423 replies to this topic

[CaptainG37]

Looks pretty good to me.

[Romario_]

OH....MY.....GOD. This is unreal!!!!



------

This will rape frames though

Edited by Romario_, 19 January 2011 - 07:19 PM.

[nw757]

You could pretty much drive from a house to the airport. With this detail (and assuming it will deliver respectable performance with better PCs) I'll be interested in buying.

Edited by nw757, 19 January 2011 - 07:24 PM.

[CaptainG37]

FPS will be SLIGHTLY less than XP9.  We're talking 3-5 fps worse.  If that.  
This is coming from some of XP10's developers.  It's mainly being made for computers with at least 2 cores.  Pretty much the normal specs nowadays anyway.

[_BD6_]

That is great!

[Pappy55]

Xplane is definatly going places these days in the visuals department..

[wynthorpe]

Yeah this is really shaping up to LOOK like a nice sim, sure we know XP9 fly's nice, not its just down to the other bits like decent VATSIM interface etc and better looking GUI, AI & ATC for those who care for that sort of thing.

[Pappy55]

wynthorpe, on Jan 20 2011, 10:29 AM, said:

Yeah this is really shaping up to LOOK like a nice sim, sure we know XP9 fly's nice, not its just down to the other bits like decent VATSIM interface etc and better looking GUI, AI & ATC for those who care for that sort of thing.

Yeah it's  the lack of AI Traffic and ATC that puts me off X-Plane.. I have XP-9 but can't get into it after useing fs for so long and getting used to the way it works.

I am going to be paitient though.. When I first used MS FS it was 3.0 + 95 and there was no AI or ATC back then. I imagine it will come in time.

[BrandonF]

Nothing in the screenshots really amazes me since you can make scenery for FSX that looks just as good.

[nw757]

BrandonF, on Jan 20 2011, 08:16 PM, said:

Nothing in the screenshots really amazes me since you can make scenery for FSX that looks just as good.

Yeah, because FSX autogen look like that.

[_BD6_]

BrandonF, on Jan 20 2011, 09:16 PM, said:

Nothing in the screenshots really amazes me since you can make scenery for FSX that looks just as good.

Again.. we're comparing DEFAULT fsx to DEFAULT xp10.. who wins? XP10 easily.

[CaptainG37]

BrandonF, on Jan 21 2011, 01:16 PM, said:

Nothing in the screenshots really amazes me since you can make scenery for FSX that looks just as good.

Brandon,
Please feel free to search through the FSX scenery for autogen that we can compare to XP10 autogen and please post screenshots so we can all see.
I bought FSX within a week of it being released and to this day, cannot find autogen that compares to XP10 autogen.  

It's one thing to prefer FSX to X Plane (no one is suggesting you cannot do this), but it's another thing to be completely oblivious to the obvious.

[Daube]

BrandonF, on Jan 20 2011, 09:16 PM, said:

Nothing in the screenshots really amazes me since you can make scenery for FSX that looks just as good.

No, you can't.
Only OrbX sceneries can provide such a rich and dense autogen, but even those sceneries will not provide such crisp ground textures and such dynamic shadows. (shadows in FSX just plainly suck ! )
Perhaps the situation will change with MS Flight, since we know now that Flight will bring such shadows as well. But compared with those screenshots, FSX is definitely out of the game.
On the other hand, FSX is 4 years old

In any case, I'm getting more and more impressed by the various visuals offered by this new XPlane 10. I'm confident that this new sim will bring new standards to the simulator world.
However, contrary to what is said here, I am definitely utra pessimistic on the amount of power that will be needed to render such good quality.

Edited by Daube, 21 January 2011 - 05:34 AM.

[CaptainG37]

Daube, on Jan 21 2011, 09:33 PM, said:

However, contrary to what is said here, I am definitely utra pessimistic on the amount of power that will be needed to render such good quality.

Understandable.  However, you should know that I am in constant contact with 2 of the contributing developers and another person who is in constant contact with Austin not to mention the constant updates Austin and Ben provide on various websites, including Xplane.com
While I don't know exactly how they did it, what I am assuming is that the autogen gets loaded and unloaded as the aircraft flies over it.

[MikeMann]

These shots are way more impressive than the ones Microsoft is posting for Flight!!!

I think Microsoft has got a very long road ahead to get Flight looking as good. Many thanks for the pics.

Regards, Mike Mann

[Peter797]

BrandonF, on Jan 20 2011, 09:16 PM, said:

Nothing in the screenshots really amazes me since you can make scenery for FSX that looks just as good.

LOL!!!! Yea...with a 20 FPS hit

[Spam]

lets not mention that this scenery is global, it contains street lighting, and shadows that you can actually turn on without them flickering and bringing your system to its knees. You guys shouldnt worry too much, most FSXers have spend about a million dollars on a pc to run FSX. It should eat a well coded (ahem) XP10 no sweat  

[CaptainG37]

spam3d, on Jan 22 2011, 01:49 AM, said:

lets not mention that this scenery is global, it contains street lighting, and shadows that you can actually turn on without them flickering and bringing your system to its knees. You guys shouldnt worry too much, most FSXers have spend about a million dollars on a pc to run FSX. It should eat a well coded (ahem) XP10 no sweat  

Or the fact XP10 will use global OSM data.

[MikeMann]

spam3d, on Jan 21 2011, 06:49 AM, said:

You guys shouldnt worry too much, most FSXers have spend about a million dollars on a pc to run FSX. It should eat a well coded (ahem) XP10 no sweat  

Microsoft just assumes that everyone is running FSX on a Cray supercomputer!!

Regards, Mike Mann

[aviatordom]

This looks absolutely amazing! Cannot wait for XP10!