I'm feeling envious

[Paraffin 2,197]

I don't have problems with blurries. Mine are sharp.

 

I don't think my personal objection to the platform is just "blurries" but the amount and quality of scenery I can see in the distance.

 

I fly mostly bush planes and helicopters, and very often in FSEconomy where I might be landing at a small, unmarked airstrip. Often it's a place I've never been before, and the runway can be hard to spot among surrounding trees or farmland. Especially if it's something like a grass strip or beach landing strip. 

 

In X-Plane I can zoom *way* out into the far distance, and everything is still tack sharp and detailed (weather/visibility permitting). It makes it easier to find those small airstrips. I don't think that degree of detail in the distance is possible in FSX/P3D, so it keeps me from lusting too much over Orbx scenery. I think we'll eventually get there with the combination of data sources like Open Street Map autogen in X-Plane anyway. It just might take a while.

[LAdamson 240]

I was lured back into PD3 when seeing the screenshots of ORBX Socal, especially since I live in CA. The screenshots were a lot nicer then the experience. I hated how the terrain textures would load as you fly. The high-resolution textures eventually appear after some delay but not untill you were practically flying over them. Even then it was nothing amazing. I would have to slide the slider all the way to the right to get the same level of visual eye candy that I get in XPX, but that would kill my performance. Then you need to purchase ADD-ON aircraft, clouds, airports, ORBX FTX BASE, FTX Vector, FTX Open LC, to make it look descent. That gets a little expensive ! All those ADD-ONs would exasperate the texture loading and OOM errors. + all the tweaking to get everything to work together. No thanks ! And the fealing of flying on rails. 

 

Aerofly 2 is a better alternative with a lot of potential !

For starters, Orbx has never been much of a problem scenery & fps wise. It absolutely does make a great sim experience for me.  My setup is powerful enough to run it well.  Never have OOMs, but I don't fly tubeliners for hours either. And what's this "flying on rails" stuff?  I've already told everyone that, that's pure baloney! 

 

 

X-Plane is so much better for what I like to do in a flight sim, that neither Orbx nor PMDG, Flightsimlabs, RealAir, LevelD etc. could ever pull me back to FSX/P3D.

 

Just curious.............as in what?

[CarlosF 1,235]

 

 

And the fealing of flying on rails. 

 

I second that!

[Colonel X 1,428]

Up until now this was a distinctively peaceful discussion for THIS kind of topic.

 

Now obey to X-Plane !!!

 

 

 

Neu-Isenburg

 

 

 

 

Wiesbaden

 

 

 

 

EDDF approach

[strider1 575]

For starters, Orbx has never been much of a problem scenery & fps wise. It absolutely does make a great sim experience for me.  My setup is powerful enough to run it well.  Never have OOMs, but I don't fly tubeliners for hours either. And what's this "flying on rails" stuff?  I've already told everyone that, that's pure baloney! 

 

 

 

Just curious.............as in what?

 

My setup is powerful enough to run XPX in the extreme/high settings. In PD3 I need dial back the settings, otherwise it's a stuttering mess ! I don't get the visual or control sensation of flight in FSX/PD3, it's like on rails. I can't exactly put my finger on it. The same goes with Aerofly 2. I think it has something to do with coefficients and data tables that they both use. XPX just seems more fluid !

 

Cheers.........

[LAdamson 240]

My setup is powerful enough to run XPX in the extreme/high settings. In PD3 I need dial back the settings, otherwise it's a stuttering mess ! I don't get the visual or control sensation of flight in FSX/PD3, it's like on rails. I can't exactly put my finger on it. The same goes with Aerofly 2. I think it has something to do with coefficients and data tables that they both use. XPX just seems more fluid !

 

Cheers.........

To me, with the newer GA airplanes for X-Plane 10.........................I'd say that they are very comparable, to what I consider some of the best for FSX, in regards to feel & control.  Since I'm able to run X-Plane & FSX with high frame rates, and smooth visuals, it's even more so than in the past.

I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about the "Flying on rails" saying. I've only expressed those thoughts,  thousands of times over the years. Basically a bunch of baloney.  With my prior computer setups, X-Plane was always more fluid. I also think that the fluid visuals con some people into thinking it has preferable flight dynamics.  Now, they're both fluid, most of the time. I can still drag either sim down. 

[Lynk 4]

With W2XP + Ortho4XP, you get orthoimagery with the correct location for the autogen. Only if OSM is very detailed but it is the case for Germany. 

 

You can find your house in XP with this combo. 

 

I've seen more realistic screenshots of Germany than the one from FTX.

[tonywob 4,768]

 

 

As long as you don´t know the area, yes. Then they get a pretty good general impression. If you know the area the normal reaction is Nope. It doesn´t fit.

