Jump to content

Disappointed


mindframe85

Recommended Posts

So I got XP11 and realized that the default scenery is missing a lot of detail. For example, Logan Airport doesn't have their famous tower and a lot of other scenery objects missing. Is this the same with all scenery? Do I have to download a separate add on to get all scenery? Looks like I might switch to P3D. Pretty disappointing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, put a little effort in this.

There is an enormous amount of freeware out there, as well as payware.

 

Just take a look at the following pictures, and tell me what is wrong with Logan Airport in X-plane, if only you are willing to go through a tiny amount of trouble.

Alll pictures can be viewed here.

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/33270-kbos-boston-logan-international-airport/

 

This is just a selection of two screenshots.

http://forums.x-plane.org/screenshots/monthly_2016_06/Title.jpg.7d8412df23537244e9168d780ca02e98.jpg

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/screenshots/monthly_2016_06/Cessna_172SP_52.jpg.66a0c4de92e977b1a3420fc605b4e4be.jpg

 

 

YouTube vid

 

Yes, X-Plane does need some work to make it look great. But do not expect that it would be any different with other flight simulators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mindframe...,

 

You are correct. Bet FS2004, FSX, and P3D have the famous tower. Logan is not the only place that you will need to jump through hoops just to make things look realistic.

http://www.air-source.us/images/sigs/000219_195_jimskorna.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

mindframe...,

 

You are correct. Bet FS2004, FSX, and P3D have the famous tower. Logan is not the only place that you will need to jump through hoops just to make things look realistic.

 

Right ... default scenery in FSX. So majestically beautiful no one would ever want an upgrade (and oh yes, it does have the tower). And of course, the freeware MisterX6 scenery pales in comparison to this FSX jewel

 

KBOS_Overview01_FSX.jpg

 

And oh, did I mention the lighting in X-plane. Bet default FSX looks better ...

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/screenshots/monthly_2016_06/Cessna_172SP_70.jpg.b77330c9206bffe99c98fb84a3b6686b.jpg

 

And that's XP10, not even XP11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried the XP11 to see if there would be any advantage to getting it over upgrading my P3d. Yes the scenery looks decent but with my Orbx and REX the P3d and FSX eye candy is quite nice. And of course XP11 can't incorporate them.

 

The flight model seems quite mechanical and lacks the fluidity I seem to get in P3d and FSX. Perhaps its the camera function that presents it poorly in XP11, I don't know enough to tell, but the feel as I fly lacks the reality I get in P3d and FSX. I will admit I haven't flown anything outside the Cessna 172 in real life, but in that aircraft the feel and flight model is more nearly similar in P3d and FSX compared to XP11.

 

I agree with the opinion of mindfram85. Disappointing. I will stick to the ones I have bought all the add-ons for. I am looking forward to trying the P3dv4 now that its out. :)

AMD 8350 Eight Core 4.0ghz oc'd to 4.4, 16 gig 2133 DDR3 64 bit ram, Microsoft Sidewinder Precision II. GeForce GTX 980Ti w/4gig

OS=Windows 10 64 bit, FSX w/Acceleration & P3d v3, 4, 5 REXII, OrbX

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing apples to oranges again I see. How about comparing default to default? Oh wait, the ten year old program would come out ahead, so you wouldn't want to do that!

 

I oftentimes regret that XP does not contain more landmark buildings out-of-tbe-box compared to FSX/P3D, but that in itself does not make the XP's scenery engine inferior.

 

FSX's scenery engine is showing its age, and much to my surprise / dismay, LM did not bother to significantly improve the engine when upgrading to 64-bit.

It has also become clear that DTG FSW is a 64-bit FSX with Orbx landclass and a handful Carenado-like planes. Scenery in FSW does not make a great impression on newbies.

 

BTW, if I remember correctly, weren't you a mod of the MS Flight forum who kept harassing MS Flight users because Flight did not include "the whole world", in spite of the fact that the MS Flight scenery engine was a vastly improved version of the one in FSX?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried the XP11 to see if there would be any advantage to getting it over upgrading my P3d. Yes the scenery looks decent but with my Orbx and REX the P3d and FSX eye candy is quite nice. And of course XP11 can't incorporate them.

 

Yes, I never claimed that a "modded" P3D can't look great. It'll cost you, but ...

And as far as addons go, XP is rapidly catching up, but I understand you wouldn't want to invest twice given the incompatibilities.

 

The flight model seems quite mechanical and lacks the fluidity I seem to get in P3d and FSX. Perhaps its the camera function that presents it poorly in XP11, I don't know enough to tell, but the feel as I fly lacks the reality I get in P3d and FSX. I will admit I haven't flown anything outside the Cessna 172 in real life, but in that aircraft the feel and flight model is more nearly similar in P3d and FSX compared to XP11.

