Which I, unfortunately, can't share. My Prepar3d tweaking is simple - it's none (aside Nvidia Inspector, which I wouldn't count as tweaking). ORBX sceneries - I own all of them - run pretty well, no blurries (with a very few exceptional areas), and I have a lot of fun with them and am much looking forward to FTX Germany. I should mention, though, I nearly only fly GA and use a hardware panel and a networked machine to take some load off the main machine.

 

In 80% of the cases blurries are the result of misconfigurations, mostly wrong affinity masks. As I said, my world is simple. I use HT off an no AM at all.

 

This said, I also use X-Plane from time to time and enjoy it as well, mostly using wonderful freeware addons, but I couldn't forgo a few payware addons including Skymaxx and the FIPs driver. Honestly, I needed some X-Plane tweaking to get HDR working without a steep fps hit, but I found a few tips to manage it and it can be done, too.

 

Isn't it a pretty world? 

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

 

I nearly only fly GA

 

That's the whole point of many blurries / stutters arguments. Of course a strong system may run P3D without blurries when traveling with 120 kts.

 

In X-Plane, a well setup system can sustain 30 fps with no blurries going Mach 1.2 through Times Square. Something that is simply not possible in the old sim.

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

 

Read again, you didn't understand it at all. I said the exact opposite.

 

I've flown most airliners there are for both P3D/FSX and X-Plane, the IXEG and FF767 (never tried the 757) are very much on top of that list regarding operation, performance and credibility. The flying rocks i mentioned are not these for sure.

 

I also said these two are not enough for me to "move over" to X-Plane, i need more variety to enjoy the sim.

Swallow this P3D.

 

And when the kids battles begin, i retreat. 

 

Goodbye.

Guys, I use both, but just for the sight seeing....

 

Every aircraft model I use in either FSX and derivates or X-plane looks.... poor to say the least...

 

I still use P3D, sometimes when I buy the monthly license to play it with PSX, and X-plane 10 for the same reason. There are some good add-ons probably, but i don't own them so, I really can't comment on those...

 

My preferred airliner on those sims was the PMDG 777, which I actually own for both platforms, but can't even compare, in terms of feel and complexity to my Aerowinx PSX - and I know they're different Boeings .... but it's the feel guys - THE FEEL! The first time one makes a simple circuit in one of the PSX 744, it's the first time it becomes obvious were the difference is... The first time one lands under gusting winds and turbulence, it's the first time one feels how much superior in all aspects the flight dynamics and even the weather models are ... from there on it's really difficult to feel an airliner in the other sims...

 

They're good FWIW... outside views ...

 

Good flight dynamics for smaller aircraft and rotary wing? Yes, in DCS and il2 too, but I don't like air combat and feel pathetic playing air combat....

 

Aerofly FS 2 is promising too, but still too early to know what's going to happen to it... I hope for the best though...

And when the kids battles begin, i retreat. 

 

Goodbye.

 

Come on, it's the XP forum, what did you expect 

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.

 

I also agree that this is one of the biggest advantages of X-Plane.

 

I looked over the FTX Germany shots; while the textures do look nice in screenshots, in the back of my mind I know they simply are a selection of textures that have simply represent the type of landclass in any given location. My issue with that becomes quite apparent when you overlay a real world road network - those roads baked into the textures at best aren't representative of the real world, and at worst clash quite badly.

 

This is my single biggest complaint about FTX textures. While kind of unavoidable in urban textures, I really wish their rural / farmland textures had no roads whatsoever. I dislike flying low and slow over rural areas I know well, and seeing not only the roads added by the vector data I'm using (UTXv2) but also the fake ones in the textures.

 

Of course, I'd likely not be as aware of it in a country or region I've never been to. :smile: I find I can enjoy FTX Scotland and England quite a bit, for example.

 

There was also mention made earlier in this thread about XP mesh and textures remaining crisp and detailed at distance, this is another area I really appreciate about XP. Really, the only thing that keeps me using P3D at this point is that I enjoy messing around with such a wide variety of GA aircraft that the selection in XP alone is just not enough. Using both platforms means that I get to enjoy the widest selection. However, I rather prefer 'scenery watching' in XP.

What we need I think is a middle ground between landclass textures and X-Plane's blending approach. If the system could somehow place suitable textures around the roads and autogen it would be an instant improvement, e.g. To align field textures to roads and the like. I'm sure something like this is very difficult to do which is why we haven't yet seen it. X-Plane's strength is in how it depicts sloped terrain and mountains, where this tends to be a stretched texture in FSX.