User72

It's okay, you don't need to break anything to me, I understand that it's something you hate having to do. I can manage just fine without your assistance. I must say though that now I am certainly amazed by your apparent ability to speak for no less than millions. I will not presume to do so, rather I shall express my own opinions. As for the willingness or capabilities of the many, here again I cannot speak authoritatively so I can only but suggest that if they find themselves in such a time poor position they might allocate their time better, perhaps towards the things they do like with less of their valuable time spent complaining about what they don't like, complaining taking time as it does. You see X-Plane is not a paid service as you are wont to call it, it's a product. If you don't like the product as it stands then it is for you to decide whether or not to take up your valuable time using it, or to do what you can to improve your experience of it, or to simply do something else with your time and money.

Ex aircraft mechanic, retired on nice pension at 40 actually, will never have to answer to another again except the wife. I would think you can never have too much time on your hands, there is after all a limited allocation to us all. Skills can be learned, time and talent I can't address. Like anything else, it's not hard once you actually try. I'm just of a personal opinion that too many people complain about things rather than getting off their backside and helping themselves. This is an especially ridiculous state of affairs when you contrast such vociferous complaints as those seen around here against the backdrop of inequality, poverty or any of the myriad real problems that plague our world today. A little bit of perspective would go a long way around here.

It's funny to see what some people are amazed by, especially those who list FSX or P3d as their primary simulator, they seem to be the ones most easily amazed by X-Plane and what it doesn't do. I say doesn't do as opposed to can't or couldn't do. To my mind it's as it's meant to be, a flight simulator rather than an airport simulator or a season simulator. It's about flight. Unlike the other simulators though, all the tools to make airports or aircraft are included for those people who would care to use them. I guess some people just like to have everything done for them rather than try to figure out how to make their own sim better for their own benefit. I for one can fly from my home field, created by me, fly VFR to my own house, put there by me, over photographic scenery, created by me, and then to any of the completely free fields created by me or others that I might like to fly to in a simulator I didn't have to write a single line of code for that benefits from regular updates and runs extraordinarily well with no crashes, OOMs or CTD's that plague the others. I don't see problems there at all. I find that tremendously satisfying. Maybe I'm easily pleased.

Maybe. I have been checking it out as it progresses though and hadn't noticed any such behaviour previously. When I did have FSX I had no real scenery loading issues. I can run XP10 at really high settings. Will keep an eye on it going forward.

Nice, will certainly be checking that out! Good to see progress, must admit the trees look great, just had a look. I noticed that the terrain definition is lowered if you look away from it and takes a second to load back in when you look again, looks pretty bad tbh..

All I can really say is my moon doesn't look that way at all so it might be something particular to your setup.

Very nice, I'll be going for 3 27" Samsung fairly shortly too. I have 3 screens but they are a mismatched bunch in size and type so no good for XP really. Makes a huge difference to simming and gaming, you'll never go back to one monitor now.

That's a pity! You can bet that there is a market there though and that many will be hoping your exploration of XP goes well!

I get that and can't use Squawkbox at all. I think it's a conflict with another plugin. I think with Gizmo as I uninstalled Gizmo for a test at one stage and that enabled running SB. I'd prefer to have the aircraft though, not big on Vatsim.

The biggest problem for X-Plane in the huge U.S. marketplace is a lack of the very things you are doing. On a state by state basis I imagine photoscenery with autogen would go down very well indeed with X-Planers. The photoscenery is not too hard to get with some determination but accurate autogen is limited to OSM which everyone knows is woefully inadequate in the U.S.

I can get the images after a second or two so I tried the video which split into 3 for me, with the center one looking a bit kinda 3D just too small for a great effect to be seen. Is that how others perceive it out of curiosity?

I'm not suggesting it for everybody, each to their own has always been my belief but really I don't ever fly at lower than 400ft unless I'm landing or taking off so it's not a problem for me. Ultimately it matters not to me who does or doesn't agree with me, it's a digital conversation where opinions are expressed and either accepted or rejected by those who read them and view the pictures. It's not my intention to persuade anyone one way or the other but for those with an open mind or those who may not be overly committed to a particular viewpoint, being able to see and partake of the conversation may be prove helpful.

Very good! :Hypnotized:

Surely you could do that yourself with WED?

No I agree that their airfields are well done but the more general area sceneries, Orbx Ireland for example, because they are landclass replacements are essentially fake scenery as far as I'm concerned. Everything you see when you look down is just not real, doesn't exist at that geographical point. They do great airfields and could make a killing with them in X-Plane, conversions would not be difficult but JV seems opposed to XP on any level for some reason.

Within a few minutes of 20:00. It's pretty overcast here at the minute. I'll mostly use real world time and weather. Yeah, I think XP beats all for night flights but the water does kill the framerates to have at any more than low for me.

These I took just to give a very quick indication. My home field is EIME in Ireland which has a field altitude of 323ft depending on where you are on the field so these are all taken at 700ft within a hair on a very quick flight around the area. To me you see, no matter how hard ORBX try, they will never be providing a real representation of what actually exists at any given point which just irks me. To me they are selling fake scenery, I just can't get that out of my head when I fly over it. These are all G2xpl and World2XPlane. OSM data is not great for Ireland but it's good enough for me. I certainly do agree that the water needs work and that quite a few other things need work but the great thing is, I didn't have to do any of the work that has already gone into the simulator code. I get to enjoy it. If at anything above 350ft I can see what really exists in the world as I fly over that spot in a sim, I'm gonna be happy as I can't afford to fly myself in the real world. I think considering all that we have in the simulated world, we should all be pretty content gven that none of us had to create the programs ourselves.

Yeah I think the Europeans fare better with the photo/osm combination, I've often wondered why American OSM coverage is so poor in comparison. I don't use Simheavens stuff, the resolution is too poor, I use G2xpl instead and I find at ZL18 I have clear sharp scenery at anything over 300ft or so. Again it depends on coverage in your area, for many years it was useless for me until Bing updated their maps and yippee, it was suddenly the best option for me by a long way.

All that can be done for a fraction of the cost too. Nice shot. That's the XPX that I fly in, the original comparison doesn't come close to capturing that. That's why I uninstalled the other sims, there was just no comparison to be made in my mind any more, the winner for me was clear.

jcomm, have you tried the 407? Much more enjoyable than the 350 which does seem more difficult to fly than it needs to be.

Agreed. Where I fly the phototextures are crisp and clear above 300ft at ZL18 and I fly heli's and GA mostly. Those textures with the World2XPlane stuff with almost everything maxed out using SkymaxxPro clouds and I get a good enough framerate to see no stuttering. I abandoned P3d and FSX completely when I got XP set up right, they were just too fake and cartoony looking but I guess it's a matter of taste. I suppose I'm a person who doesn't need everything now so the pace of development is fine by me. I do agree that the plausible world is anything but, but I have substituted that for one that is as real as one can get in a sim today. With the experiments I did at ZL19 I found that they were no better than at 18, there being no better resolution available but the file sizes are 4 times the size, there's just no point doing 19. Even if P3d goes 64bit in the long run, it will still just look awful to me, different strokes for different folks.

Doing a never done before aircraft would be a good move, giving folks a concrete reason to explore XP further. They would be creating a market for themselves.

Impressive work being done! Great to see! Enjoy the hols Tony.

Yes it is certainly nice to see progress continuing rather faster now and I for one read all your welcome updates HiFlyer.

Yes people do tend to recognise whining.