106 replies to this topic

[Brandon-M]

CaptainG37, on Jan 20 2012, 07:30 PM, said:

Is that it??!!!
THAT is the level of detail people are complaining about?
I could model and texture those buildings in about an hour and add them to X Plane in about 2 minutes.
Give me a day and I could have about 12 or 13 cities done.

That picture is a load of crap. Seriously, turn your settings to low and make it look like to try to convey your point? Thats pretty stupid if you ask me. Then you two rather than acting like your mature selves blindly use that as evidence? Give me a break. We come here for intelligent discussion not this crap.

162db, on Jan 20 2012, 10:08 PM, said:

So you're comparing an FSX add-on to XP default now?

He never said he used an addon.

Jesus christ, X plane does not give a real representation of the world. There. Done.

[ChaoticBeauty]

162db, on Jan 21 2012, 03:49 AM, said:

I don't remember Toronto in FSX looking anything like that either so what's your point  

Is that on low settings?

[Flying_Scotsman]

That's FS 2000 or 2002, FS9 is more detailed, and FSX is far more detailed.

I won't touch XP yet, the demo showed me some nice night lighting, but everything else put me off.

[Daube]

162db, on Jan 20 2012, 08:49 PM, said:

I don't remember Toronto in FSX looking anything like that either so what's your point  

Thank you 162db for the anti-FSX propaganda. Posting this picture which is at extremely low settings (in game and in video drivers) is very clever from you.

Here is the real default FSX, with:
- default  ground textures
- Autogen one crank below max
- autogen limited to 300 buildings per cell (CFG tweak)
- scenery one crank below max
- no addon scenery for this area



Now, if people could understand that it's non-sense to compare the DEFAULT CONTENT of the two sims, that would be a huge step forward. Any place in FSX can look awesome to ugly, depending on what landclass and scenery you use for that precise area. Same applies to XPlane, excepted it's not landclass stuff, it's some other kind of descriptive data for the place.

Edited by Daube, 21 January 2012 - 05:49 AM.

[CaptainG37]

It's been said 101 times, urban areas/city areas in x plane are very low in realism level.  NO ONE disputes that.  But going by feedback, that and seasonal textures are the ONLY things lacking.  
AI and ATC is there and is getting improved.
I keep seeing posts by people saying "My city isn't modelled accurately so X Plane sucks".  What about the FLIGHT part of it?  The weather?  The rural areas?  The night lighting?  The HDR?

Brandon, X Plane DOES give a real representation of the world.  It's the cities that will be getting improved.

[Brandon-M]

CaptainG37, on Jan 21 2012, 06:33 AM, said:

It's been said 101 times, urban areas/city areas in x plane are very low in realism level.  NO ONE disputes that.  But going by feedback, that and seasonal textures are the ONLY things lacking.  
AI and ATC is there and is getting improved.
I keep seeing posts by people saying "My city isn't modelled accurately so X Plane sucks".  What about the FLIGHT part of it?  The weather?  The rural areas?  The night lighting?  The HDR?

Brandon, X Plane DOES give a real representation of the world.  It's the cities that will be getting improved.

This is what I meant to say. I have used Xplane, I didn't mean to say that it is modelled after mars or anything..

[Peter797]

CaptainG37, on Jan 21 2012, 08:33 AM, said:

It's been said 101 times, urban areas/city areas in x plane are very low in realism level.  NO ONE disputes that.  But going by feedback, that and seasonal textures are the ONLY things lacking.  
AI and ATC is there and is getting improved.
I keep seeing posts by people saying "My city isn't modelled accurately so X Plane sucks".  What about the FLIGHT part of it?  The weather?  The rural areas?  The night lighting?  The HDR?

Brandon, X Plane DOES give a real representation of the world.  It's the cities that will be getting improved.

Yes, the Night lighting is amazing, I said it is in the first post or somewhere in this topic already, the night lighting truly is amazing. The flight model is great too. To be honest, the rural areas look just like rural areas in FSX. I don't expect much from rural areas except forests/farms and a couple houses which both sims present similarily. I don't use the HDR, as I don't notice much of a difference and it kills my frames. The weather isn't bad, compared to default FSX weather of course. With REX, the weather engine and textures are great, however.

