Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bnic

I must say I'm impressed...

Recommended Posts

BNick-If possible, can you share your tips with how you converted the FlightScenery package? I converted mine and noticed the standard X-Plane runway lights poke out of the concrete at PDX. Also, When I converted Troutdale and Hillsborough, there were numerous problems with runways and taxiways, plus the light issues again.How do you adjust the airport height so that everything looks correct as they do in your pictures?Thanks for any info you can provide!Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X-Plane exceeds from what I'm reading... Their ATC sucks and sounds like those old first generation text readers we used to hear when they first came out but their ATC options are much more extensive...Now the cool part... I read about a small free shareware program called, FS2XPLANE.exe that converts Microsoft Flight Sim scenery to X-Plane and I tried it the night I installed X-Plane... I pointed to my beloved KPDX Portland scenery directory and this crazy little scenery converter compiled a perfect replica of KPDX and my eyes about popped when I saw it... Now I have my fabulous Portland scenery in X-Plane and I'm telling you the FPS are fantastic compared to FSX no matter how heavy the weather is... I then converted my other local airport sceneries I've created, Oregon's, Salem KSLE, Troutdale KTTD, and Seattle KSEA, and they look perfect in X-Plane... The little utility has never made an error yet...
Thanks nice read but surprising that you have a native KPDX for FSX lol because it doesn't exist ;-) it's native FS9...As for XP it's still back to the stone age for me they have a long way to go, ok back to FSX development ;-)

 

André
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cameron
Thanks nice read but surprising that you have a native KPDX for FSX lol because it doesn't exist ;-) it's native FS9...As for XP it's still back to the stone age for me they have a long way to go, ok back to FSX development ;-)
Andre,For one, this post was made back in November...To get back on topic though, I believe he meant that even with high detail scenery, X-Plane outperforms FS X even with highly detailed scenery (like PDX) in terms of FPS. I did not read his post as saying he had PDX working in FS X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andre,For one, this post was made back in November...To get back on topic though, I believe he meant that even with high detail scenery, X-Plane outperforms FS X even with highly detailed scenery (like PDX) in terms of FPS. I did not read his post as saying he had PDX working in FS X.
Cameron-as a balance-I like xplane a lot and am using it currently as my sim of choice.However, I find if I place similar visiblity settings, autogen, texture resolutions etc. fsx actually better outperforms xplane in performance.It is true if one takes the xplane at its' defaults it outperforms fsx in smoothness. But who runs fsx at its' defaults? Turn almost a single xplane slider (visiblity for instance which xplane limits-not like fsx unlimited), real weather download, autogen, high res textures etc. and the fps can go down (with automatic visiblity restrictions) in a way that makes fsx look like it screams with its' similar (and a multitude of) settings turned up.Most complaints for fsx are by people who turn most of the settings to max and get poor performance. I can get a similar if not worse performance in xplane by turning only one/two settings up-for instance autogen, real weather, or visibility-and that is with it set to give a minimum of 19 fps and warning that it has to reduce visiblity in an attempt to maintain that 19 fps-which with even a single setting and reduced visiblity it still can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cameron
Cameron-as a balance-I like xplane a lot and am using it currently as my sim of choice.However, I find if I place similar visiblity settings, autogen, texture resolutions etc. fsx actually better outperforms xplane in performance.It is true if one takes the xplane at its' defaults it outperforms fsx in smoothness. But who runs fsx at its' defaults? Turn almost a single xplane slider (visiblity for instance which xplane limits-not like fsx unlimited), real weather download, autogen, high res textures etc. and the fps can go down (with automatic visiblity restrictions) in a way that makes fsx look like it screams with its' similar (and a multitude of) settings turned up.Most complaints for fsx are by people who turn most of the settings to max and get poor performance. I can get a similar if not worse performance in xplane by turning only one/two settings up-for instance autogen, real weather, or visibility-and that is with it set to give a minimum of 19 fps and warning that it has to reduce visiblity in an attempt to maintain that 19 fps-which with even a single setting and reduced visiblity it still can't.
Hey, Geof,Your opinion is respected as always. :)I really think that it depends on your system. I've noticed some interesting things with X-Plane vs FS X, but on my machine, I can run Extreme Res on everything in X-Plane and sustain 60 fps on extreme objects. If I lower the objects to a default level, my fps will jump to just around 95 fps.If I do the same with FS X, my system cannot tolerate it very well. It runs, but I get into seeing a much lower fps (around 19-20). I think most testaments I see around here also suggest that X-Plane also runs at a much greater FPS.Now, in fairness, I will say that world detail distance set at a higher than normal setting can be pretty staggering on any system, and this is the one setting I dumb down. I do this because it's a very unnoticeable setting when turned up, and you typically don't see such great detail in far distances in the real world anyhow.Either way, people will always choose the sim they like best, but in my experience some nasty FPS hitting sceneries in FS perform MUCH smoother in X-Plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Either way, people will always choose the sim they like best, but in my experience some nasty FPS hitting sceneries in FS perform MUCH smoother in X-Plane.
As always thats good to have choices but there is more as FPS only in simulation ;-) lolThis sentence was confusing lol quote "Now I have my fabulous Portland sceneryin X-Plane and I'm telling you the FPS are fantastic compared to FSX"That scenery in FS9 has also better FPS as FSX so the comparison puzzles me lolI'm used to the FS forums and the regular postings so every thing on the first page and especially the second one is an very resent topic, so thanks for reminding me that it's indeed an old topic :(As for FPS with default FSX i will have FPS between 80 - 120 FPS over a detailed objects so this doesn't say anything lol Ps. that 737 is scary lolCheers,Level-d development team 2d/3d graphics

