How can you do that? I could use some contrast and saturation but I don't have any options for that. Do I need to edit an ini somewhere?

 

I used MaxxFX. Reshade is also an option, and free. Bit tricky not to overdo it but the box colors are too bland IMO.

autogen to max

 

But no trees (not one) and few buildings.  I smell a (very smelly) rat 

 

Shouldn't all this junk be in the XP forum?

 

 

Location please?

Tried the XPlane 11 demo.....

 

Can't say it was love at first sight due to some initial controller issue forcing the need to get into the configuration options pronto. But once settled and I could fly, the experience was better than I could anticipate for a demo and I have to say I was gratified.

 

Coming from a background of various Sims, including my current favorite P3D, I have to say this team has done something well. I tried xp10 previously and it didn't do much for me. But version 11 has definitely gotten my attention... Sold.

 

I purchased it so I could explore the other areas and that is going well. I loaded nycx last night and I must say...... NYC never looked better. And no Oom, and building textures are as meant to be..... For that alone this is a worthwhile experience.

 

Congrads to the team and effort. I am already enjoying this Rendition.

Does X-plane 11 finally have different seasons?

 

And after watching the videos, they still haven't replaced that annoying screech on landings. The curved runways are nice but the airplanes bounce when they crest the top of the curve, which is kind of silly.

No seasons yet, was one of my wishes but the sim is still awesome..

I use P3D and X-Plane, both are great.

But no trees (not one) and few buildings.  I smell a (very smelly) rat 

 

Shouldn't all this junk be in the XP forum?

 

 

Location please?

 

Location as stated: LFMD

 

I was myself surprised by the low depiction of this region. I have a couple of full ORBX regions and they are obviously better. Open LC Europe was disappointing however from the beginning. Open LC USA is much better IMO. I don't have good orthos for the US that's why I started with a European comparison. Happy to do another one against say PNW or SoCal if folks are interested. 

Liking the new UI, but the lighting issue still remains, when flying at night you can clearly see in the distance where the light ends. I would hope that they have addressed this issue by now. The terrible looking clouds are still there, when are they going to fix this? However, everything else is nice, loving the night lighting and updated scenery and rendering system. But please fix the cloud issue and the light issue, and I hope the low-res moon have been fixed as well. I haven't gotten a chance to mess with the new beta much.

 

Not trying to start an argument, but do you seriously not see the same thing in P3D? Logically, there has to be a limit where the lights end in both sims.

 

I get ugly hard lines for the autogen in P3D during the day as well that kills immersion.

I've never seen it on the real plane, either, since the 172S has little metal flaps that hand below the strobe lights to prevent exactly that occurrence. 

 

That said, XP11 looks pretty damn amazing, even if the night lighting is a LITTLE overboard.

 

Some do, some don't. A 172S is a much later model than your typical M or N model most fly. My 182P doesn't have those flaps.

 

They are there in real life to prevent disorientation in clouds as strobes can get gnarly in no vis environments.

Incredible stuff.

The reflections are very impressive.

LOL Seriously! Hahahaha! I have yet to see colors like that in XP! And there us no haze at all...?! But you are right and I was wrong. Funny still that in the end I found picture 2 more real to life. 

Really? With that airport that looks like it was pasted over the scenery and the incorrect shoreline?

Here are my comparison shots.

 

The base is the aerial photo of LFMD, obviously taken in winter as we can see snow on the mountains.

I set both sims to today's date, 11:40Z, full visibility.

Prepar3D is running with FTX Global, Vector and EuropeLC, scenery and autogen to max, default shaders, HDR on, saturation and bloom a bit increased.

X-Plane is running with a ZL17 Ortho4XP/World2Xplane OSM not enhanced, objects to high, visual effects to high, contrast and saturation a notch increased from stock.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

 

 

 

I really like the seasonal colours the ORBX textures are bringing into FSX/P3D - i really do like them (just as i like most of the ORBX stuff).

However, when it comes down to landclass, the aligning of buidlings and roads and when it comes down to lighting and colours, X Plane is very, very convincing these days and has to offer a real lot!

I am aware of the fact that the X Plane shot above is based on photoscenery, but as we are here to see how "impessive" X Plane may become if set up nicely, this shot is quite a good example for it (albeit the lack of seasonal variation of colours for ground textures ... )

And let's bare in mind that scenery (and scenerytextures) can be improved by 3rd party developers and/or users comparatively "easy" (time and/or money permitted), while improving/changing a sim's internal structur of using landclass information, mesh, vector data, the way how lighting and shadowing are being handled and all that are way harder to, or even impossible to change.

So it is important to have a "plausible", convincing and reliable flightsim base to built on - and X Plane is quite impressive in this regards i think.

 

Yes, thanks, I saw it, sorry for not responding, but I managed to get an airport running in the meantime. I think the main problem was some library that was missing... or something like that. But it's working now. It looks quote okay too (ENBR from tdg) with Parker planes and all.

