user interface.

 

From my experiences, my advice would be to consider Prepar3d as a alternative to FSX. It is an evolving platform with regular updates and eventual 64 bit transition, most FSX addons work fine in it and in my opinion, the visuals blow FSX and X-plane away.

 

But, at the end of the day it gets down to your preferences, my view it that all 3 platforms entertain people in simulated flight -  it's just how you decide to achieve it.

Just this past weekend I decided to fire up FSX again.  I have both FSX and X-Plane 10.40b5 on my computer.  It didn't take long to realize that FSX had no redeeming value.  The old familiar aircraft and flat runways and, yes, airport scenery, but virtually the same at every airport. Between what X-Plane now downloads with updates and small local airports I have built to look pretty much like the real thing, are substituted with less than adequate stuff.  I will leave FSX on there for a while, but it is all but dead.  I tried P3D in it's first releases, but didn't see much difference in it and FSX, except it was not as versatile in that some things just didn't seem to work.  I tried their second release, and ended up taking them up on their refund - which they didn't particularly like..  

 

Yes, X-Plane is a struggle to learn.  The interface that is despised by most new advocates is not as "user friendly" as the two previously mentioned flight simulators, but when you get used to it, it is much more capable of adding functions than any other simulator I ever used - and that has been many - dating back to the first attempts ever made during the early 80s.

 

I just compare it to driving a fancy automobile as opposed to a "Hot Wheel" tricycle.  A little more learning needed, but ultimately more satisfying.

 

John

 

- I found X-Plane to have some pretty jarring limitations related to multi-threaded CPU usage once I started to pack it full of all the great free addons (plus some nice payware ones).

Well the multi threaded CPU usage changed dramatically with 10.40. Now they are all busy with scenery loading.

But it is and will never be a problem to overload the sim with too much stuff.

I'm amazed at the RAM usage with E-DSF, it's really quite modest, even with HD Mesh v3 etc., and here was I wondering before 10.40 if I needed to upgrade from 16GB.

 

Although I "swing" between XP10 and P3D, I systematically get p****d off with the latter as it almost always barfs an OOM on finals.

Things are (gradually) getting there In X-Plane, just need decent weather depiction now and some more planes of LES and IXEG quality levels.

Of the other offerings, the FF 777 is probably my favourite, despite a few bugs still present.

It looks better at a distance, but close-up, FSX/P3D use much higher resolution meshes. Even the "Ultra" mesh for X-Plane (the one that requires a 6GB video card, 32GB of RAM and a 6 GHz CPU) is only 30m, while OrrbX is 5m.

 

As for the question whether you should switch? No, but you should definitely buy X-Plane and install it alongside your current sim(s).

As for orbx mesh ... 5m?

Who told you that ... Completely wrong.

 

There is nothing close to ultra hd mesh in fsx in terms of resolution ... Its not a debate related to XP vs FSX , it's a fact.