 

I never discuss "the feel of flying". Some real worlds pilots prefer FSX/P3D, others XP. It is subjective, and I can't argue with that.

 

I will stick to the ones I have bought all the add-ons for. I am looking forward to trying the P3dv4 now that its out. :)

 

Your prerogative. May you enjoy your preferred sim for years to come :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

He is so disappointed, he wouldn't even care to answer.

 

When XP10 came out, I didn't like it, either, but even then I acknowledged the superior flight model. And since then XP11 came out, and with photoscenery it's an absolute dream. Laminar is finally (it was about **** time) starting to put real world landmarks in, too. Funny, I was a lifelong Microsoft simmer, and now when I look at FSX/P3D's scenery compared to XP's photoscenery + correctly placed buildings, I applaud the variety and much prefer XP. And I believe people will have less-and-less reasons to trash XP, it has really picked up steam.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Have your own hangar!

 

https://www.facebook.com/RisingDawnStudiosSoftware/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the upcoming XPL11 updates, Laminar is planning on adding many more detailed cities/landmarks such as Las Vegas, Sidney, London, etc...

Intel i-9 13900KF @ 6.0 Ghz Cpu, MSI RTX 4090 Suprim Liquid X 24GB Videocard, MSI MAG CORELIQUID C360 Water Cooler, MSI Z790 A-PRO WIFI Motherboard, MSI MPG A1000G 1000W Power Supply, G.SKILL 48Gb Ram @76000 MHz DDR5 Ram, MSI SPATIUM M480 PCIe 4.0 NVMe M.2 2TB Drive, Windows 11 Pro Ghost Spectre x64

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda see where the OP is coming from, I too once didn't bother to lift a finger to do anything with X-Plane and just waved it off. Years later when I actually put a little effort into it, I realized how nicely you can hook up XP9, 10, etc. There are lots of tools and things out there for XP for those willing to learn something or put some time into things.

Ricardo

FSThrottle.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. This is longer than I intended, so if you're in a hurry, skip it.

 

Interesting discussion. For years I have used FSX and its precursors (since 84), and have enjoyed them. But while raising the family and being in the work world, I only had time for simple, VFR, GA flying (with as much eye candy that I could afford - which wasn't much) because I had an average machine that couldn't handle a lot. In fact, I've never flown a tube liner! But my time flying, limited as it was, was magic to me - a step away from the laws of gravity, physics, checklists, with all the gas you want, no damage no matter what dumb things I'd do... I was flying!

I knew this XPlane sim was out there, took a look at it once, a very short look. Went back to FSX, my 500s, and the Orbx PNW. But I was watching the XPlane generations come along. Finally, three things happened:

 

1. I needed to make some equipment investments in my PC if it was going to keep me flying in FSX. Try increasing your "flying" spending when you retire on less than you used to be making.

 

2. My major retirement project is to pull together 50 years of slides, video, 16MM, 8MM, etc to capture our family history. My trusty 2008 MacBook Pro (that I was going to use) picked now to die. The WIFE said we should probably invest in a replacement Mac to pull this huge family project off!! So I bought a new MacBook Pro, and realized these older eyes need more real estate on the screen to see details. So we went to the Apple store and swapped it out for an iMac 27 5K with 2TB HD, Hybrid SSD, 3.3 to 3.8 GHz CPU, 24G RAM, etc. ...which was cheaper!

 

3. I started following the Plane 11 Beta progress and saw a level of realism that I realized I now wanted to tackle. I was impressed with what I saw about the night lighting, the new sound physics, and the new developments that were coming down the road. I also realized that now was the time for me to learn to use procedures, checklists, and get as realistic as I can. And I can use my new iMac!!!

 

All this to say, I like FSX, and now I like Plane 11 too. It's OK to go from one to the other without implying that one is better than the other. We each need to make our decisions based on where we are in life...and then enjoy this great hobby!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda see where the OP is coming from, I too once didn't bother to lift a finger to do anything with X-Plane and just waved it off. Years later when I actually put a little effort into it, I realized how nicely you can hook up XP9, 10, etc. There are lots of tools and things out there for XP for those willing to learn something or put some time into things.

 

Your post convinced me to give it another try.