 

André
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly Andre-you can turn up stuff in xplane and get just as poor fps as fs...On the other hand there are lots of things xplane does a lot better-enough that it has my attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly Andre-you can turn up stuff in xplane and get just as poor fps as fs...On the other hand there are lots of things xplane does a lot better-enough that it has my attention.
What things are you referring to just curious regarding your experience, shame that youcouldn't make your great comparisons pictures due to technicality problems.Thanks in advance :-)

 

André
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What things are you referring to just curious regarding your experience, shame that youcouldn't make your great comparisons pictures due to technicality problems.Thanks in advance :-)
Off hand-it does multi engine props much better-something I am interested in. Engine out stuff, prop syncing, noise, dual gauges, etc. I have come to the conclusion that with a really great flight model (and there are few right now imho) the feel of flight is better. I think the water (in the beta) with the cloud/tree reflections is much more realistic, as are the cloud shadows on the ground. The modelling of icing is more comprehensive, and the visuals much better, along with ice pellets, hail etc. The rain effects I think are the closest I've seen on a sim. Better weather instrumentation included (stormscope/radar) and of course the much touted "smoothness". Autogen trees for my money look much more natural. The mapping and ability to set the aircraft in certain situations is great. Ability to program failures is incredible. Sloping runways and greatly superior ground handling.Now-there are lots of things it are missing compared to fsx-airports for the most part look like something we had 10 years ago (no buildings etc.), terrain textures at least in cities are not the quality of fsx, atc is pretty much nothing, no mission capability, clouds not as good, the landclass seems rather poor, ai traffic forget it... (I find the autogen buildings more real looking than fs but they seem to be scattered around in cities as one user put it like throwing a bunch of toys from a toybox).I am rather narrow with my sim use though-I just want to practice in a Baron and have that be very realistic. For this xplane (with my personal panel and tweaked fm) is just much more valuable. I also think there is lots of potential. I will keep using both sims, but in the flight realm (everything-weather, instruments, smooth instrument response ) I am just a little more attracted to Xplane-at least for a piston twin.I also like that it seems to be constantly improved and the developers listen to user response. Therefore I see great potential for the future-especially if more MS users start getting involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I also like that it seems to be constantly improved and the developers listen to user response. Therefore I see great potential for the future-especially if more MS users start getting involved."The last sentence (above) says it all!


regards,

Dick near Pittsburgh, USA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Callmecapt
I, too, have XPlane and agree about its strengths, but until commercial add-ons like the PMDG series are available (if ever) for it, it shall remian on my shelf.
Interested in selling your copy??Goran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChanRak

Kinda strange that we have not heard from the originator poster since november of 2008. Has not been back since.ChanRak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ChanRak

