npole

Sure mate.. and "la Gioconda" is a portrait painted by a kid. So, good luck!

Anyone with a pair of working eyes could notice the difference between that and this (here i'm using REX SC):

Opinion? No, it's a fact (i struggle to post this screenshots .. since my monitor is going to cry.. but hey you asked for it), ASCA is horrible:

AS16 will control their textures.. but unfortunately ASCA looks terrible, so you gonna have no advantage if compared with ASN. Stay with ASN+REX... and wait for the sales (50% discount or more), actually AS16 is a ripoff and doesn't offer any advantage (and if you consider ASCA, it's actually a downgrade).

That's an easy one: ASN + REX looks time better than this + ASCA .. because ASCA textures looks horrible. In other words, purchasing AS16 + ASCA at the moment is not only a waste of money, it's actually a (visual) downgrade! Actually he is right.. ASCA looks terrible, it even worse than P3D default textures!

Apart the first shot, that is identical to the current/previous ASN and REX, the others looks horrible and unrealistic to be honest, especially the last one.

So to have something good, you don't have to pay only for ASN... but then for ASCA.. and if you own FSX and P3D you have to pay two times again. do they think we are human wallets or what? I don't like the REX guys much.. but at this point it's better to wait for them to release the weather engine and move everything on a single product, because honestly this all look a way to charge more money to us, when we have bought the product already not so long time ago.

Not only this, they have separate the products now for FSX and P3D.. so if you use both, you need to purchase AS16 two times. I'm sorry HiFi but this is a way too much, especially for those who own ASN already and want to upgrade. I will stay with ASN and when it'll be outdated, I will find alternative ways.. or i'll just way for a 60% discount during the next sales.

Too high price for what it gives, if compared with the ASN we already have. Plus nor there's different prices between FSX and P3D, but for many of us who still use both the sims, you are now separating the licenses, forcing us to pay for the product two times. No, thanks.

1080 without doubt... but the price is a little meh atm. The next month the first AMD will be available, and maybe the price of the 1070 will drop a little, and subsequently the 1080 as well.. so I would wait 30 days.

I always had both, but I used P3D more.. only recently, because of the blurrrrrr frustration, I decided to dedicate more time to XP. It's smooth (it's not a matter of fps, i'm doing almost the same fps), the physics is much more convincing, and the night/evening/lighting is amazing.. this is its strength points, that are really good points if we talk about a simulator, but talking about the graphic and the visual realism, a fully loaded XP10 (photomesh, custom mesh, skymaxx.. everything you can imagine), doesn't come near the beauty of P3D (with ORBX and REX), and also the enormous quality aircraft database (while in XP the good ones are very limited). So actually i'm doing my night routes with XP10, but when I want to enjoy the scenery with that plane... I switch to P3D, accepting the stutters and the occasional blurriness, because the beauty of it surpasses any frustration.

I run both sim (I have quite lot of money invested in P3D), but recently I'm experiencing issues with inconstant performance and especially with blurred textures (if you use it, you know what I'm talking about), an issue that I'm having with 3.2 but not with the previous versions, so I'm convinced that the current version has some problems.. hence I decided to take a pause from it and dedicate some more time to XP (I didn't touched it by a while..). I pumped it to the max and I'm trying to replicate the same visual appeal I had with P3D, under certain aspect I managed to have a better visual (in example in the night), while others are still behind (clouds and weather in general), so we come with the aircrafts: I were used to fly with stunning looking machines, while I'm finding extremely hard to match the same quality with what the 3rd parties offer for XP10... hence this thread. In the end, did I asked for the moon? I asked to have the same quality I have on P3D.. and it's proven that the same quality is possible in XP as well, so I just wanted to know if there's anything else.. if there's nothing else, well I will continue to fly with Carenado and IXEG, until I'll fix my issues with P3D.

I'm sorry, but I'm not talking about donations (because for me purchasing something that I won't use, will be just that... a donation). I want to buy something that I will use, not giving my money for "support" (I do often, but I didn't open a thread to ask for who needs support.. ).