 

I now realize what was disappointing. I have flown Microsoft FS since its wireframe amber-screen Chicago with single wireframe tower and flew the slide show into Miggs field, though FS4 is probably my first flight sim that I got totally into. The ways and means to program ones interfaces were always user friendly and predictable. Lockheed stepped in and maintained the protocol of customization of interface and the switch to Prepar3d was relatively painless. Quite user friendly. I am used to software in all areas maintaining a standard convention of use. Even Adobe and Jasc use similar hotkeys and conventions in their graphic programs. Then along comes X-Plane 11. Delightfully done graphics, planes, clouds, and framerates out of the box. Its default definitely a step up from the other two flight sim's default. But it does very little the way its always been done in the way of interface. So will the gain be worth the pain of the learning curve and the replaced auto-responses? I am still not very familiar with the available aircraft add-ons so wonder about the diversity I get with the other Sims. Time will tell

 

I can't answer that right atm since I am painfully trying to relearn all my old moves. Is their a plug-in to default to the user friendly interface I know and love?

 

Your post is causing me to give it another go and see if an old dog can learn new tricks. Dang but old habits die hard!!!:pilot: I wonder if the expansion opportunities ahead will measure up to the effort.

AMD 8350 Eight Core 4.0ghz oc'd to 4.4, 16 gig 2133 DDR3 64 bit ram, Microsoft Sidewinder Precision II. GeForce GTX 980Ti w/4gig

OS=Windows 10 64 bit, FSX w/Acceleration & P3d v3, 4, 5 REXII, OrbX

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post convinced me to give it another try.

 

Your post is causing me to give it another go and see if an old dog can learn new tricks. Dang but old habits die hard!!!:pilot: I wonder if the expansion opportunities ahead will measure up to the effort.

 

I'll be the first to admit that the XP interface/menus, as far as versions 9 and 10 go do take a little getting used to, but they work and are logical. That aside, there are many resources and plug-ins for taking a vanilla installation of XP and making it look really nice. The XP community itself is doing lots of work with the airports and those can be downloaded from the gateway. Lots of plug ins and freeware stuff is out there and the tools for scenery creation are really good for those who want to go the extra mile. The photoreal ground utilities and tools to convert payware scenery from FSX to XP are also worth looking into. Some convert better than others, some are not even worth the attempt. Try messing with the plug-ins that modify night lighting and haze, those are good tools. It will be a while before XP11 gets the add-ons it really deserves but I think it will happen soon because XP has picked up serious momentum with version 11.

Ricardo

FSThrottle.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

As has been said by others, the feel of a flight model is quite subjective. Not all pilots agree even those with considerable experience. Some years ago when I was between jobs I did some considerable development work on 737 flight models in FS2000 (yep- that long ago). I tuned a FM that actually corresponded well with inertia properties, positive dynamic stability properties, etc. It was the closest I had ever felt a desktop sim feel to being correct. However when I gave it to others to try out most did not like it. They were used to the over damped, improper stability of the FS models they had been flying! I also realized that what felt good with my flight control rig needed tuning by others in theirs. Interface makes a huge difference!

 

As for XP11, I have only been using it for a week. Before this I had not done any desktop simming for nearly 15 years. I was too busy flying the real thing earning a living! :)

Out of the box I am both impressed, and in some ways disappointed. The B737 flight model is the first one I have ever been able to fly accurately with all the sensitivity at max and the stability augmentation completely off! It is the only way it feels right, and I can fly it with the same techniques I use in real jets all these years. I'm using only a Saitek Pro Yoke, which is not ideal because it is too heavily damped near center. What don't I like? The FMS is terrible, the MSP and autoflight don't function well, and it is hard to do a complete flight in the stock 737 without something going haywire. But all that is only a disappointment because the crisp graphics of the stock cockpit and seeming functionality (first glance) mislead me into expecting more than I should have from a stock package.

 

Though specific details are missing out of the box, the scenery impresses me a great deal! The clouds and atmospherics are great, better than I get in real simulators by far and better than what I was used to in FS in days past. I get solid hickup free frame rates of 30-35 with nearly no stuttering in any area, and I am only using a P3 3.7 Ghz rig with 8GB Ram and a Geforce GT750X. Not bad for a low to midrange rig... Now if they would fix the auto flight on the 737 I will be very impressed! Overall a great sim with potential. Time to download a decent add on FMS and MSP if can find. ATC drives me nuts though!

 

P.S. I try to use the FMS and MSP as I would in a real jet, but there are too many limitations still. VNAV needs a lot of work, as it stands it is useless and would have got me violated in real life :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
"if only you are willing to go through a tiny amount of trouble." OH, I have spent more time trying to get photo real scenery using a couple different methods and even at a zoom level of 17, the images are a mixture of photo real and make believe. It is not an easy thing to do to get it right. Other then that, X-plane if a great sim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...