Hmm interesting FolksHere is what the guy posted at flight scenery which is at another forum. He sure left out some huh forgetable details on how he got the scenery done correctly. Here is the copy from that forum. go figure and compare to what he only said here. Ehhhh????ChanRak_________________________________________________________________________________bnickJoined: 13 Jan 2006Posts: 63 Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey guys... I know it is totally crazy that we keep meeting here when the site has been dead for ages, but for those of us that still really love the looks of the finest looking scenery package ever created I guess some of us still stop in from time to time to see what people are still discussing... Anyway for you folks who have the Flightzone-02 KPDX scenery package and want to use it in FSX you may still want to read my first thread above from BNICK... As a scenery designer myself, I worked with a friend to create the previous KPDX software package, which is now freeware, but previously sold several thousand copies of, including various airports... Flightzones Portland package blew ours out of the water and even though ours looked great in FS9 Flightzone-02 has no equal as far as I've experienced whether in FS9 or FSX as I have ported it to... After researching and editing the bgl's that worked or didn't work I was able to bring FZ02 into FSX so that it looked great... In addition I was able to add my own exclusion bgls from our old KPDX scenery software that I created into the Flightzone package which properly placed trees on Government Island next to the airport instead of the city FSX shows for it's landclass... My exclusion bgl files also removed all the default FSX buildings at KPDX airport so just Flightzones 02 buildings show through... I also added a dozen or so of my own bgls from our old package which added to the visual candy Flightzone-02's already provided... These bgl's of mine also included powerline towers that were placed per Satellite imagery all around East and West of KPDX and Troutdale across the Columbia into Washington... I used RWY12 to create the bgls with all the power towers as well as static aircraft and vehicles for KTTD Troutdale... With my AI traffic running Portland looks very real indeed and runs at a great frame rate on FSX... Any of the popular free AI sites will provide the tools for getting your traffic moving properly for KPDX... Regarding Flightzone's 02 Portland package I researched in depth over several days all the various bgl's, and mixed and matched the ones that worked and that didn't work with FSX for the Portland scenery and I've listed them in the first thread above... There still remains some flash-through as both FSX and KPDX runway textures seem to have been compiled with the same or close elevation data... I have learned to live with it by just keeping a higher spot view when taxiing, maybe 40' to 60' then I don't get the flash-through of the runway texture beneath... I also modified the Afcad file to make it real as it exists runway wise, I didn't change the Gates or parking in any way... With Flightzones Portland scenery running the FSX Jetways of course don't move as they do in the default FSX scenery and I can live with that... Now what I really did want to share originally that I think is really cool, and which uses perfectly our Flightzone-02 KPDX scenery is this... For a long time I have heard such great things about X-Plane with both it's strengths and weaknesses, and just for the fun of it I grabbed a copy at Bestb-y for $39 and wow am I impressed... It's weather blows FSX out of the water... The snow and rain look incredibly real in the way it falls and blows as well as in amount if it is falling very light or heavy... It's weather is downloaded in real-time every one minute as I have it set for... The weather transitions are totally transparent without notice and heavy weather makes no FPS impact like it does in FSX as far as I can see... The other night while flying to Seattle's KSEA, I was in and out of snow and rain sometimes within clouds 1/4 mile from each other and the rain turned to snow and back depending on what was downloaded... I'm really impressed with it... First thing I noticed with X-Plane that I didn't care for was that all airports were just runways with no buildings, and their Mesh terrain was a bit lower res than FSX's... Rivers and lakes were sometimes jagged and didn't have the realism and smoothness of custom FSX scenery packages, but in reading the various X-Plane forums people have long been posting free scenery and aircraft that are as nice I think as many FSX's add-on sceneries and planes... Their cockpits are super realistic and I guess this is where X-Plane exceeds from what I'm reading... Their ATC sucks and sounds like those old first generation text readers we use to hear when they first came out... Now the cool part... I read about a small shareware program called, FS2XPLANE.exe that converts Microsoft Flight Sim scenery to X-Plane and I tried it the night I installed X-Plane... I pointed to our beloved FZ02 KPDX scenery directory and this crazy little scenery converter compiled an almost perfect replica of FZ02 KPDX... Now I have the fabulous Portland scenery in X-Plane and I'm telling you the FPS are fantastic compared to FSX... I converted my Salem KSLE, my Troutdale KTTD, and someone else's Seattle KSEA and they are perfect in X-Plane... The little utility has never made an error yet... Anyhow I wanted to share this ability to use FZ02 in X-Plane with you guys... FZ02 looks every bit as good as it did in FS9 with none of the FSX problems... I'm adding a couple low-res screen-captures below of KPDX in X-Plane-9... Peace to all bnick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried a little of the conversion myself.Some freeware photoscenery works quite well-though to my eyes it doesn't look quite as sharp as fsx (perhaps lower mesh level in xplane?)?Using fs2xplane I've tried a few freeware fs projects-only some of it converted and there were some odd things (floating buildings etc.).Since using the new xplane beta which I use for a variety of improvements it appears to be even more broken.It would be nice to have a seamless way of converting from one sim to the other-but of course that would require a lot of permissions from the authors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...