Ok a couple of examples: Everything that looks worse than a Carenado B1900D is bad designed for my taste (The B1900 is acceptable). A IXEG 737 or a PMDG 737 (talking about FSX/P3D) are well designed for my taste. I didn't talked about the developer effort, neither I want to discuss about how many people have worked at the CRJ if compared with Carenado or PMDG companies. I'm talking exclusively about the graphic quality. You say, if you don't like it... the issue is that looking at the youtube videos or screenshots isn't the best way to judge... but unfortunately they doesn't provide a DEMO or an evaluation copy, so that's the only way I have (and asking here on the forum of course). Right.. im struggling to find the same quality I have with P3D, some of the models there does have the WOW factor. Talking about the scenery I find P3D at low altitude with ORBX more convincing, while XP10 with mesh performs better at high altitude because of the textures diversification. The weather (and the clouds representation) .. there's no story here, XP10 is ugly as hell if compared with REX, even with SkyMaxx+connector and RTH tweaks.. 90% of the times the clouds are so fake that you must turn them off. Where XP is really ahead of P3D is about the night (so the lighting).. it's really well done and alot more convincing than P3D. But in general I agree, with XP I find it harder to replicate a "real world" scenario, in example just for a nice screenshot... with P3D I found it easier as at every flight I was "oh!". Atm I'm still experimenting with XP, because i find the flight more smooth (despite the similar fps) and because P3Dv3.2 is a nightmare with the blurred textures.. so i'm taking a pause from it. ...oh and i'm massively OT in this thread!

Hi, thanks.. but the Challenger and the CRJ are bad designed for my taste, I've looked at the 340 already and it looks good enough.. i need to find more videos and pictures, coz I won't waste my money on something that then i won't fly. I know I'm exigent, but I really can't look at a low res texture or a bad designed knob and stuff like this.. it really ruins everything after you spend so much time and money to tweak your scenery, upgrade your PC to pump the settings to the "max".. etc. I'm talking exclusively about the look of course.. not the physics, avionics, etc.

You have the same issue with Ivao and x-Ivap.. you need to change/update the lights.png picture in the vtsim plugin folder, try to replace it with this (backup the original one first): http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/30433-x-ivap-smaller-ai-lights/

The market is filled with that category, even by looking within the same Carenado catalog. A nice addition to the list (more we have, better it is), but i won't call it a "game changer"?

It's only part of the VRAM occupied by the current textures resolution ... basically guesstimate = not useful at all, the real VRAM used can be even 3 times that number.. so ignore it and use Afterburner. MSI Afterburner will also give the RAM usage, and many other parameters, like CPU usage, temperatures.. etc.

When?

Yup, I tried with both 2x and 4x on both AA and SGSS (to also check the performance) ...without good results, but in the end since w2xp were lowering my fps too much, get rid of it, has been a relief. I hope the 10.50 will introduce some better object distribution/management, so we don't "need" it anymore.

Nope, that's just the memory occupied by the textures. To know how much memory it is occupying you need to use some external tools, like GPU-Z, MSI Afterburner.

Now, without spending too much words.. from when I switched from 2.5 to v3 (now 3.2), I always had the impression that the sim wasn't delivering the same quality (with the exact same mods and settings) .. recently with all this blurred textures, not loading scenario.. and whatever I spend more time to try to fix my settings, than flying. It could be my eyes.. or my bad memory.. I don't have many screenshot to compare.. but don't it looks two different sims here? (the scenario is about the same zone.. as I fly always around germany): P3 V2.5: P3 V3.2: ...dunno what's wrong here. I can't see to match the same quality and performance I had last year... and I'm doing the same fps as well (with 2.5 I had gtx 780 .. now I have a gtx 980ti).

You "need" the whole ORBX (Base + Vector + OpenLC EU) to have a credible "look"... you may decide to go for the base only (as you may decide to not install REX .. but just a serie of free HD textures), but it's really worth it. Also, OpenLC USA is around the corner.. so prepare for it as well (if you will ever fly over USA). For the rest.. you're OK with the above (FSUIPC is not needed for your configuration, but comes in handy in many other situation.. the free version costs nothing and it doesn't impact your performance, so why not?).

The first thing that jumps to my eyes.. it's the 1080p and only 2xSAA.. unfortunately I'm playing at 3 times that res and 4xSSAA, yes I have a 980Ti and a good 6cores, but it looks like they aren't enough. Anyway, as I said, by disabling the w2xp I "solved" everything... almost.

I didn't want to diminish the dev effort.. but I'm a customer, and if I have to pay for something, I pretend that it's top quality. I have the 737 .. as I have the smaller aircrafts (luckily there's a good choice on that front), I'm just missing a medium/regional one (a little bigger than the 1900D that I have as well...) ... I will look at the Saab eventually, that looks well designed (from the screenshots / youtube).