 

This is very much true. When I picked up the UK and flew over the the area I grew up in, I was immensely disappointed, it bared little resemblance to the real thing. I now live somewhat near to Berlin, and the shots they gave were incredible (but it's known that they gave this area the ortho treatment). Germany looks very good to me, and it looks like much more effort is being put into this than England, but I guess the same will still apply. I still very much prefer X-Plane for mountain area flying.

 

 

 

Up until now this was a distinctively peaceful discussion for THIS kind of topic.
 
Now obey to X-Plane !!!

 

Wonderful shots, X-Plane really does excel at night-time flying, but I also want to fly during the day and see the ground. I believe it's no coincidence that the vast majority of XP screenshots are taken during dawn/dusk or at night when the ground can't be seen (Mountains being the exception to the rule) :-). 

 

 

 

You can find your house in XP with this combo.  I've seen more realistic screenshots of Germany than the one from FTX.

 

Yes and this was my goal with World2XPlane, but it also requires users to download or generate GBs of photoscenery, and I've learned that most people do not want to do this.

 

Last year, I tried to reproduce the landclass approach to scenery in X-Plane (http://www.avsim.com/topic/482409-bringing-fsxorbx-landclass-to-x-plane/). I got it working, but then realised why companies such as ORBX take months and months, a lot of money and resources and time into bringing these regions to life. It's a huge investment in creating artwork, and I couldn't do it on my own so I gave up and have moved on to creating airports and overlay region packs :-)

[Murmur 3,941]

Last year, I tried to reproduce the landclass approach to scenery in X-Plane (http://www.avsim.com/topic/482409-bringing-fsxorbx-landclass-to-x-plane/). I got it working, but then realised why companies such as ORBX take months and months, a lot of money and resources and time into bringing these regions to life. It's a huge investment in creating artwork, and I couldn't do it on my own so I gave up and have moved on to creating airports and overlay region packs :-)

 

The landclass approach was a nice experiment, but I think that the X-Plane approach has too many advantages, even if at the moment it may not be 100% perfect: a lot better for VFR navigation, no baked fake structures in the textures, and natively ready to be integrated with orthopthotos.

 

I'll go as far as saying that it's the single biggest advantage it currently has over MSFS derived simulators, and the good thing is that it will only improve with time.

[Colonel X 1,428]

Wonderful shots, X-Plane really does excel at night-time flying, but I also want to fly during the day and see the ground. I believe it's no coincidence that the vast majority of XP screenshots are taken during dawn/dusk or at night when the ground can't be seen (Mountains being the exception to the rule) :-).

 

This is true to some extent. I use post effects (MaxxXP and a calibrated display for X-Plane) plus custom sky colors to get that vibrant sunny look that does't come out of the box with X-Plane.

 

I think the problem here lies in the fact that Laminar (to my knowledge) hasn't hired an Art Director yet, someone that defines the look and feel of the sim. At dusk, it just works, but at daytime, standard X-Plane tends to be dull and lacking. Color grading, saturation, vibrance... the user has to fix it as of now. But it's possible.

 

I will post some daytime shots of my "Ventura Colors" setup later.

[JGregory 76]

I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about the "Flying on rails" saying. I've only expressed those thoughts,  thousands of times over the years. Basically a bunch of baloney.  

Perception is reality!

[Nuno Pinto 1,394]

 

Now obey to X-Plane !!!

 

 

Impossible, there are no good aircraft. IXEG's 737 and FF's 767 are not enough and i don't want to fly beautiful sceneries with flying rocks.

 

The rest is simply not on par with P3D/FSX's offer, maybe PMDG's DC-6 but i don't like the type. With gems such as FSL's A320 coming out and soon PMDG's 747, QW's 787 and DA's CRJ i don't see myself using X-Plane anytime soon.

 

That being said, X-Plane rests on my 512 SSD waiting for a revival of some sort, unfortunately.

[yidahoo 365]

Impossible, there are no good aircraft. IXEG's 737 and FF's 767 are not enough and i don't want to fly beautiful sceneries with flying rocks.

 

The rest is simply not on par with P3D/FSX's offer, maybe PMDG's DC-6 but i don't like the type. With gems such as FSL's A320 coming out and soon PMDG's 747, QW's 787 and DA's CRJ i don't see myself using X-Plane anytime soon.

 

That being said, X-Plane rests on my 512 SSD waiting for a revival of some sort, unfortunately.

 

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is. IXEG 737 a flying rock. Wow, just wow

[Denco 48]

I don't have problems with blurries. Mine are sharp.

I've spent two years in FSX and later on in P3D. More than half of it was tweaking the sim. Let's just say that I wan't to be envious when I see all the screenshots from ORBX, but than I remember all the horrible and constant blurries and bad performance. But that's just my experience.

[Colonel X 1,428]

 

 

Impossible, there are no good aircraft. IXEG's 737 and FF's 767 are not enough and i don't want to fly beautiful sceneries with flying rocks.

 

I am a friend of strong opinions, but I really think lots of people have fun with these how-semi-ever-pro airliners.