In the end it obviously comes down to personal preference, but I also enjoy having a large selection of aircraft to choose from. You can dispute that X-Plane does too. But the only nice ones I've seen, are either 2 that are in development or that jRollon CRJ. The rest are horrible 2D cockpit aircraft with really bad models, with engines that look like octagons.

[CaptainG37]

When it comes to criticizing the majority of x plane add ons, you'll see me first in line.
I told another FSX developer NOT to judge X Plane based on the majority of add ons.  
The market was very small...so small, that developers made add ons in their spare time.
Now there are add ons like the CRJ, MU2, BK117, Seamax, Falco, Corvalis, etc... that are pushing the limits of top level quality.  
These are some of the add ons that have made simmers AND developers take notice of what x plane is capable of.  The latest one is HiFi Sim, who are looking at bringing ActiveSky to X Plane 10.

[_BD6_]

CaptainG37, on Jan 21 2012, 08:59 PM, said:

When it comes to criticizing the majority of x plane add ons, you'll see me first in line.
I told another FSX developer NOT to judge X Plane based on the majority of add ons.  
The market was very small...so small, that developers made add ons in their spare time.
Now there are add ons like the CRJ, MU2, BK117, Seamax, Falco, Corvalis, etc... that are pushing the limits of top level quality.  
These are some of the add ons that have made simmers AND developers take notice of what x plane is capable of.  The latest one is HiFi Sim, who are looking at bringing ActiveSky to X Plane 10.

There's no question that if someone like PMDG, etc.. take the time to make something for X-plane.. there will be tons of people coming over to XP.

[CaptainG37]

If Flight tanks it, and P3D turns out to be a logistical nightmare, then the only option, unless another flight sim comes along, is X Plane.
I mean, what else are these developers going to do?  Get a 9 to 5 job...after making add ons for 5, 6, 7, 10 years?

[Peter797]

To be honest as systems only get more and more powerful people are beginning to experience FSX how it should be experienced, so I wouldn't say that X Plane would be the only option.

[CaptainG37]

FSX, as I have said before, has a good 3-5 years left in it.  But ACES is gone, Flight turned out to be not very appealing in its realism, Aerofly is only a baby in the sim world (although what it has so far is VERY impressive with regards to eye candy and physics), P3D...well, we'll see what comes of that as far as licensing goes.  
X Plane uses particle rendering and HDR.  FSX does not.  Who knows where that tech will be in 5 years from now.  I tend to go with the people in the know, when it comes to things like this.  OrbX are very revered and respected, and they see no future in FSX past a few more years.  PMDG seem like they are split between X Plane and FSX  in the next few years.
Does no good to speculate.  I just go by what the more respected developers have planned.

[162db]

Peter797, on Jan 21 2012, 07:39 PM, said:

To be honest as systems only get more and more powerful people are beginning to experience FSX how it should be experienced, so I wouldn't say that X Plane would be the only option.

I think the i7 and Phenom II cpus already took care of that. Anything more powerful than one of those overclocked to 4+ ghz is simply not necessary. As for video cards, the GTX 480 and 5870 are all that were needed. IMO in this age, FSX is dead and busted.

[_BD6_]

162db, on Jan 22 2012, 12:41 AM, said:

I think the i7 and Phenom II cpus already took care of that. Anything more powerful than one of those overclocked to 4+ ghz is simply not necessary. As for video cards, the GTX 480 and 5870 are all that were needed. IMO in this age, FSX is dead and busted.

You must not have the PMDG NGX/747/MD11, CaptainSim 757/767, or any of the payware airliners.. with GEX, REX, UTX, FSGenesis, ORBX, FSDT, Flytampa, yadda yadda. Trust me.. if there was a CPU that could do 6ghz.. it would do FSX wonders.. even 4.8ghz with the latest GPU's can not get you a consistent 30fps with good image quality.

