klamal

Could not agree more! Based on videos that I've seen so far for FS2020, there isn't anything, Megascenery, X-Plane, anything, that will be close to FS2020 in this category. Or, maybe(hopefully) any category. As far as I have seen and heard so far, FS2020 will put an end to all other flight sims.

Very interesting. That makes sense. Thank you for the insight into what goes into making some of these decisions.

My apologies then in regards to this being a non-issue on the performance end, let's say. Though, is it safe to assume that we pay for this in one way or another? This focus on the internals of the buildings that most of us will never see? Do we pay in a higher price for the product? Do we pay in something else that could have garnered more focus and been made better? The issue that this started out about was textures not being as good as they could have been, right? (I do totally apologize here - yes, I have not read every single comment in this thread. So if I'm again wrong, I am sorry. I don't have the time to read the entire thing) Anyway, so we see textures that didn't get the focus they should have. Is that a fair statement to make? I tend to think that somehow, there is a "cost" to those of us that don't care about this stuff. Is it not fair for us to voice that opinion? I'm not trying to start a war. Just having conversation here. That's all.

Yes. How odd behavior it is for us to want to make the product better. While I don't disagree that maybe it could be done in a more nice fashion sometimes, the developer has to be able to accept criticism. But, this is something that is becoming less and less allowed in society. Heaven forbid we hurt someone's feelings!! How odd behavior it is for us to question the focus of the developer. I haven't bought this product yet, but I do agree that the focus on the internal terminal is a completely wrong area to focus resources on. How many of us actually go into the terminal of an airport? But we can't critique that because someone may take that as a direct attack on the actual person rather than just really trying to improve the product in the ways that matter to the customer, not the developer. It's the same with GSX. We waited a long time for the latest update because the developer wanted pretty PBR textures. Really? Is that where the focus should go? We have baggage trucks that drive through the aircraft. Ground personnel that walk through the engines. Pushbacks that go in crazy directions. This logic should be fixed first, in my opinion. The only people that care about pretty PBR textures on this are video makers, I think. Anyway, I'm sure I will catch some ____ for making this statement.

So I am confused here...are you arguing that we shouldn't care what night lighting looks like at all because we should be focused on everything else but not how "pretty" the night lighting looks? Seems to be off topic if you ask me. This is more about trying to represent what we see out the window regardless of whether we should have time or not. I am hoping for something that approaches as close to reality as possible with all aspects of the sim. I don't want over glorified night lighting or anything that isn't close to real. But I also don't want it to not even be something that's not addressed at all solely because we should be too busy to look outside the airplane.

Southwest doesn't have Embraer. They are all Boeing.

I would add not only just light airplanes, but all airplanes. This is one of the most well documented issue/difference in and between both sims. One doesn't give us the feel of flying through air at all, or hardly at all(P3D, FSX) and one allows you to feel that a little too much(XP).

Beautiful airplane - Too bad it's Carenado!

Totally agree. The FSL Airbus is, in my opinion, the best airplane for ANY flight simulation platform!

Seems to me that you need to learn to code and get started on your new sim that fits perfectly to your needs.

I don't think it really matters much as to what's in the cockpit. You could put an A320 cockpit in the Concorde and still not that many people will fly it. I think it simply comes down to, in my opinion, is that most people want to fly the actual aircraft they see flying in the skies today. The Concorde is grounded. Therefor not many people really care to fly it. I get your passion for it and I know there are others that like flying aircraft that no longer fly for nostalgic reasons, but that's just not where the $$ is in aircraft development. It's just really simple economics I think. Again, I mean no disrespect to your love for the Concorde nor any disrespect to the aircraft itself by this post.

This isn't due to MS Updates. This is due to the way DHCP works. This is used in pretty much any network device, regardless of the OS. So, as Luke mentions, if you don't like it, statically assign an IP and all your problems will be solved. 🙂

I'm available!!! 🙂

And if they did that, they would not be flying much longer after coming out with that livery. It wouldn’t take the media long at all to destroy them!

It would be nice if they'd at least have an option to turn them off!

The title says it all. It was already the best but now, there is no other plane that is close, IMO. Just amazing!! Now I just have to get used to coming back to P3D from mostly flying XPlane. Have to get used to the 'cartoon-like' look of P3D again. But this plane is just too amazing to not fly!!!!

That's it! All I have to say. The most annoying thing about the product.

