Just tried the demo, 172 feels overpowered and scenery not impressed.

[tonywob 4,770]

Mitch (Sesquashtoo) is lord of all orthos :-). Just curious if he ever gets a chance to fly

[Humpty 751]

8 hours ago, Loose Rudder said:

 

i've just tried the demo and have been left equally un-impressed. It feels like a kids arcade game. The problem is that to get acceptable performance in XP11 it seems, you need to either have a GTX 1080TI 64 Gb vram loaded GPU, or accept horrible low fps. 10 if your'e lucky. Turning down all the sliders and you're left with 20 fps at best but with mush to look at.

Using a 3.5 ghz quad core and GTX 560, i get much better visuals with FSX (which I dislike) and better performance.  

 

 

What's arcade about it ? Have you tried P3d ? does it run well on your system ? better visuals in FSX ? wow i thought P3d had the better visuals. 

Did you expect to get a 100 fps with the sliders to high on that system ? Yeah fsx / p3d will give you that 64 bit

[barrel_owl 304]

7 hours ago, Loose Rudder said:

i've just tried the demo and have been left equally un-impressed. It feels like a kids arcade game. The problem is that to get acceptable performance in XP11 it seems, you need to either have a GTX 1080TI 64 Gb vram loaded GPU, or accept horrible low fps. 10 if your'e lucky. Turning down all the sliders and you're left with 20 fps at best but with mush to look at.

Using a 3.5 ghz quad core and GTX 560, i get much better visuals with FSX (which I dislike) and better performance.  

As a long time FSX user and now XP11 user, I can testify that such statement has no basis of credibility. First of all, please define "better visuals" and "better performance". Which scenario are you describing exactly? Vanilla? With/without Orbx addons? With/without payware aircraft? Which resolution? First time I tested FSX-SE vanilla with the trike I had about 250 FPS. This itself proves nothing, though. I can guarantee you that "visuals" at 250 FPS in FSX-SE are way poorer than visuals at 100-120 FPS in Aerofly or visuals at 40-50 FPS in FSW (which has Orbx Global as default) or visuals at 50-60 FPS in XP. Not to mention that XP is set by default to a much higher LOD than any FSX and P3D version. All these factors must be considered, if we want to make a fair comparison. Performance should always be measured in a typical "work environment", meaning with your usual addons installed and properly set. Otherwise it is nonsense. 

Anyway, good luck using other 64-bit platforms with that rig. I see people with a 7700 and a GTX 1080 fighting to get 20 FPS. Just telling. Care to scroll down the thread list to find a wide array of evidence for what I am talking about. 

[darem 84]

I bought XP10, it rested unused very soon. I bought XP11, it was used quite some time, now it rests again - thanks to P3D V4. It's nothing I can attribute to technical things (although I have to say that XP 11 is a tad slower on my rig with comparable visuals than ?3D V4), it all boils down to the fact that it feels more "artificial" in looks and use than P3D.

[Humpty 751]

P3d is a cartoon

[GoranM 3,772]

27 minutes ago, darem said:

I bought XP10, it rested unused very soon. I bought XP11, it was used quite some time, now it rests again - thanks to P3D V4. It's nothing I can attribute to technical things (although I have to say that XP 11 is a tad slower on my rig with comparable visuals than ?3D V4), it all boils down to the fact that it feels more "artificial" in looks and use than P3D.

Comparable visuals...??

feels more artificial in looks and use than P3D...???

ok...

Hard to believe it feels artificial in looks when the scenery uses actual satellite imagery and the aircraft are textured in PBR.

https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/19944432_1748657405161699_636178771678295046_o.jpg?oh=d12bd8c608f16088edd11f2d4cbf55cf&oe=59C993D9

 

[CFIJose 5,485]

9 hours ago, Loose Rudder said:

 

i've just tried the demo and have been left equally un-impressed. It feels like a kids arcade game. The problem is that to get acceptable performance in XP11 it seems, you need to either have a GTX 1080TI 64 Gb vram loaded GPU, or accept horrible low fps. 10 if your'e lucky. Turning down all the sliders and you're left with 20 fps at best but with mush to look at.

Using a 3.5 ghz quad core and GTX 560, i get much better visuals with FSX (which I dislike) and better performance.  

 

 

Good luck getting these visuals in FSX or P3D for such a nominal investment:

Even the performance is way better in XP 11 on my system.

[Mountain Man 142]

On 6/29/2017 at 8:20 PM, motoadve said:

...not impressed at all...

Gee, that's too bad.  I hope you can find something else to your liking.

Seriously, what's the point of this?  To tell us we're all wrong for preferring X-Plane 11?

[Humpty 751]

11 minutes ago, Mountain Man said:

Gee, that's too bad.  I hope you can find something else to your liking.

Seriously, what's the point of this?  To tell us we're all wrong for preferring X-Plane 11?

they are scared that they are losing

[tonywob 4,770]

Let's end this pointless debate now and all be happy.