My original point was that XP11 isn't likely to "look better than P3d". Even with your excellent mesh product, it's likely to look more or less the same. In any case, comparing LOD for various terrain products can be somewhat misleading, because although the product itself may have high spatial resolution, the original data may not be of the same caliber. If I take a photo with my iPhone of a screenshot from an old VGA monitor, it isn't going to look any better in the photo.

 

There is one huge difference between XP11 and P3D where we can make a comparison, and that's level of detail in the distance.

 

XP11 now defaults to extended dsf scenery loading, which used to be just an option in XP10. It's now default because more users are installing enough RAM to handle it. We now see mountain ranges better in the distance, but it also affects how much detail we see on the ground.

 

One of the things I've always liked about X-Plane 10 and now 11 is that as a bush pilot, I can zoom way out into the distance on a clear day, and spot a tiny airstrip I'm looking for. Houses, buildings, streets, cars and trees are all out there in the distance, even if you don't usually see it without zooming the view. The 64 bit address space allows loading and pre-loading that stuff without a memory crunch. Scenery doesn't pop-in like it does in FSX/P3D. 

 

Orbx has been able to take advantage of the more limited view distance in FSX/P3D, showing a lot of 3D detail and balancing that against frame rate. So one of the things I'm curious about, is whether they can maintain good frame rates while (presumably) loading far more objects within the greater visibility distance in X-Plane. This may be as much a challenge as the default mesh being re-cut underneath their products.

Nothing beats mountains in Xplane. this is where it shines and love mountain flying.  

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours... :wink:

 

 

Has never been a secret sir :smile:

• http://www.alpilotx.net/downloads/x-plane-10-hd-mesh-scenery-v3/#Data-Sources-Acknowledgments

(most of is I have since then updated to more up-to-date data sets ... like the before mentioned NLCD 2011 etc. etc.)

 

And neither would I go as far as saying X-plane looks better or worse ... it just plain looks different and has its own pros and cons in the way it represents that geographic data.

I don't have P3d , but i have made a mesh and landclass for FSX though i don't use FSX anymore , but when it comes to mountains no sim can take me away from Xplane.  

 

 

but when it comes to mountains no sim can take me away from Xplane.

 

Do you use specific addons? Did you make your own ortho's? Or do you use default scenery? I am wondering what makes XP the best mountain flying sim. Of course the fact that you see NOTHING popup and/or loading at all, like in FSX/P3D (which is a total immersion killer), is very important but maybe there is more to it? Just curious. :wink:

 

 

And neither would I go as far as saying X-plane looks better or worse ... it just plain looks different and has its own pros and cons in the way it represents that geographic data.

 

Agreed, although what you like more is usually what you call better... :wink: But it is subjective. I absolutely hate those ESP textures with buildings in them with roads running through them but in XP I can't say I always like how the roads look and the effect they can have on rural area's (to put it mildly). However, I hate  the ESP way of doing things more than I 'hate' XP's way so to me XP is better and EPS worse. :wink:

By the way, two years ago the German simflight site did a big comparison of different FSX landclass products ... and I then joined in with HD Mesh Scenery base screenshots to see how they compare.

 

Even though the whole text is in German (you could still have good luck translating via Google), the screenshots all speak for themselves (and should be understandable to all here). I recommend you a look at that:

• http://www.simflight.de/2014/09/14/der-grosse-vergleich-mit-welchen-landklassen-und-texturen-sieht-deutschland-besten-aus/

And since then, things only improved further (especially with UHD Mesh - where available ... but also HD Mesh will see nice improve too with a lot of updated data etc. .... even in cities).

Do you use specific addons? Did you make your own ortho's? Or do you use default scenery? I am wondering what makes XP the best mountain flying sim. Of course the fact that you see NOTHING popup and/or loading at all, like in FSX/P3D (which is a total immersion killer), is very important but maybe there is more to it? Just curious. :wink:

 

 

Mountian addons ? right now none except my own mesh due to system limitation , but the best is Andras meshes.

 

Xplanes mountains have the immersion the 3d depth .