I totally agree with this too. I've heard this stated many times too in various forums. I should have added in my original response that I do use TomatoShade and have used PTA in the past. Also, I have FTX Global. So I haven't used just default P3D textures since many years ago now. I can't remember what default P3D even looks like with regards to sky/cloud/autogen textures. Yep. This is a big advantage to XPlane. P3D is texture swapping(though maybe not in all cases these days?). Where XP is objects actually "reacting" to light like in real life. How is XVision? Is it worth it now? I used it when it was free and really liked it. But I'm not sure I want to buy it when there is no guarantee it will work with each new version of XP. As I said before though, all of this is so subjective. I made a comment in a different conversation somewhere where this same sort of stuff was talked about. I think it was night lighting in P3D. Some prefer the darker night environment now in P3D 4.4 and some prefer the lighter in earlier versions with each arguing their point of view that it is more realistic. I argue again that both are probably realistic in very specific scenarios that you'd find in Mother Nature. I wish it were possible to detect what real skies look like "for real" with no ambiguities, no artist bias. After all, it should all be just 1's and 0's, right? Then get that represented in the sim with the exact same 1's and 0's that you see in real life and tell everyone to "shut up". It's real. The end. 🙂 I know this is probably not yet possible with the infinite number of combinations that Mother Nature can produce. But it would be nice. I want real. 100% real. Not artists' impressions of what is real. Maybe that won't always produce a perfect "photo op". But at least it's real! 🙂

1. Performance. I am building a 9700K which I want clocked at 5.0GHz, 32GB ram and 1080. Is that enough for 30+ FPS with the FF767 with stock scenery? 1080P is fine at this point. I don't have the FF 767 so I can't speak specifically to that scenario but I think you will be able to run XP fine with that setup. 2. I use EZDOCK. Anyhting similar for X-Plane? The default camera system in XP is all anyone really needs, I think. It's super easy to use too. Unless you need a whole bunch of different camera angles. 3. It's hard to tell from YT as people like to colorize everything but is stock X-Plane scenery/graphics ok compared to FSX? I have ORBX Global and regions but as far as I am aware they are still not available for X-Plane This is where XP shines, IMO! Get Ortho4XP and start making photoreal scenery. Super easy. And with all the freeware airports out there, you will be more than good to go. Even better than Orbx/land class scenery in P3D/FSX. 4. Traffic. Big fan of World of Ai. Anyting similar for XP? There is a product you can buy but I can't remember it's name now. I don't use anything or fly on Vatsim. 5. I don't use yokes. Just a thrustmaster joystick. Any problems with that? No problem at all. 6. Overall impressions from those that own both platforms? As has been said a lot of times here and everywhere, XP seems to "feel" more real when it comes to actually flying through air. Where P3D/FSX is more like "flying on rails" unless the aircraft models it better. But default P3D/FSX does not do the greatest job, IMO. Lighting is a big difference too. P3D/FSX is more "vivid", at least on my setup. And many others have said too that XP out of the box is pretty "dull". But you can tweak that too. There are those that will argue each is more realistic. But, in reality, they both are. Mother Nature can produce an infinite number of combinations of lighting/colors. With P3D and XP getting it exactly right in certain situations. But both of these two topics are perception. So what looks good to one is not good to another. For me, if I want to fly "study level" airliners, I fly P3D. If I want GA(and the awesome Hotstart TBM 900), I fly XP. But, just reading now the end of your statement where you don't want GA and you fly only PMDG/QW stuff, you may want to go to P3D in my opinion. If that's what you care about the most is quality aircraft. XP has some really good close to study level airliners, but not quite what can be had in P3D from PMDG or FSLabs. On the other hand, if you're ok with pretty close to PMDG and really good scenery/free airports pretty much everywhere you go in the world, than XP will be great. The bottom line though, this is a purely subjective topic. You're going to find people that will fight to the death for each side. In reality though, they each have their pluses and minuses. As the saying goes, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Good luck!

It is gorgeous there!!! In the top of my list as one of the most beautiful places on the planet that I've been to! I was in Norway and Lofoten back in August 2017. The weather was in the 40's to 50's. That's a little cold for me to swim but I have seen videos on YouTube of people swimming in summer in Lofoten.

Yeah, but like he says, what other options are there? This is the only reason why Carenado is still in existence. No competition. When your choice is garbage or nothing, what are you going to choose?

I think it's pretty safe to say that they fail on way more than just one thing.

Hello, Ray. Have you heard anything yet in regards to John's intentions on what he will do with the source code?

I assume you have heard of Carenado? Never ending supply of "lite" aircraft. Though, I guess if you want at least the basics to work(autopilot, etc), then maybe you can't even count them as "lite"? Just flying pretty textures.

They seem better to me. I think. But, remember, this will be subjective. We each have our own idea of what sounds good. I've only done one flight with them so far. They do seem to get rid of some of the bad repetitive phrases I mentioned in my original post. But again, with only one flight done, I can only say that I didn't hear them for this one flight.