 

I just (well, just...) installed Norway Pro and all possible libraries and decided to create a comparison between XP11, P3D and real life. (EDIT The city you see is Bergen, Norway.)  I am using the settings I am using in the sim, so I didn't set things to max for this comparison. It's pretty rough (didn't remove the menu and slew info) but it gives an idea.

 

My main findings are:

 

1. XP11 (with Norway Pro) lacks color and the haze is way too much: things look very grey and bland and the buildings look like simple Lego blocks. It doesn't look real at all compared to the real photo. It looks like a rather basic (and old) computer game.

2. P3D (with FTX Norway) looks like a total mess with those ground textures going absolutely nowhere but from a greater distance it feels more like the real thing, mainly due to the colors and the clutter. It doesn't come close neither, really, but it feels closer somehow... you just shouldn't look too close. Close your eyes a bit and gaze at the three pictures and to me P3D comes closer to the real life picture. (EDIT Maybe I should have maxed out the P3D autogen for this comparison: XP is using the max amount of world detail.) BTW I seriously checked if FTX Norway was installed allright because it looked so bad... look at the textures with houses baked in near the shore... yikes.

 

Take note that I didn't post this just to say P3D is better of XP11 sucks: I am just comparing things. And you can't really say these are apples and oranges because XP has been 'upgraded' with one of the better freeware addons. This is what you can get right now and P3D nor XP11 can't get any better afaik. Unfortunately. :wink: (EDIT: XP probably CAN get better in this example with Ortho4XP groundtextures: forgot about that. I suppose that with Norway Pro that would make a real difference. It's next on my list of things to try.)

 

In short: we still have a few decades to go LOL (and seeing these screenshots almost make me lose hope I will see a real good sim in my lifetime).

 

 

... i just rechecked Your great shots here Jeroen and have to say that compared to the real one from Norway right above, the third one taken in X Plane by Hans aka "hjsmuc" further above, looks quiet good in terms of lighting i think.

 

By the way:

Does anyone know if "ShePooley" and "Winterpackage" work under X Plane 11?

 

Anyways, it is early days still and who knows where we will get with X Plane 11.

So far however i remain "impressed", although being aware of the fact, that there is still a lot to be desired. But again - and for now - X Plane certainly seems to be heading into a very good direction.

I am definitely going to enjoy flying around in X Plane 11 whenever possible - and sure i am going to keep my trustworthy FSX installed too, as there is nothing wrong in enjoying various simming platforms.

:wink: :smile:

XP11 has amazing eyecandy!

How about performance ? what monster machine is needed ?

XP11 has amazing eyecandy!

How about performance ? what monster machine is needed ?

Johan!  Long time, sir!  Hope you are well!

I'll answer this one for you.  Many people are reporting better performance in XP11 than XP10.  However, I have a link for you.

http://www.x-plane.com/2016/11/x-plane-11-system-requirements-announced/

Johan,

 

I am for sure getting better performance, specially noticeable at higher graphics and World Detail settings ( default scenery only ) in XP11 compared to XP10.

 

It gives me more than enough performance at 3 flight models per frame, on my 2011 i5 2500k @ 3,3 GHz. I have a GTX 960 4GB Geeforce graphics card, and that certainly helps, and 16 GB DD3 3 RAM.

I can confirm this observation.

Even with my old GTX 670 (2GB VRAM), it performs extremely well when the texture resolution is set to medium! I am really looking forward to a new card by the end of the year.

And don't forget that for the beta, rendering optimization is not complete so performance is likely to improve.

There's a lot going on in that scrolling shot posted by J van E 

 

The XP shot for starters is using W2XP with no scenery underneath. So it just puts very simple buildings on blank green ground textures. That's not a good look to me and not representative of XP at it's best. Default XP places buildings on textures in a more sorted fashion that looks much better. 

BUT, it's not going to have super accurate "fly over my house" locations of buildings (neither does Orbx though). W2XP with photo scenery is really the way to go if you want that. Otherwise, stick with default because it looks better IMO as a total package. I'd be interested to see that area default with the new European autogen. 

Here are my comparison shots.

 

The base is the aerial photo of LFMD, obviously taken in winter as we can see snow on the mountains.

I set both sims to today's date, 11:40Z, full visibility.

Prepar3D is running with FTX Global, Vector and EuropeLC, scenery and autogen to max, default shaders, HDR on, saturation and bloom a bit increased.

X-Plane is running with a ZL17 Ortho4XP/World2Xplane OSM not enhanced, objects to high, visual effects to high, contrast and saturation a notch increased from stock.

 

Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

I quit using XP10 because of some quirks that bugged me so I'm not an XP cultist by any means.  

BUT, there's no one alive that should think that the middle P3D shot looks better than the bottom XP shot. It's not even close. Not even in the same universe. If you think the middle looks better simply because of colors, then maybe you'd enjoy flying FS5.1 with some replacement textures.