Complete Newbie looking for advice

[mikevio 1]

Wow, thanks everyone! Appreciate all the feedback! Seriously!  Looking to fly airliner initially. The A-320 specifically.

 

Thanks again everyone!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Chock said:

and is broadly similar to P3D is capabilities

You're making me cringe Alan when you make comments like that ... anyway, not getting into the long long long list of difference from DX11 to 64bit to, to PBR, to ...

P3D has 60 day money back guarantee and can cost $60-$200 pending version purchase.  XP11 has a free demo that will last 30 minutes and you get two areas to fly around.

As far as Commercial aircraft XP11 have some great choices from Flight Factor A320 and IXEG 737, but these are not on the same level of complexity and feature set as PMDG 747, 777, 737 and/or FSLabs A319/A320.

Out of the box experience is better in XP11.  AddOn experience is better with P3D and there are many more P3D add-ons but XP11 is now getting more AddOn attention also.

Both support VR.

Both support PBR.

Water (3D waves) are better in P3D, the waves are far more diverse and respond to wind speed and direction with nice white caps and even shoreline waves.

Reflections, P3D supports more reflection types and more detailed "dynamic" reflections on the aircraft and/or any reflective surface that is setup to support Dynamic Reflections ... at it's highest setting DR includes sky/cloud reflections on reflective surfaces and even other aircraft and vehicles including terrain, trees, etc. (windows, metal, etc.).  XP11 has reflections also but they are more restrictive which helps them perform better even if some loss in detail.

Visuals, the default Autogen and terrain in P3D is very dated and bland. 

XP11 has a horrible brown haze 24/7 (it can be removed with some work and/or addOns).

Shadow quality in XP11 is bad, just turn it off. 

P3D terrain is known to "shift" (especially in mountain regions) during flight, how much it shifts will depend on graphics settings and add-ons used.

Weather, still not there in XP11, P3D weather depiction is much better with more accurate winds aloft data.

Flight models, both have good and bad ones and has been debated endlessly which is better, P3D does allow any aircraft vendor to do their OWN flight model and/or even partially do their own

Seasons, no "native" support in XP11 (as mentioned) but there are some hacks available but still not really viable IMHO.  P3D has native support for seasons.

Night lighting ... this used to be heavily in favor of XP11, but with the addition of Dynamic Lights in P3D and some updates from various add-on vendors they're very similar now, however, P3D Dynamic Lights do require that you have a strong GPU in order to use them.

XP11 and P3D have OrthoXP which is a great way to get "free" photoreal content into your sim, it does take some work but OrthoXP makes the process easier.

Particle effects, XP11.3x add this feature recently, P3D has had a similar system for a long time but it can be a little quirky to work.

Shader support, XP11 officially says "don't mess with their shaders" but there are products that do.  P3D supports shader changes with several shader products from PTA, TOGO Projects ENVSHADE, TomatoShade, others.  So whatever your shader desire to reach whatever "visuals" you like/want can be achieved with either XP11 or P3D.

Textures, both XP11 and P3D have support for texture replacements and they can make a dramatic difference (especially sky textures).

AI aircraft, work much better in P3D and you can a lot more of them without a huge drop in performance.  No need to generate taxi pathways at airports like one has to do with many of the XP11 airports.  P3D is single install and go, no reliance on other products/downloads to work correctly.

P3D has an Avatar mode, where you can jump out of an aircraft/vehicle and walk around the area and even supports object external triggers (i.e. opening doors etc.) and you can jump into a different aircraft/vehicle in networked multiplayer session.

P3D now supports high resolution Photoreal with 512x512 and 1024x1024 terrain textures, this was a big weakness in P3D prior to V4.4.

Aircraft lights, horrible in XP11 (big giant size blobs when you look at them head on same with Nav lights) and there seems to be no "solution"?

P3D takes some work to get stutter free performance especially if one is running a 60Hz monitor.

ATC "as is" is better in P3D.  There are add-on for both that will improve the ATC experience, but P3D still has the ATC edge.

Since you didn't mention a "budget", I'll assume it's not relevant to you without more information to go on.  But please don't waste your time with FSX/FSX-SE, those products are NOT similar in capabilities to P3D.  XP11 and/or P3D V4.4 are really the best options available.

In summary, "out of the box" (no additional content/add-ons) will be better with XP11.  However, if you have some cash to spend, then carefully selected addOns for P3D V4.4 will be very rewarding also.

This is probably going to start a long debate of X vs. Y, but both platforms are worth the investment, unfortunately to see the best out of P3D does require more AddOn purchases.  And both platforms will require the use of a "blind eye" (aka compromises and ignoring obvious issues).

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by Guest

[Chock 17,769]

29 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

You're making me cringe Alan when you make comments like that ... anyway, not getting into the long long long list of difference from DX11 to 64bit to, to PBR, to ...

Yup, but that's not the point of my post, I'm trying to help someone who asked for advice on which sim to choose, to find a way to decide between a couple of the big choices, and I presented a way for them to determine that, at little cost.

What you list there are pretty much all visual difference capabilities between FSX-SE and P3D V4.4, and as such they are best harnessed by what they can bring to payware add-on development in the eye candy department, so this is not something which is going to immediately be of import to someone who is at the point of evaluating sims before deciding which one to go with. Pictures can do that part for them, what they need to know at this point is how well does it simulate flight and does it do it in a way they are pleased with. How much you can tart it up is not an issue at this stage of the proceedings.

Pretty much everyone I've ever seen comment on P3D when they first use it, and particularly those coming from FSX, has mentioned that they were disappointingly surprised that it doesn't look that great out of the box and in fact is barely discernible from FSX, not least because it doesn't even have a decent simulation of live weather or clouds in a bare bones install. So yes, the improved visual capabilities you mention mean it can look a lot better courtesy of some add-ons, but P3D and FSX-SE are basically the same flight simulator in terms of what they can simulate flight model-wise, and before one festoons it with add-ons, P3D really does not look much different from FSX at all, nor does it need to if you are principally testing its ability to simulate flight.

Because this is the case, that's enough capability in FSX-SE for someone to determine whether they like the way it does that or not with a sim which they can get hold of for a few quid rather than spending very much more on P3D only to perhaps find they might prefer the way XPlane goes about that sort of thing (that's up to them to decide, but it is my point here).

If you want to call it potential eye candy simulator, then it is true, P3D can indeed ultimately look a lot better than FSX and won't CTD whilst doing it owing to a VAS limit, but then again, XPlane is better than both of them put together in at least that regard, so again it's a matter of preference and wasn't my point anyway.

Edited January 13, 2019 by Chock

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

to find a way to decide between a couple of the big choices, and I presented a way for them to determine that, at little cost.

Understood, but cost was never mentioned and I would NOT consider FSX/FSX-SE aa part of the "big choice" as it's rapidly losing market share and has ZERO ongoing development.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

what they need to know at this point is how well does it simulate flight

Is that what they need to know?  I didn't see any mention of flight physics?  If they were interested in flight physics as a deciding factor, then I would mention that a tail dragger is XP11 was close to impossible to taxi and takeoff in even 4 Kts winds ... I haven't tested my ASDG Piper Super Cub in XP11.3x recently to see if Laminar fixed this problem (problems that cause aircraft developer to introduce invisible canard and/or skids to try and make the aircraft behave with believable accuracy in XP11), reports are it's better but still some issues.  Because flight physics haven't changed that much in P3D does that mean it's a bad thing?  There have been endless debates regarding flight physics on both sides and the conclusions are always the same one is no more accurate than the other.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

What you list there are pretty much all visual difference capabilities between FSX-SE and P3D V4.4

No I didn't, re-read, there are actually many additional visual items I left out like Cloud Shadows, Tessellation, and more that is P3D exclusive.  I covered a wide spectrum of features of the two main flight simulators P3D and XP11 not just "visuals".

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Pretty much everyone I've ever seen comment on P3D when they first use it, and particularly those coming from FSX, has mentioned that they were disappointingly surprised that it doesn't look that great out of the box and in fact is barely discernible from FSX

I find that hard to believe and contrary to my experience.  Anyone coming from FSX will already be conditioned with a multitude of AddOns and well aware of the "out of box" experience so I doubt an existing FSX user would be surprised.  FSX users will have a high likelihood or free upgrades of addOns to P3D version and/or a small cost to upgrade a FSX license to P3D (with some exceptions of certain vendors).  But, the OP posted "Microsoft or Xplane" ... which in itself is a little odd given the information contained here at AVSIM ... but no mention the OP has experience with FSX.  Heck this could just be a "seed" thread for all I know (I've seen that before many times), but I'll take the OP at face value and provide as much information regarding the two "main" platforms as possible in a very quick synopsis.

1 hour ago, Chock said:

If you want to call it potential eye candy simulator, then it is true, P3D can indeed ultimately look a lot better than FSX and won't CTD whilst doing it owing to a VAS limit, but then again, XPlane is better than both of them put together in at least that regard

Both simulators provide eye candy (as they should, it sells), P3D provides more eye candy than XP11 per those features I listed that simply aren't being rendered in XP11.

I provide as much info (missed a few things) as I could that may or may not be relevant to the OP.  And I was pretty clear "out of the box" XP11 does a better job ... but that doesn't mean it is the better choice for the OP, only he/she can decide what is important to them.  But providing the OP with an option that says "try the 1959 Porsche 356B" (aka FSX) and then try the 2019 Porsche 911 Carrera (aka XP11) ... rather than tell the OP to try the 2019 Porsche 911 Carrera (XP11) vs. the 2019 Porsche 911 Carrera 4S (P3D V4.4).

Cheers, Rob.

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by Guest

[tonywob 4,768]

One easy way to trial P3D, buy a one month developer's license, last time I checked it was something like $9.99. Although... going to my next point:

Rob, I'm curious, do you work for Lockheed Martin? You are touting/praising the benefits of P3D over FSX-SE and X-Plane, convincing someone that the $200 price tag is worth it and claim a long list of features that other sims either lack or P3D just does better, but this is just your opinion. I don't think anyone can argue that P3D is lacking out of the box, and for $200 you'd expect much more, namely:

• A usable and working camera system
• Much better and smoother performance
• 2018-2019 nav-data, and not the same data and closed airports from 2006
• A nicely simulated G1000 or GNS530 that does some effort to at least simulate the real thing

At least without the last two, how can it be considered a professional simulator worth the $200 every 2 years or so?. It amazes me that people find this acceptable. As for seasons, if you consider P3D's native support of seasons a great feature (Which you've argued about at ORBX) then I ask you to fly over the UK in winter, and then do so in real-life, and you'll see just how bad this feature is. I'm glad both iPacs and LR see that this method of doing seasons is wrong and are looking at other solutions. You also list many advantages P3D has over FSX-SE, but out of the box, in my opinion, it is still not much different visually than FSX, and people seem to forget that P3D is on its 4th major version now. There is absolutely nothing I can't do in P3D v4 that I couldn't do in FSX-SE, so this is what I see as a user, and not that it may support some API internally that very few devs want to use.

DTG's FSW had more new features in it on its first version that the average user would care about, but it was ripped apart by the community with many not even giving it a chance. 

If you're a jet flier, then perhaps the addons are still better in FSX/P3D, but for the GA flier, I'd say there is better choice on X-Plane, and it won't cost and arm and a leg to do so. If you're a jet flier and don't fly over complicated scenery, then you can save some money just sticking to FSX-SE as the "pro" tag is missing from the products (which are identical anyway).

 

 

 

[Pastaiolo 1,686]

There are some innaccuracies in @Rob Ainscough post that needs to be corrected so that readers who don't know anything about XP11 (such as the OP)  can know how it actually works there (and Rob might also learn something new, which i think is the very core of sharing experiences in our favourite "games"). I'll quote what i believe is an uncorrect statement and the following one will be my reply. What i don't quote of course is something i agree enough with Rob with 🙂 Bear with me.

 

Quote

P3D has 60 day money back guarantee and can cost $60-$200 pending version purchase.  XP11 has a free demo that will last 30 minutes and you get two areas to fly around.

This starts with an assumption that comes from my usage of the XP10 demo back then, the XP11 demo can be run as many times as you want even tho every session is time limited. This of course is not enough time for a full airline flight but more than enough to focus on individual features.

Quote

As far as Commercial aircraft XP11 have some great choices from Flight Factor A320 and IXEG 737, but these are not on the same level of complexity and feature set as PMDG 747, 777, 737 and/or FSLabs A319/A320.

I think you meant airline aircrafts. In which case the Zibo 737 and the Ultimate 737 projects both needs to be mentioned. What they are, well, they are different versions of the Boeing 737 line free, which are constantly developed by Zibo and few others and receive changes weekly. The audio part is also supported by FMOD and is quite realistic in my experience. Being a free project, it is well integrated with other projects made by other members of the community (Tablet for settings, reading charts, terrain radar, custom FMC fonts and so on).

If we are talking about commercial aircrafts, i think the Saab 340 above all needs to be here too since it is used commercially. And so can the Toliss Airbus 319.

Quote

Shadow quality in XP11 is bad, just turn it off. 

Unclear statement, if you mean jagged lines those can be easily fixed by increasing the shadow size. If it's not about that, i don't know, because i consider the shadows on the scenery pretty decent. 

 

Quote

Weather, still not there in XP11, P3D weather depiction is much better with more accurate winds aloft data.

Most P3D users are using Active Sky for accurate winds aloft data, which happen to have reached Xplane too. If we talk about default weather then, i believe P3D cannot download real weather at all like FSX, FSX-SE and X-Plane can.

Quote

P3D does allow any aircraft vendor to do their OWN flight model and/or even partially do their own

FlightFactor A320 is an example of an addon which is running their own flight model entirely outside of the X-Plane environment.

Quote

Night lighting ... this used to be heavily in favor of XP11, but with the addition of Dynamic Lights in P3D and some updates from various add-on vendors they're very similar now, however, P3D Dynamic Lights do require that you have a strong GPU in order to use them.

They will be similar once P3D dynamic lights will be applied to any light source, everywhere on the planet. It isn't so now since it is still based on addon vendors to introduce them on their own scenery, and as you said, they do require a strong GPU to be used.

Quote

P3D has an Avatar mode, where you can jump out of an aircraft/vehicle and walk around the area and even supports object external triggers (i.e. opening doors etc.) and you can jump into a different aircraft/vehicle in networked multiplayer session.

XP doesn't have an "Avatar mode", but interacting with external triggers is perfectly possible and an example of such a thing is the DreamFoil 407.

Quote

Aircraft lights, horrible in XP11 (big giant size blobs when you look at them head on same with Nav lights) and there seems to be no "solution"?

It's one of the easiest fixes out there Rob, a lot of the famous .lua files includes such a fix and there are other tools instead which can make you change them visually while running the sim itself, find the configuration that you like the most, save it and have it auto loaded into the sim every time.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's all folks, i'll stress again the fact that the points not mentioned in this post are things i generally agree with. But the above mentioned things had to be clarified for the sake of the reader.

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by france89
fixed layout

[mpw8679 428]

4 hours ago, tonywob said:

 

If you're a jet flier, then perhaps the addons are still better in FSX/P3D, but for the GA flier, I'd say there is better choice on X-Plane, and it won't cost and arm and a leg to do so. If you're a jet flier and don't fly over complicated scenery, then you can save some money just sticking to FSX-SE as the "pro" tag is missing from the products (which are identical anyway).

 

Maybe I'm missing your point but my biggest issue with Xplane is the lack of quality GA aircraft.  If you are looking for an ultra realistic simulation u have the AFL 172 and that is about it.  The REP packages are nice but don't come close to A2A quality.  I feel the XP flight model is superior for GA use but then the ground handling is way off.

[johncott 177]

A good part of your decision should be based on your hardware.  If you have an older computer system, 3,4 or 5 years old for example, P3D and X-Plane may not work that well.   FSX:SE may be the way to go.  If you have a new up-to-date computer with the latest graphics card then X-Plane or P3D for sure. Some items to think about. Seasons, X-Plane does not have built in seasons. FSX:SE and P3D do. What this means if you in Canada in the winter, P3D / FSX will have snow on the ground, X-Plane will not. P3D and X-Plane are in consistent development. After a major update some add-ons may not work right away, the developers have to modified their products to work with the new versions.  sometimes they charge for an upgrade.  This will not happen with FSX:SE.  All three sims will cater to what ever flying you will want to from the smallest ultra light to the largest airliner.  Some people are still flying FS2002 and FS2004 (FS9) and are very happy and some are flying P3D and X-Plane and are still not happy, LOL.  I still fly FSX:SE because of my older computer and I'm still very happy with it.

John Cottreau

 

[fta2017 160]

Rob Ainscough’s P3D bias is so obvious it is embarrassing to say the least. It’s amusing how he went to such lengths to mention pros and cons of XP vs P3D only to be corrected by someone who actually uses XP, which Rob clearly does NOT based on his ignorance of simple lua script fixes for the sim and lack of any videos of him using it on his Youtube page (other than to show supposed flaws in XP bs P3D relating to CPU core threading). He even blames XP causing “drift” on an Xbox controller in one video when in fact he had Cinema Verte mode enabled which was the real cause 😉 

It is becoming a bit annoying to see Rob’s bias negatively influencing potential new adopters of XP11, particularly when he behaves like an expert witness, but is anything but.

What is the agenda here?

[FreeBird(Josh) 314]

Where are the moderators. 

[188AHC 2,138]

I have and idea. To the OP, why don't you just catch a Steam sale and purchase FSX Steam Edition for about 5 bucks US.  Spend some time with it and you will be able to determine how satisfied with a flight simulator.  Afterward try the XP demo. Give it a good workout and then make up your own mind. While Prepar3d is at present, the most advanced simulator in some respects, you might decide that you don't want to drop a lot of cash on it until you get more experience.

In essence, start light and work up.

Just my $.02.

 

[tonywob 4,768]

2 hours ago, mpw8679 said:

Maybe I'm missing your point but my biggest issue with Xplane is the lack of quality GA aircraft.  If you are looking for an ultra realistic simulation u have the AFL 172 and that is about it

There are piles of quality GA addons for X-Plane. JustFlight's products are fantastic as is the xAviation's TBM 900 which is incredibly detailed. There is most of Carenado's catalogue (although they are a bit weak on systems), vFlyeAir, vSkylabs etc etc. Many have very high quality modelling and systems simulation. If you're not convinced at how detailed some of these are, then look on Youtube for videos of, e.g. The TBM 900 or JustFlight. There was a time I used to pine for my FSX A2A C172/C182 and the RXP units, but those days are gone now and I'm not missing it. Also, as previously mentioned, helicopters are top quality in X-Plane if this is the sort of GA flying that you like as well. Even the default Cessna 172 is fantastic and perfectly usable for IFR/VFR

31 minutes ago, FreeBird(Josh) said:

Where are the moderators. 

Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't mean it should be locked. Nobody has said anything out of line yet.

[mpw8679 428]

53 minutes ago, tonywob said:

There are piles of quality GA addons for X-Plane. JustFlight's products are fantastic as is the xAviation's TBM 900 which is incredibly detailed. There is most of Carenado's catalogue (although they are a bit weak on systems), vFlyeAir, vSkylabs etc etc. Many have very high quality modelling and systems simulation. If you're not convinced at how detailed some of these are, then look on Youtube for videos of, e.g. The TBM 900 or JustFlight. There was a time I used to pine for my FSX A2A C172/C182 and the RXP units, but those days are gone now and I'm not missing it. Also, as previously mentioned, helicopters are top quality in X-Plane if this is the sort of GA flying that you like as well. Even the default Cessna 172 is fantastic and perfectly usable for IFR/VFR

Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't mean it should be locked. Nobody has said anything out of line yet.

I should have clarified I was referring to more traditional type GA aircraft with A2A quality.  An AFL 182, Cherokee, Bonanza, or light twin would be awesome.  The Just Flight birds seem nice but I had sound looping issues with both Arrows.  It will drive you nuts if you have a subwoofer hooked up.  After no help from TSS Just Flight happily refunded my money.  I was pretty disappointed as the turbo arrow seemed to be done much better in XP then in P3D.  I have the VF twin Comanche but it seems stale as far as systems modeling goes.  I have been burned to many times by Carenado to even consider buying from them.  It’s just hard to go for anything else after you have experienced AFL or A2A.  I am really looking forward to the AFL King Air.  I’m sure it will be well done.

[tonywob 4,768]

5 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

I should have clarified I was referring to more traditional type GA aircraft with A2A quality.  An AFL 182, Cherokee, Bonanza, or light twin would be awesome.

I actually didn't enjoy the AFL C172 too much as it had numerous problems for me and was rather heavy in performance and once the default Cessna 172 appeared with X-Plane 11, I actually didn't find myself using the AFL one too much because I found the default one better and lighter. Things of course may have improved, but I've not updated it for some time. I actually enjoy going slow over nice looking scenery, so I like the slower GA aircraft. What I'd really love to see is a well made Cessna 182 or 210, as these are both my favourites, and I'm sure they'll come eventually. I do enjoy JustFlight's Cessna 152, but it's a little too basic and slow for me. There is a large range of quality GA aircraft, but you are correct in that there is a lack of the traditional older and slower stuff if you're not a fan of Carenado or the default.

I guess we all look for something different in what we consider well simulated/modelled. With the A2A planes, I never bothered with the maintenance model and walk around modes, although I did like the plane reacting badly if I mistreated it. As an example, earlier I fired up the default Cessna 172, placed in Avitab with the real world Seattle VFR charts and some airport charts, and flew around quite happily as if I had an iPad with me in the cockpit. Avitab, the plande and the charts didn't cost me anything, and it was much more than I was able to achieve in FSX/P3D with quite a lot of addons loaded in.

 

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, tonywob said:

Rob, I'm curious, do you work for Lockheed Martin?

You know I don't?

What issues are there with the Camera system?  Agree you'll need to get a product like ChasePlane to leverage the most out of P3D's camera support but like I said.  But that's the same for XP and using x-Camera so not sure the "issue" here?

Much better and smoother performance in XP11?  Depends on how you configure XP11, try adding some AI traffic from WOT3 or 150mi draw distance for clouds and increase their density.  Increase the AA settings and building density with some add-ons.  Bang for graphic buck you'll get much better performance out of P3D but both require intelligent adjustments to get "smooth" output.

Yes, NAV database in P3D is old and does require an AddOn to get it up to date with latest Navigraph cycles.  Again, back to my point about P3D requires more AddOns.

Disagree, whether a simulator comes with a G1000 or a GNS530 doesn't define the simulator, again there are AddOns for those that want that functionality.

Where's XP11's multi-GPU support?  Without it I can't run higher levels of SSAA at 4K res like I can in P3D.

7 hours ago, tonywob said:

There is absolutely nothing I can't do in P3D v4 that I couldn't do in FSX-SE

Nothing huh, fire up a PMDG 747 at Toronto (with all options enabled) with Orbx FTX NA OpenLC and Vector and HiFi weather and tell me if you even get to see the airport before it OOMs.  There is nothing inaccurate about my comments for both P3D and XP11.

2 hours ago, fta2017 said:

annoying to see Rob’s bias negatively influencing potential new adopters of XP11

So does that extend to your comments on my P3D videos where you interject meaningless comments about XP11 is better in a video that's NOT about XP11?  But you haven't actually identified any of my information as being inaccurate and you've suggested solutions to a problem that wasn't the solution.

2 hours ago, fta2017 said:

It’s amusing how he went to such lengths to mention pros and cons of XP vs P3D only to be corrected by someone who actually uses XP, which Rob clearly does NOT based on his ignorance of simple lua script fixes for the sim and lack of any videos of him using it on his Youtube page (other than to show supposed flaws in XP bs P3D relating to CPU core threading). He even blames XP causing “drift” on an Xbox controller in one video when in fact he had Cinema Verte mode enabled which was the real cause

So you say I don't use XP because and I don't post XP videos but then you continue on to discuss my XP videos?  Cinema Verte mode didn't solve the problem, it was xCamera axis calibration that required max increase to Null zone per eMail's with Mark Ellis ... it can still be a problem time to time, but for the most part the issue is resolved. And this is relevant to the OP's question how?

2 hours ago, fta2017 said:

simple lua script fixes for the sim

Thank you, glad you at-least admitted their is a problem that requires a manual fix.

6 hours ago, france89 said:

It's one of the easiest fixes out there Rob, a lot of the famous .lua files includes such a fix and there are other tools instead which can make you change them visually while running the sim itself, find the configuration that you like the most, save it and have it auto loaded into the sim every time.

Yes I'm aware of the "session" fix, like you admit, it's a fix not out of the box.

6 hours ago, france89 said:

This starts with an assumption that comes from my usage of the XP10 demo back then, the XP11 demo can be run as many times as you want even tho every session is time limited.

And I never said you can't run XP11 again to get another 30 minutes so again not really sure what was inaccurate about my statement.

6 hours ago, france89 said:

Unclear statement, if you mean jagged lines those can be easily fixed by increasing the shadow size.

I am interested in this "fix", I was never able to successfully improve shadow quality on scenery AG ... link?

6 hours ago, france89 said:

FlightFactor A320 is an example of an addon which is running their own flight model entirely outside of the X-Plane environment.

Wasn't aware, but thank you for that information but not sure how my statement was "uncorrect information"?  Perhaps you felt you need to expand on that, fair enough.

Cheers, Rob.

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by Guest