38 minutes ago, united001 said:

I only miss one thing from XP, and that's the Zibo737. The scenery was horrid, really horrid in some places that Orbx did not cover and that was a ton. 

Well yah, obviously you had to get really high-res aerial imagery to make it worth it, then the difference was much less, especially after mods. Hence, I was always downloading 60cm. I once flew in 30cm extremely high fidelity part of Italy, but it took so much disk space, it was like 140 GB for a 2 mile area, but wow did that look good. MSFS used a lot of neat tricks to improve the aerial, but it's somewhat low res in places (low fidelity). Thing is, I currently have about 75 TB of extra drive space from this NAS and Seagate 8TB drives from an old business, so for me I have nothing else to use them with. I probably need to Ebay them though.

For MSFS --- France looks very good, Eastern US looks good, but there are A LOT of bad areas in MSFS too, let us not forget the green monsters. I had Utah looking better in Xplane than it does in MSFS, and I had custom trees that beat MSFS trees too. That said, it is too much work, I will admit, but some pre-done Orbx areas in XP are no work at all if you want to fly those.

Edited May 16, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

27 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think X plane is going to go the way of the 8 track player in a couple of years. I bet even now, their sales are in the dumpster, compared to MSFS, 

You are as delusional as most of the MSFS fan base. 😀

How are those trees looking in MSFS? How about those bridges? What about those roads and moving cars? 

I have not even gone into the meat of the program. It's got a long way to go to catch up to XP11.

BTW, the FDs in MSFS are an absolute joke. The term "flying on rails" comes to mind.

XP11 is alive and well and I'll make this my last post on the matter. I can't transfer my learning to anyone who doesn't want to learn.

Edited May 16, 20215 yr by DJJose

17 minutes ago, DJJose said:

You are as delusional as most of the MSFS fan base. 😀

How are those trees looking in MSFS? How about those bridges? What about those roads and moving cars? 

I have not even gone into the meat of the program. It's got a long way to go to catch up to XP11.

BTW, the FDs in MSFS are an absolute joke. The term "flying on rails" comes to mind.

XP11 is alive and well and I'll make this my last post on the matter. I can't transfer my learning to anyone who doesn't want to learn.

How about the LA Smog-Haze that seems everywhere in XP? 

1 minute ago, Bobsk8 said:

How about the LA Smog-Haze that seems everywhere in XP? 

You have to mod it out, that's the first thing you gotta do is change the sky colors and get rid of the haze, otherwise I agree that was a very bad graphical decision for Laminar to leave that in the game. 

The problem with XP is that it never stays on my computer longer than 2 hours after installed (every version).

Cheers 

bs

41 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

You are describing an X Plane I have never seen. I think X plane is going to go the way of the 8 track player in a couple of years. I bet even now, their sales are in the dumpster, compared to MSFS, 

Most of the developers have said, Xplane sales were hit pretty hard but still going relatively ok overall, but P3D sales fell off a cliff. Xplane stuff still sells ok for now, P3D stuff doesn't.

Less filling!!  Tastes great!

11 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

How about the LA Smog-Haze that seems everywhere in XP? 

Easy fix.

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

They both use PBR textures. It sounds like you didn't mod it correctly. Yes, SOME default airports from the default, you have to mod the taxiways in Xplane, but I never mentioned the taxiways. You can load the same airports in both and it looks the same, with just minor adjustments to the exporting or conversion of the models. 

Xplane is truly modding hell, that's the real problem, it's disorganized. It can take days just to get it setup correctly, or even weeks, if you are after the best graphics.

If you are staring at the exterior of the plane, you may have a point, but then again, it depends which exterior of which plane you are speaking of. I am not sure what you mean when you say Xplane on its best day, considering they both can read the same types of aerial imagery, except Xplane can use it from any provider at a higher resolution.

Water and Clouds are ahead in MSFS by a lot, but it depends how low you are flying too.

 

Put up your best default screenshot of XP and I'll post default msfs. No comparison man. 

34 minutes ago, DJJose said:

You are as delusional as most of the MSFS fan base. 😀

How are those trees looking in MSFS? How about those bridges? What about those roads and moving cars? 

I have not even gone into the meat of the program. It's got a long way to go to catch up to XP11.

BTW, the FDs in MSFS are an absolute joke. The term "flying on rails" comes to mind.

XP11 is alive and well and I'll make this my last post on the matter. I can't transfer my learning to anyone who doesn't want to learn.

😂 😂 😂 The trees in XP are a joke. You mad because you can't fly under bridges? Lmao. Flying on rails? I think you are referring to p3d and fsx. XP is good but not that good. I fired up XP yesterday and the c172 had no life. If I didn't have the sound up I would have thought I was staring at a screenshot or the game was paused. Now I'm no pilot but I've had a few flights with friends and even on a calm day the plane is not stationary and static like XP. You have get xprealistic just to add some movement so you can actually feel like you're flying 

35 minutes ago, DJJose said:

You are as delusional as most of the MSFS fan base. 😀

How are those trees looking in MSFS? How about those bridges? What about those roads and moving cars? 

