is there a feature in x-plane 10 that i can get altimeter settings,destination runway heights weather ect.. i am fairly new and flying the heavies, in p3d i know you just press B and it sets it for you.some resources would be appreciated. happy holidays.

He was referring to the modeling of atmosphere scattering (enhanced by Real Terra Haze). FSX/P3D does not model atmospheric scattering, and this produced unrealistic visuals towards the horizon (for the land or sea). FSX/P3D is the only flight simulator that does not include atmospheric scattering modeling (even Flight Gear has it).

 

P3D:

 

X-Plane:

 

Real life:

 

Now you can stop laughing.

 

 

Heh, my thoughts exactly.  I'm thinking he just got educated.

P3D doesn't simulate the look of the real horizon, and distant detail.  In fact, I hate to fly at higher altitudes in P3D because of it.  It's a limitation of the core of FSX that P3D is based upon.  XP however has a horizon and distant detail is LOOKS real.  Goes a long way for immersion.

 

 

Heh, my thoughts exactly.  I'm thinking he just got educated.

 

Not really, as your post stated at high altitudes which was what I was commenting on. The shots Murmur posted are relatively low altitude, which admittedly X-Plane does do a very good job at, which is why I always said X-Plane makes a very good GA sim. but for high altitude, heavy medal flights XP is just now catching up to where  FSX and P3D has been from the start. Each release though it is getting better and better though

Wow, great example. No comparison.

Wow, great example. No comparison.

 

Not really. Default FSX/P3D scenery in a flat area - not showing the horizon vs XP with addon scenery. Anyone with P3D + ASN and Orbx or Megascenery could match that. Apples to apples, please.

 

I keep all 3 sims around for comparison, and find myself using P3Dv3 the most ( by far ) right now and XPlane the least ( by far ). XP does a lot of things that I really like ( night, sloped runways, better default FDE and ground handling ), but I hate the UI / Menus with a passion and I don't get much better performance than P3D. The fact that the majority of my high-quality addons for FSX work fine in P3D is no small factor. Shared cockpit / MP is another factor, although I don't use it as much as I'd like.

 

I find the endless FDE arguments kind of amusing - at the end of the day, you're still sitting in an office chair, staring at a 3' wide screen with a chintzy plastic joystick/yoke w no force feedback and complaining about how "unrealistic" the flying is.

Wow, great example. No comparison.

Yes they are beautiful shots,  but as a comparison to what murmur posted for P3D, they are apples and oranges. Note the XP and real shots are to the horizon, while the P3D shot he posted is more of a top down shot not even showing  the horizon. Here's a shot I took about a week ago in FSXSE around Innsbruck , While I do agree XP does a very good job in this area, I think FSX/P3D does so as well.

 

Yes they are beautiful shots,  but as a comparison to what murmur posted for P3D, they are apples and oranges. Note the XP and real shots are to the horizon, while the P3D shot he posted is more of a top down shot not even showing  the horizon. Here's a shot I took about a week ago in FSXSE around Innsbruck , While I do agree XP does a very good job in this area, I think FSX/P3D does so as well.

Have to agree with Tom here and others.

XP does nice scattering but eventually you hit a fog wall of visibility on the Horizon, which can look false (read = c**p) though sometimes it can be disguised by clouds.

FSX/P3D's horizon looks mostly more natural especially with a good weather engine like ASN, although there is less atmospheric scattering etc.

The bottom line is they both could do with a overhaul but if I had to choose, I'd take P3D+ASN as I really hate the XP fog wall.

AMD vs Nvidia , Apple vs Google , blah vs meh

 

Happy Christmas , flight simmers !

X-Plane needs to really really revamp its trees.  It's bad when an ancient sim like Falcon 4.0 BMS 4.33 has better looking trees than XP.

 

While X.Planes trees don't look very nice individually I think as a whole they work quite well

 

 

 

AMD vs Nvidia , Apple vs Google , blah vs meh

Indeed, it's always a bit of fun with these discussions, but so far the topic has stayed decent ;-). I never understand how people can get so personal over a flightsim (or any software for that matter). I think we're lucky to have a choice of good flight sims now, this wasn't the case a few years ago

Indeed, it's always a bit of fun with these discussions, but so far the topic has stayed decent ;-). I never understand how people can get so personal over a flightsim (or any software for that matter). I think we're lucky to have a choice of good flight sims now, this wasn't the case a few years ago

 

 I was hoping my little jest would defuse any possible flameout And absolutely agree, we are very fortunate to have such a rich choice of flight simulators to choose from. X-plane is making nice improvements and we should have a few more simmers joining us over Christmas since the Steam sale is on.  

