I'm new to X-Plane as well. I've found the Challenger 300 and the CRJ-200 to be quite good with the CRJ a little better in my opinion. If you're OK with a regional turboprop instead of a jet, the Saab 340 is extremely well done and very fun to fly.

Hi, thanks.. but the Challenger and the CRJ are bad designed for my taste, I've looked at the 340 already and it looks good enough.. i need to find more videos and pictures, coz I won't waste my money on something that then i won't fly.

I know I'm exigent, but I really can't look at a low res texture or a bad designed knob and stuff like this.. it really ruins everything after you spend so much time and money to tweak your scenery, upgrade your PC to pump the settings to the "max".. etc.

I'm talking exclusively about the look of course.. not the physics, avionics, etc.

it really ruins everything after you spend so much time and money

I'm talking exclusively about the look of course.. not the physics, avionics, etc

 

Really????

 

Why would you call the CRJ a "bad designed" as you put it, if you don't even own it?

 

Do you have the slightest idea of how much time and money (time=money) developers put on in such complicated projects? I Don't think so cause if you did, you would not be making such negative comments.

 

If you don't like the looks then don't buy it.

 

I can understand you are "exigent" but to criticize in such manner an extremely well designed aircraft from every perspective, is just totally uncalled for.  

Looks do matter to me. I like the way the CRJ looks. I have this one on my wish list.

 

Just as important to me is the ability to enter a FP and use the AP to fly the plan and ILS approach. If the plane can't do that, then I do not see a reason to buy it.

 

Sounds add to the immersion. IMHO this is where XP 10 fails to deliver.

Really????

 

Why would you call the CRJ a "bad designed" as you put it, if you don't even own it?

 

Do you have the slightest idea of how much time and money (time=money) developers put on in such complicated projects? I Don't think so cause if you did, you would not be making such negative comments.

 

If you don't like the looks then don't buy it.

 

I can understand you are "exigent" but to criticize in such manner an extremely well designed aircraft from every perspective, is just totally uncalled for.  

 

Ok a couple of examples:

 

Everything that looks worse than a Carenado B1900D is bad designed for my taste (The B1900 is acceptable).

A IXEG 737 or a PMDG 737 (talking about FSX/P3D) are well designed for my taste.

 

I didn't talked about the developer effort, neither I want to discuss about how many people have worked at the CRJ if compared with Carenado or PMDG companies. I'm talking exclusively about the graphic quality.

 

You say, if you don't like it... the issue is that looking at the youtube videos or screenshots isn't the best way to judge... but unfortunately they doesn't provide a DEMO or an evaluation copy, so that's the only way I have (and asking here on the forum of course).

Looks do matter to me. I like the way the CRJ looks. I have this one on my wish list.

 

Just as important to me is the ability to enter a FP and use the AP to fly the plan and ILS approach. If the plane can't do that, then I do not see a reason to buy it.

 

Sounds add to the immersion. IMHO this is where XP 10 fails to deliver.

 

Right.. im struggling to find the same quality I have with P3D, some of the models there does have the WOW factor.

Talking about the scenery I find P3D at low altitude with ORBX more convincing, while XP10 with mesh performs better at high altitude because of the textures diversification.

The weather (and the clouds representation) .. there's no story here, XP10 is ugly as hell if compared with REX, even with SkyMaxx+connector and RTH tweaks.. 90% of the times the clouds are so fake that you must turn them off.

Where XP is really ahead of P3D is about the night (so the lighting).. it's really well done and alot more convincing than P3D.

 

But in general I agree, with XP I find it harder to replicate a "real world" scenario, in example just for a nice screenshot... with P3D I found it easier as at every flight I was "oh!".

 

Atm I'm still experimenting with XP, because i find the flight more smooth (despite the similar fps) and because P3Dv3.2 is a nightmare with the blurred textures.. so i'm taking a pause from it.

 

...oh and i'm massively OT in this thread!

PMDG 737 (talking about FSX/P3D) are well designed for my taste.

 

LOL...did you ever see the B1900 cockpit graphics/instrument panel by PMDG when it first came out? I would guess you didn't. 

 

I bought it anyway, my way of supporting a company's first release.

 

Edit:

 

I would think and maybe even bet on it, that JRollon (CRJ creator) traded cockpit looks for fidelity in the hopes that performance would not be an issue. If that is the case, then he did right on doing so. Now a days, we have GPU's 3 or 4 times faster then what was available at the time, so "bad designed" cockpit graphics as you have put it, is a thing of the past (IXEG 737) 

I'm sorry, but I'm not talking about donations (because for me purchasing something that I won't use, will be just that... a donation). I want to buy something that I will use, not giving my money for "support" (I do often, but I didn't open a thread to ask for who needs support.. ).

