Is this X-Plane 10 'as real as it gets' ?

[didierkeller]

Having just sampled v10 on the demo, well all I can say is this is still not the one that will make me 'cross over' from FSX.
OK, I may not have got all my settings right yet but this is the first results:
I experienced huge fps problems at medium high settings (lower than used with FSX whilst giving me an FS95 look at the same time !) This is all contrary to my expectations and what Austin mentions clearly in his introduction: a super fluid simulation to nearly professional standards. Based on a long experience with FSX, I can't think of what I would have done wrong in the settings. With the same computer (latest iMac I also run with Windows 7 x64) FSX gives me easily 22fps at near max. Here, I was getting 9-14fps under OS-X (near KLAX.) Clearly not what I expected.
My expectations, from reading about X-Plane for a long time, were these:
Expect a kind of 'serious' simulation (meaning don't expect too many evocative sceneries and special graphics) concentrate on the technicalities of flight, forget sightseeing, this is for 'pilots' (I am an 1800hr pilot btw.) So, I thought, I'll be able to practice shooting ILS's better than I have ever done with FSX, or in reality certainly !
I was told to expect very fluid inputs and 'real' behaviour thanks to very high fps - 30 a good average. Well, my inputs were erratic, almost uncontrollable, even though I had calibrated my Saitek joystick) and that was before the degradation in fps.
Also, coming from FSX, I know, the 'reflexes' are different, I mean how to move around the cockpit, to change views, etc. I must say that the good hints I got from one of you on a different post, were NOT in the 147 page manual.
I was told to expect a better ATC than FSX, that should have been sooo easy... (God only knows standard FSX ATC is a bull) I didn't think that was the case, but did not concentrate too much on that , as I could hardly fly the plane (Baron 58) Btw: quality of engine sounds ??
If the positives were a great flying experience at near professional standard (!) at the cost of lower graphical environment, less choice in planes, etc. I was more than ready for it, even for $80... any time.
alas, this was not the case, far from it. I felt I was back 10 years (FS5 - FS95 ?) with about the same flying experience.
So, we'll wait again.

[callmecapt]

The settings are the first order of business. And there is a step by step guide on how to do it for your particular hardware. XP10 has things that FSX doesn't. HDR lighting and volumetric clouds. Something your graphics card won't handle if you turn everything up. Water, per pixel lighting and volumetric fog are also very graphics card dependant.
Also, what version of x plane do you have installed. It's up to V10 RC2.
Saying it compares to FS95 is a rather large stretch.
FS95 screenshot...


XP10 screenshot...


I think it's safe to say X Plane 10 LOOKS NOTHING LIKE FS95.

Once you optimize your settings, X Plane is VERY fluid and smooth. I have the same set up as you do, except the video card and the OS, I have a GTX 560 and am running Windows 7 32 bit with 4GB of RAM, and I have gotten some very high settings and very smooth, upper 20's on the ground and upper 40's in the air, framerates. IMAC's are supposed to run faster than Windows. So seeing as I have done no overclocks or anything else particularly special to my setup, I'd say you're trying to squeeze too much out of X Plane than your hardware allows.
X Plane 10 demo (you mentioned you had the demo at the start of your post) does not have KLAX. It has Seattle as the demo area. Everything else is just water.
If your inputs are erratic (you failed to mention what aircraft you were using) then you haven't calibrated your hardware properly. No aircraft in x plane is "erratic". With 1800 hours in an aircraft, you should know you need to make SMALL corrections while flying.

I don't know who told you to expect a better ATC than FSX. ATC in X Plane is completely new. ATC has been in MSFS series since FS2002. But it IS good for a first effort, and it will get better with further updates.
Changing views is as easy as SHIFT 1, 2, 3, 4, etc...
VC mode is Shift 0.

Comparing the experience to FS5 and FS95 at the bottom of your post is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. XP10 looks nothing like FS5 or FS95. The clouds, HDR lighting, night lighting, fog, rural areas all look better than FSX. Mainly because X Plane uses particle based clouds and fog and more advanced lighting than FSX.
If you're going to judge a flying experience based on the default aircraft, then I would have given up on the MSFS series back in FS98. I haven't flown a default aircraft in the MSFS series EVER. Strictly payware. FSX default aircraft are not worth my time. Not one single FMC.

[jomni]

While waiting for my DVD, I was lurking in X-Plane.org and this is my first adventure into the X-Plane world.

From what I read, they keep having problems with the clouds that causes stuttering. I hear the newest patch made it worse! But nothing you can tweak in the settings. Also another big problem is that the new ATC is still pretty basic and hard to work with compared to FSX. But you can't blame them, they just started working on it. LR admits that the current state of the ATC is still a work in progress. The AI pilots have trouble flying their planes correctly that results into stalls and crashes. Airports are bare, no buldings and they will slowly populate them with generic buildings in the future.

All I can say is that XP10 is not ready for primetime. And I will continue to use FSX. But it will still evolve for sure unlike FSX. I'm pretty excited to try out the Qpac A320 freeware in X-Plane. It sounds like it's better than the stuff I see for FSX. The A380 payware from Peter's Aircraft is also mindblowing. I guess X-Plane can do Airbus seamlessly without doing workarounds unlike FSX.

[MdMax]

XP10 screenshot...

No, this was a X-Plane 9 screenshot !

X-Plane 10 looks even better:



Tips for Didier:
http://developer.x-plane.com/2011/12...me-rates-pt-1/

Happy flying !

[didierkeller]

Thanks MdMax, your tips have been most helpful in getting fps back to 30-60.

[skytrek]

Xplane10 like FSX have left out one important word in there slogan. That word is ONLY.
SLOGAN should read
This is ONLY as real as it gets.
Speaking from a GA pilot’s point of view there is a great deal about both sims that is ultra-unrealistic

skytrek.

[flytv1]

Hi Didier and everyone.

>> Having just sampled v10 on the demo, well all I can say is this is still not the one that will make me 'cross over' from FSX.<<

Unfortunately you are not the only one. What makes it worse is that the developers / Laminar, is not interested in improving it.
There are a few very loud people on the boards that are supporting it at any cost, and it seems that Laminar is happy with that.
Not only is XPX not better than other sims available, it's not better than their old sim XP9, in my opinion.
Too bad, they are the outfit that I was hoping will take the Flight sim to the next step, but it's not to be. TV

[MdMax]

What makes it worse is that the developers / Laminar, is not interested in improving it.

In fact, they're always improving it, and they listen to their customers:
http://wiki.x-plane.com/Beta
http://developer.x-plane.com/

That's a huge difference compared to FSX where it's still a beta 2 (called "SP2") and where you have no more support.

Many users really enjoy X-Plane 10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQe7nRbic-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixJBEsN9mQk

Make your own choice and test all the demos:
X-Plane 10: http://www.x-plane.com/downloads/x-plane_10_demo/
X-Plane 9: http://www.x-plane.com/downloads/older/
FSX: http://www.microsoft.com/games/fligh...downloads.html

Happy flying with your favorite simulator.

[jomni]

I fly both and is happy with both FSX and XP10.

[gizmosells]

Same-O love xp 10 interface just fly low and slow flights. Get 22 fps on Xplane 10 without shutters. Have radeon 6670 HD and AMD x840 3.2 no OC. Have middle road computer. Short flights xplane is good