Hey Everyone!  This is exactly the topic i was looking for!

 

I'm a long time heavily invested FSX user who is now a fence sitter waiting to take the plunge into X-Plane 10.. 

 

Here's what got me hooked onto X-plane:

 

1. Night Lighting - this was a match winner for me!!!

2. Sloped runways

3. Clouds with shadows (P3D may have it too)

4. Roads, freeways, Plausible world autogen (better than 2D photoscenery)

5. Heat shimmer from exhaust

6. VC rain (in your face FSX!)

7. 64-bit, better utilization of PC specs

 

What concerns me about X-plane:

 

1. The mouse controls for knobs, etc in VC (I know Mac users dont use scroll wheel, but why punish Windows guys for that???)

 

2. The dreaded UI.. they may not fix this until 11.0

 

3. Scenery conversion is not straight forward - which means FSX cannot be sunset yet on my machine.. 

 

Cheers,

Vinod Kumar.

Have a question about performance.. 

Intel i7, 4 GHz (boost upto 4.4), 8GB DDR3 RAM, NVidia GTX 660 Ti 2GB DDR5.

With the above specs, will I be able to run X-plane 10.45 smoothly? I'll be using payware aircraft, payware airports, etc. Would like to run at medium to high settings (not ultra high)...

Which is the most critical factor for FPS - CPU speed, VRAM or RAM?

In what situations, does RAM become the bottle neck?

In what situations, does VRAM become the bottle neck?

I have read the system requirements page on X plane website, but still had these unanswered questions.. basically, I need to know if I have to add another 8GB RAM (will it help?) or if I need to add more VRAM?

thanks!
Vinod Kumar.

With the above specs, will I be able to run X-plane 10.45 smoothly? I'll be using payware aircraft, payware airports, etc. Would like to run at medium to high settings (not ultra high)...

 

 

It's hard to say whether a machine of any given specification will work well because we don't really know what your personal definition of "working well" actually is! You can try the free demonstration version and test for yourself to see how things would work out for your machine and your preferences. The demo is X-Plane 10.45, so it is a 100% accurate representation of how the full version would perform.

 

http://www.x-plane.com/downloads/x-plane_10_demo/

 

Enjoy,

-Greg

Hey Everyone!  This is exactly the topic i was looking for!

 

I'm a long time heavily invested FSX user who is now a fence sitter waiting to take the plunge into X-Plane 10.. 

 

Here's what got me hooked onto X-plane:

 

1. Night Lighting - this was a match winner for me!!!

2. Sloped runways

3. Clouds with shadows (P3D may have it too)

4. Roads, freeways, Plausible world autogen (better than 2D photoscenery)

5. Heat shimmer from exhaust

6. VC rain (in your face FSX!)

7. 64-bit, better utilization of PC specs

 

What concerns me about X-plane:

 

1. The mouse controls for knobs, etc in VC (I know Mac users dont use scroll wheel, but why punish Windows guys for that???)

 

2. The dreaded UI.. they may not fix this until 11.0

 

3. Scenery conversion is not straight forward - which means FSX cannot be sunset yet on my machine.. 

 

Cheers,

Vinod Kumar.

 

 

if your going to buy xplane you should do so now. there is a 50% sale right now on steam

Have a question about performance.. 

Intel i7, 4 GHz (boost upto 4.4), 8GB DDR3 RAM, NVidia GTX 660 Ti 2GB DDR5.

 

With the above specs, will I be able to run X-plane 10.45 smoothly? I'll be using payware aircraft, payware airports, etc. Would like to run at medium to high settings (not ultra high)...

 

Which is the most critical factor for FPS - CPU speed, VRAM or RAM?

 

In what situations, does RAM become the bottle neck?

 

In what situations, does VRAM become the bottle neck?

 

I have read the system requirements page on X plane website, but still had these unanswered questions.. basically, I need to know if I have to add another 8GB RAM (will it help?) or if I need to add more VRAM?

 

thanks!

Vinod Kumar.

 

 

 

the more ram you have for xplane the better. if you go 16 gig you should be fine.

many suggest a 4gig graphic card but thats up to you. i would add the extra 8 gig of ram first to see how it goes