I have not even gone into the meat of the program. It's got a long way to go to catch up to XP11.

BTW, the FDs in MSFS are an absolute joke. The term "flying on rails" comes to mind.

XP11 is alive and well and I'll make this my last post on the matter. I can't transfer my learning to anyone who doesn't want to learn.

Somebody is delusional here, and it ain't Bobski (the guy you were quoting). Those who are into MSFS with its latest updates knows that what you are saying is nonsense. Flying on rails? MSFS is the very opposite! As Bobski and many others have discovered, once you have seen MSFS there is no going back to the old sims. XP will certainly live on ---  in museums. As for "not transferring your learning to anyone who doesn't want to learn", no comment necessary. .

You lot still arguing about this? 

19 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Most of the developers have said, Xplane sales were hit pretty hard but still going relatively ok overall, but P3D sales fell off a cliff. Xplane stuff still sells ok for now, P3D stuff doesn't.

Yeah, I expected X-Plane sales to be hit pretty hard.  It appears P3D sales were hit the most.  But MSFS has two things in favor of it that may lure the remaining 3rd party developers to MSFS and ditch X-Plane.  The first thing is of course, the X-Box release.   X-Box creates a whole new flight sim market for 3rd party devs to sell their add ons too, using the MSFS marketplace.  Aerosoft already mentioned how the sales of CRJ was really good and the great sales either got the attention of either higher level execs, or possible partners of Aerosoft (ie. PDMG).  So the sales of CRJ alone on the PC had exceeded expectations for Aerosoft.  Any additional sales of 3rd party add ons in the MSFS marketplace for X-Box is just icing on the cake for 3rd party devs.

The second thing MSFS has in favor of it is time for high fidelity airliners to enter MSFS, and the refinement of the SDK. I think in the next 2 years, we will see a  nice line up of high fidelity airliners showing up in MSFS, with the CRJ being the first to lead the way.  And I think most major issues with the SDK will be ironed out in the next 2 years.  This will probably lead to another surge in players switching over from X-Plane to MSFS.

X-Plane 12 cannot be another "incremental" improvement over X-Plane 11, like past versions of X-Plane.  X-Plane 12 has to be a revolutionary improvement over X-Plane 11.  If X-Plane 12 is not a revolutionary improvement over X-Plane 11, I am calling lights out for X-Plane.  Additional players will abandon X-Plane for MSFS, as will the 3rd party devs.

20 minutes ago, devgrp said:

Put up your best default screenshot of XP and I'll post default msfs. No comparison man. 

No-one is arguing with that, except it's just that a game is only as good as it's artists, not its game engine. The game engine doesn't make the artist, though it can hold him back, but you can do most things in both sims. Problem is P3D was a distraction to developers causing Xplane to not get as much attention as it should have from third party devs. P3D is also much much harder to design airports in, it's a total mess, whereas Xplane isn't too bad.

No-one is saying that Xplane has better or even as good of graphics, that would be stupid, we are not delusional. We are just saying it can be as good in many aspects, or even better in certain areas if you don't compare the water.

Honestly, the clouds are probably closer between the two sims after mods than the water, though the cloud mods are just too performance hungry for me, but I haven't tried them all. MSFS has some cloud pixelation issues, and both XP and MSFS can make clouds look good from far away. That said, MSFS clouds will look better MORE often if comparing them both at a distance in screenshots.

Edited May 16, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

12 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

No-one is arguing with that, except it's just that a game is only as good as it's artists, not its game engine. The game engine doesn't make the artist, though it can hold him back, but you can do most things in both sims. Problem is P3D was a distraction to developers causing Xplane to not get as much attention as it should have from third party devs. P3D is also much much harder to design airports in, it's a total mess, whereas Xplane isn't too bad.

No-one is saying that Xplane has better or even as good of graphics, that would be stupid, we are not delusional. We are just saying it can be as good in many aspects, or even better in certain areas if you don't compare the water.

Honestly, the clouds are probably closer between the two sims after mods than the water, though the cloud mods are just too performance hungry for me, but I haven't tried them all. MSFS has some cloud pixelation issues, and both XP and MSFS can make clouds look good from far away. That said, MSFS clouds will look better MORE often if comparing them both at a distance in screenshots.

As far as clouds go, xenviro is the only mod that comes close and that cuts your performance in half. I had all the mods, xenviro, skymaxx, as p, xprealistic, realityxp gtn, plus most of the orbx true earth series and fork boy ortho. I