[162db]

bl00mfield, on Jan 21 2012, 10:59 PM, said:

You must not have the PMDG NGX/747/MD11, CaptainSim 757/767, or any of the payware airliners.. with GEX, REX, UTX, FSGenesis, ORBX, FSDT, Flytampa, yadda yadda. Trust me.. if there was a CPU that could do 6ghz.. it would do FSX wonders.. even 4.8ghz with the latest GPU's can not get you a consistent 30fps with good image quality.

Had the PMDG 747, Arianne 737, Capt Sim 757, Level-D 767, Super 80. GEX, REX, UTX, My Traffic-X, FSG mesh, AS, and a host of other add-ons I don't remember. Had an i7 920 @ 4.6 ghz, 1600 mhz triple channel DDR 3 with GTX 285 and it handled it just fine. If you can't run at minimum 30 fps with your cpu, then either you need to lower your settings or something is terribly wrong.

Edit: The only time I noticed constant drops below 30 fps was when I added enb series bloom. But I had no problems after I switched the video card to a 6950 2gb.

Edited by 162db, 22 January 2012 - 01:36 AM.

[_BD6_]

162db, on Jan 22 2012, 01:29 AM, said:

Had the PMDG 747, Arianne 737, Capt Sim 757, Level-D 767, Super 80. GEX, REX, UTX, My Traffic-X, FSG mesh, AS, and a host of other add-ons I don't remember. Had an i7 920 @ 4.6 ghz, 1600 mhz triple channel DDR 3 with GTX 285 and it handled it just fine. If you can't run at minimum 30 fps with your cpu, then either you need to lower your settings or something is terribly wrong.

Edit: The only time I noticed constant drops below 30 fps was when I added enb series bloom. But I had no problems after I switched the video card to a 6950 2gb.

  I average around 20-25fps (close enough to smooth) with most settings to max cept the obvious ones.. scenery/autogen is extremely dense. FSX for me is pretty much loaded with every option possible on UTX, etc.. and the 6970 on supersample 8x There's still room for better hardware in FSX. Love to see a screenshot/video with your AA if you're claiming those numbers on a 285.

Edited by bl00mfield, 22 January 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[162db]

bl00mfield, on Jan 22 2012, 12:01 AM, said:

  I average around 20-25fps (close enough to smooth) with most settings to max cept the obvious ones.. scenery/autogen is extremely dense. FSX for me is pretty much loaded with every option possible on UTX, etc.. and the 6970 on supersample 8x There's still room for better hardware in FSX. Love to see a screenshot/video with your AA if you're claiming those numbers on a 285.

No wonder you can't maintain minimum 30 fps. SSAA looks good but it absolutely kills fps. With the 6950, I always flew with 4x Adaptive + MLAA and it looked just as good and gave better performance than SSAA.

Edited by 162db, 22 January 2012 - 05:53 AM.

[_BD6_]

162db, on Jan 22 2012, 05:45 AM, said:

No wonder you can't maintain minimum 30 fps. SSAA looks good but it absolutely kills fps. With the 6950, I always flew with 4x Adaptive + MLAA and it looked just as good and gave better performance than SSAA.

I'm aware of the impact supersampling has. That's interesting, I never thought to try MLAA.

[_BD6_]

bl00mfield, on Jan 22 2012, 09:40 AM, said:

I'm aware of the impact supersampling has. That's interesting, I never thought to try MLAA.

4x + MLAA in the NGX at FSDT KLAX gets me about 30fps in the VC.. but still not as sharp as i want it to be.. You may be fine with that kind of image quality, but I'm not.  I'll play around with it.

proceed with the x-plane discussion

Edited by bl00mfield, 22 January 2012 - 10:25 AM.

[Peter797]

bl00mfield, on Jan 22 2012, 10:16 AM, said:

4x + MLAA in the NGX at FSDT KLAX gets me about 30fps in the VC.. but still not as sharp as i want it to be.. You may be fine with that kind of image quality, but I'm not.  I'll play around with it.

proceed with the x-plane discussion

Hey when you find a new Anti Aliasing alternative, let me know I can also use a few frames here and there. Even with the 2600k at 4.5 and a gtx 460, just like you said, intense airports and captain sim, just turns to 20-25 fps.

Edited by Peter797, 22 January 2012 - 10:28 PM.