 

I am personally not too fond of orthos because there are static stuff which cones with them e.g. traffic on the roads , sometimes clouds etc.. other reason not fond of orthos is the 3d objects used with OSM still won't give all the buildings for the trees and if there is a building missing then it looks like birds white poo and i don't like that and orthos use too much of drive space , i am still ok with XPlane's default textures , though some places it does look terrible. Yes orhos can be great if used for mountains. But this is my opinion

Do you use specific addons? Did you make your own ortho's? Or do you use default scenery? I am wondering what makes XP the best mountain flying sim. Of course the fact that you see NOTHING popup and/or loading at all, like in FSX/P3D (which is a total immersion killer), is very important but maybe there is more to it? Just curious.

 

The default mesh is good, but with Andras' free HD v3 and UHD v1 mesh the mountains are even better. That's the major add-on if you're looking for great mountain flying.

 

I just run HD v3 most places, haven't really dipped into UHD yet. The higher resolution data means far less of that "stretched bitmap" look over mountains. There is more detail in the shape of mountain ridges, fewer weird zig-zag shapes, and better representation of forests in the landclass tiles. 

I just run HD v3 most places, haven't really dipped into UHD yet. The higher resolution data means far less of that "stretched bitmap" look over mountains. There is more detail in the shape of mountain ridges, fewer weird zig-zag shapes, and better representation of forests in the landclass tiles. 

Well, avoiding "stretched" bitmaps is achieved in a "different" way in X-Plane. They usually happen if you project textures on the ground top-down on steeply sloped surfaces. Which happens in MSFS as far as I know ... but also with orthphoto scenery in X-Plane(!).

 

Now in the landclass based mesh scenery (HD / UHD Mesh and default Global Scenery)  we have a much larger freedom and not just decide which textures to use in a given place (based on landclass data), but also how to apply it. And there are quite a bunch of shaders which allow a few tricks (not just plain top-down texture projection) ... among them are the hill and cliff shaders .... The hill shaders for example allow us to rotate textures depending on the slope direction (which aligns small trenched / gullys in the texture much better with the mountains shape) . And the cliff shaders allow projecting textures from the side (which is far more reasonable for steep slopes) instead of top-down, which helps to avoid that "stretching" effect. All these (and more) are helping to get those "better looking" mountains etc. ... and this is not new to XP11, but was there since XP10 ...

The default mesh is good, but with Andras' free HD v3 and UHD v1 mesh the mountains are even better. That's the major add-on if you're looking for great mountain flying.

 

I just run HD v3 most places, haven't really dipped into UHD yet. The higher resolution data means far less of that "stretched bitmap" look over mountains. There is more detail in the shape of mountain ridges, fewer weird zig-zag shapes, and better representation of forests in the landclass tiles.

 

Ok, then I might reinstall it again... I do like the new European roads and the fact that default XP11 is more up to date but I may like good mountains even more...! So I will give it another go.

Ok, then I might reinstall it again... I do like the new European roads and the fact that default XP11 is more up to date but I may like good mountains even more...! So I will give it another go.

 

The ALps are amazing in the HD / UHD Mesh. and with XP11's lighting it looks so much better. I think you need a good amount RAM to run them 

Ok, then I might reinstall it again... I do like the new European roads and the fact that default XP11 is more up to date but I may like good mountains even more...! So I will give it another go.

Yeah, for European roads (and more :wink: ), you will need to wait for an update (probably called HD Mesh Scenery v4 ... yeah, not very creative but logical).

The ALps are amazing in the HD / UHD Mesh. and with XP11's lighting it looks so much better. I think you need a good amount RAM to run them

 

I will give it a try. I have 16 GB RAM and a GTX780, yeah, old, but with 6 GB.

 

Yeah, for European roads (and more :wink: ), you will need to wait for an update (probably called HD Mesh Scenery v4 ... yeah, not very creative but logical).

You make it sound as if you are already working on it...? I like that 'and more'! Love the logical naming btw LOL

I will give it a try. I have 16 GB RAM and a GTX780, yeah, old, but with 6 GB.

 

 

You make it sound as if you are already working on it...? I like that 'and more'! Love the logical naming btw LOL

 

I think you are good with 16 GB for HD but don't know if UHD needs more , VRAM seems to be ok.

 

Try a flight from LFLJ it will be a wonderful one.

I think you are good with 16 GB for HD but don't know if UHD needs more , VRAM seems to be ok.

 

Try a flight from LFLJ it will be a wonderful one.

LFLJ, thanks for the tip! I will do that!