You could wait until the new SSG E-170 is released (not to be confused with their earlier version of this plane). It looks like it could have the edge over the X-Crafts E-175, but we will only know this when it's done.

 

http://www.supercritical-simulations.com/?p=2272

I'm sorry, but I'm not talking about donations (because for me purchasing something that I won't use, will be just that... a donation). I want to buy something that I will use, not giving my money for "support" (I do often, but I didn't open a thread to ask for who needs support.. ).

 

 

Donations...LOL.

 

By buying something you are actually supporting it, that is what you and I have been doing all the time and that is precisely why companies like PDGM, REX, etc, keep coming out with better products all the time.

 

I we if all had that "Donation" attitude these companies would NOT be where they are today.

I'll add another vote for the LES Saab 340. There's a huge - and I mean HUGE - quality gap between it and other aircraft that have been mentioned here, such as the CRJ-200 or the X-Crafts E175. The latter two are... well, they're not bad for X-Plane standards, but honestly I would hesitate to recommend them unless they are on sale. The Saab 340 though, as well as the IXEG, are among the few X-Plane addons that can keep up with the best that FSX/P3D have to offer.

 

Now for those who are feeling a bit more adventurous there's also the very excellent Felis AN-24 and his YAK-40. I don't have the Yak, but the AN-24 is absolutely superb and chances are that the Yak is just as good. Also, they're both only $10 and at that price they're a steal!

I'll add another vote for the LES Saab 340. There's a huge - and I mean HUGE - quality gap between it and other aircraft that have been mentioned here, such as the CRJ-200 or the X-Crafts E175. The latter two are... well, they're not bad for X-Plane standards, but honestly I would hesitate to recommend them unless they are on sale. The Saab 340 though, as well as the IXEG, are among the few X-Plane addons that can keep up with the best that FSX/P3D have to offer.

 

Now for those who are feeling a bit more adventurous there's also the very excellent Felis AN-24 and his YAK-40. I don't have the Yak, but the AN-24 is absolutely superb and chances are that the Yak is just as good. Also, they're both only $10 and at that price they're a steal!

 

While I agree with you, I don't think they are what the OP is looking for.

I'll be brutally honest here.... if looks are the absolute only thing that the OP cares deeply about, then why bother trying to apply such stringent standards?

 

I mean, it's obvious that the primary comparison is to FSX/P3D, so why not enjoy the aircraft which DO have the 'looks' in THAT sim, as well as enjoy the aircraft that may pass whatever standards the OP holds in THIS sim.  Run both sims, and enjoy!

 

It should be understood that the rate of product releases in the X-Plane 3rd party addon market is directly proportional to it's market share. We just don't enjoy the same number of developers with the same budgets and team size. Hence the amount and diversity of available aircraft is lower, and in turn, more significance is given to 3rd party aircraft that might be considered graphically dated by current standards.

 

That said, I would say that when you look past 'looks' and get into systems depth, you'll find that although there might be a smaller amount to choose from in X-Plane, a higher percentage of those available have considerable detail beyond the surface textures...

I mean, it's obvious that the primary comparison is to FSX/P3D, so why not enjoy the aircraft which DO have the 'looks' in THAT sim, as well as enjoy the aircraft that may pass whatever standards the OP holds in THIS sim.  Run both sims, and enjoy!

 

Very well said Jimmy

I run both sim (I have quite lot of money invested in P3D), but recently I'm experiencing issues with inconstant performance and especially with blurred textures (if you use it, you know what I'm talking about), an issue that I'm having with 3.2 but not with the previous versions, so I'm convinced that the current version has some problems.. hence I decided to take a pause from it and dedicate some more time to XP (I didn't touched it by a while..).

 

I pumped it to the max and I'm trying to replicate the same visual appeal I had with P3D, under certain aspect I managed to have a better visual (in example in the night), while others are still behind (clouds and weather in general), so we come with the aircrafts: I were used to fly with stunning looking machines, while I'm finding extremely hard to match the same quality with what the 3rd parties offer for XP10... hence this thread.

 

In the end, did I asked for the moon? I asked to have the same quality I have on P3D.. and it's proven that the same quality is possible in XP as well, so I just wanted to know if there's anything else.. if there's nothing else, well I will continue to fly with Carenado and IXEG, until I'll fix my issues with P3D.

 

 

I asked to have the same quality I have on P3D.

 

...and for sure you will have it. Give it some time, XP series is been here for a long while but really XP10 is the one getting traction and recognized by other developers as a potential market.

 

In time Im sure XP (which ever version that may be) will provide the same level of enjoyment you are having with P3D, without the dreaded blurries of course. :smile: