10 minutes ago, BigDee said:

Here is a nice video of X-Plane 11:

X-Plane 11 Multi Engine Plane Home Build

Look how smooth the steering movements are.

 

The graphics are OK compared to FS, but way better what was shown on the X-Plane FS Trailer remake. It feels like we are in the middle of a children competition.

I don`t think writing pages for pages which is better makes any sense. Every product has its pros and cons.

For my side, I do only think FS will be a good product when combined with a PMDG plane, otherwise for me it`s a GTA V plane emulator and I can view and travel the earth with Google Earth and Street View, so no need in here to transform my apartment into an arcade gaming hall ;).

I`m looking forward when FS releases, its going to get interesting here.

 

xp and p3d are also GTA V plane emulator with bad default scenery if you look at it that way lol

One thing about this video comparison which does come down in XPlane's favour quite a lot, is not so much what is in the detail, as how that detail sits in the overall terrain.

Anyone who flies for real knows that you can quite easily lose an airport in the terrain when looking about. They don't always stand out like like a sore thumb, as they do in some of the shots on this video. The runways are a good example of this; the appearance and colour of the runway surface looks far more like the real thing in XPlane.

The new MS sim is of course visually impressive, but it doesn't have it all its own way, even at this stage.

I'll take this GTA V plane emulator any day of the week, thank you very much lol

14 minutes ago, Chock said:

One thing about this video comparison which does come down in XPlane's favour quite a lot, is not so much what is in the detail, as how that detail sits in the overall terrain.

Fully agree with that. And how the flight experience blends with each other. X-Plane has a great flight experience. And I think there are some great videos using X-Plane and ReShade:

Hawai Landing

Kai Tak

The leaked FS videos before showed some respectable GTA V like results. No damping forces, pitch and roll like there was no gravity, landing at whichever speed you prefer.

Firstly they are not that difficult to implement, second they will make it in the future, but I realized a product that fully focuses on simulation is the preferable one for me.

 

Btw. and sorry for that, I really have enough watching these YouTube videos with some strange shaped faces of some guys.

 

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by BigDee

4 hours ago, Swe_Richard said:

There actually are lots of airports in X-plane that looks quite nice nowadays TBH. Actually most oftern prefer X-plane "defaults" to the P3D defaults. 

Yipes. And here I was going to try P3D over XPlane, but no longer. And I don't like X-plane default scenery all that much. 

United001

46 minutes ago, BigDee said:

It feels like we are in the middle of a children competition.

Yes. It's OK as long as you post it in a positive way. Post it to show how good your sim is rather than how bad the other one is comparatively. Latter would be going to the XP forum and posting such vids there.

 

48 minutes ago, BigDee said:

For my side, I do only think FS will be a good product when combined with a PMDG plane, otherwise for me it`s a GTA V plane emulator and I can view and travel the earth with Google Earth and Street View, so no need in here to transform my apartment into an arcade gaming hall ;).

That's a bit short sighted. The general flight model actually seems pretty OK as confirmed by several RL pilots. The biggest problem atm is a quirk in the interaction with wind / turbulences. This is what makes it look like a RC plane flying through the air. You can be pretty sure that this will get addressed by ASOBO. They wouldn't go through all the work of creating a new, modern flight model and then settle with such bugs.

7 hours ago, Dillon said:

Indirectly answering this I have officially retired my old sims, bought a new computer, and patently waiting until the 18th. That says allot about the comparison above.  Looking at the default it's going to be unbelievable what's on the horizon with add-on developers in the coming months and years.

It is pretty great, but be prepared for some early shortcomings. Don't expect it to work like FSX and if you notice something missing, also take the time to notice the things that FSX/P3D didn't have.

Rumor is there are going to be some add-ons ready to go at release. Airplanes will probably come later in the year.

5 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Is this the default XP11 scenery? Some of the airports were modeled surprisingly well.

None of that is default in the traditional sense. It's years of collecting user made airports through the gateway and pushing them out. But yes, it's default in the technical sense.

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by bonchie

My take away from this is what is seen outside the airport fence line. For so long we have flown and looked forward to the detail found on the airport with addons but now theres a whole world to see off airport without repetitive tiles that show the world as it is and not a landclass that represents the world. 

53 minutes ago, BigDee said:

Fully agree with that. And how the flight experience blends with each other. X-Plane has a great flight experience. And I think there are some great videos using X-Plane and ReShade:

Hawai Landing

Kai Tak

The leaked FS videos before showed some respectable GTA V like results. No damping forces, pitch and roll like there was no gravity, landing at whichever speed you prefer.

Firstly they are not that difficult to implement, second they will make it in the future, but I realized a product that fully focuses on simulation is the preferable one for me.

 

Btw. and sorry for that, I really have enough watching these YouTube videos with some strange shaped faces of some guys.

 

The problem with XP11 is that those experiences will always be limited snapshots best reserved for highlights on YouTube because you simply can't store enough orthos at home to cover anywhere near the entire world. You also can't even cover your orthos with good scenery unless 1) it's hand-placed or 2) there's uniform OSM data for World2Xplane to use. You know what we didn't hear in those videos? ATC. We didn't see AI aircraft.

As someone who gathered around 4TB of ortho scenery for XP11, it was such a pain in the butt that I gave up on it. I would have to leave it working overnight just to cover small areas, and if I didn't like a water mask or the coloring of the source data, I got to do it all over again.

And you can go full metal GTA V in XP11 if you want.

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by bonchie

20 minutes ago, bonchie said:

None of that is default in the traditional sense. It's years of collecting user made airports through the gateway and pushing them out. But yes, it's default in the technical sense.

I believe that's correct.  I have XP11 and I'm familiar with it, but I'm not an expert - if I'm wrong please correct me.

The "default" airports in XP11 are nothing but runways.  No buildings, no taxiways.  Of the 3,000 or so airports that are modeled in some fashion every one has been done by hand by users who've generously uploaded their creations to be be distributed with the product, or available as free downloads from the portal.  Some are amazingly well done. Some are only so-so depending on the skills and time put into them by the creator.

Unlike FS9/FSX/MSFS there has been no automatic AI process to create masses of default airports with generic buildings and taxiways.  So really, it's comparing apples to oranges when it comes to "default" airports and that's also true of how well the airport blends with the scenery.  XP11 has the advantage over FSX/P3D (except for V5) in that runways will follow ground contours.  The FS process prior to MSFS2020 encourages a large flattened area for the airport environment and that will often result an unrealistic setting into terrain unless great care is taken.

Dutch

 

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by Dutch727
Clarity

57 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Yes. It's OK as long as you post it in a positive way. Post it to show how good your sim is rather than how bad the other one is comparatively. Latter would be going to the XP forum and posting such vids there.

The problem is the video that compares X-Plane with FS is very likely rendered in low-quality. There was no movement of the turbines, scenery and textures were much lower than what I used to see.

 

He could compare FS with the real graphics that X-Plane offers. My problem here is somehow the nature of some people or say all people. It is like the same thing that is going on with Intel. Intel faces right now some major problems with its EUV production, something that can happen to any company. It`s not that even only one year passed and nearly everybody is laughing on Intel, putting them on the ground. Nobody considers that almost every CPU that is used today is still based on Intels x86 design from the 70s. Basically they did everything right for half a century. Now for the failure of the recent 1 to 2 years they deserve to be laughed at, at least for some many people.

 

FS should be called "Graphics Simulator" from my point of view. Or the" Flight Simulator that gets its physics adapted pretty soon". I mean its OK, Asobo is not until now an expert in simulations, they can improve the behaviour of the jet airliners. Budget must be also considered. FS was built on top of FSX. The propeller planes are moving right, but as it seems, they have reworked the jet airliners and they don`t look simworthy. It doesn `t matter if you land or smash the Airbus to the ground, it produces the same GTA V smash like sound.The ATC voices have also the same exact robotic sounds. The physics of the jets have no damping, strange forces.

I mean honestly, that is not a simulator.

 

 

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by BigDee

2 hours ago, devgrp said:

I've done that comparison. Looked at most of the small airports that orbx makes and the default fs2020 and for default airports they are quite nice. I know I won't be spending crazy money on airports except for a few icon ones 

Yup, one of the first things I did (few months ago) was world tour of all of my purchased Orbx X-plane scenery's, and all things considered, MSFS did not come out badly at all.

6 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Ah, alright, thanks.

Looking at these videos again, and also the comparison between MSFS and FSX airports, I think they are slightly missing the point anyway, because they are mostly showing the handcrafted MSFS airports.

A more fair comparison would be putting XP11 or FSX default airports against non-handcrafted, strictly autogen MSFS airports. Reactions would be slightly less ecstatic then, I can imagine. 😏

i disagree, people also want to know what the 'best' they can expect is, not only the least - the vid shows what can be done in xplane even spending Extra money to make it the best it can be and compares it against the best (so far) in msfs - its not msfs problem that xplane does not include Any handcrafted airports but they are in msfs so they have to be used to compare one product to the other
i get you want specific edge case scenerios to help prove how good xplane is but do you really think default xplane airports (13k airorts) will hold up to default in msfs (30k airports)? i think you would be sadly disappointed, if it could then people would not be spending so much for scenery

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by AirWayMan

6 hours ago, LHookins said:

If I'm reading the last note displayed in the video before the comparisons start, this is XP tricked out to the max.  Not default.

Hook

Not tricked out to the “max.” It’s default.

Tricked out (for free) would mean:

- Ortho4XP tiles with a high zoom level

- MisterX HD runway and taxiway textures

- MisterX sceneries for the applicable airports

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by FlyingInACessna