Wednesday, October 23, 2013

I really do not like X-Plane. However,

XPL. I'll explain. There is just something about X-Plane that looks off to me. I can't really explain it but the bottom line is, in my opinion, the graphics and UI is nothing in comparison to FSX and P3D. I'll even go a step further and say, FS9 looks much, much better in my eyes. I love the visual features and appearances of Carenado and Alabeo aircraft, but in XPL, they just look... weak. They loose all the luster and beauty they carry in FSX and P3D. To date, (and whereas I have come across many X-Plane native aircraft I desire) the visual models are all visibly inferior in comparison to the more popular platforms FSX and P3D. Even sceneries ported over to XPL from FSX look horribly downgraded and I dare say: I have never come across a product in XPL that was worth a second look. We'll... until now...


 FSX
XPL

There is such a difference in the quality of the textures. The way the light reflects. The way the shadows appear. The FSX picture has this dynamic environmental reflective gloss whereas the XPL has this dull matte appearance that is nowhere near as exciting to look at. In a nutshell, all of X-Plane looks pretty much dull and unexciting to me. It doesn't have that adventurous feel that FSX and P3D has and I did try the demo. Sure, the engine powering X-Plane has surpassed FSX. But you can't have all brains and no sexy looks.

Anyway, my point to all this is, ASN X-Plane has released some very interesting shots of an upcoming CZST-Stewart project in development and i'll be dammed. For the very first time ever in history, I have seen something in X-Plane that looks... well... GOOD!

_______________________________________________
Check us out daily and like us on Facebook!
Go fly! We'll take care of the rest! Nobody has your back like AirDailyX. 
daily news | reviews | first looks | billboard | interviews | comics | live broadcasts

10 comments:

Peter Tram said...

The reason why FS9, FSX and P3D is because everyone uses enhancements such as shaders to improve the graphics, while X-Plane doesnt have such add-ons, the closest freeware mod for that is our sabach's HDR mod, which the mod tweaked the HDR shaders a little. Plus X-Plane still doesnt allow features such as environmental/reflection map so reflective or metallic like material is hard to recreate.

I can agree that the converted sceneries were honestly badly made, I can agree with that-the reason towards this...in this case for example Aerosoft, is because they beleive in quantity over quality.

So they made their own scenery conversion program and then chuck in some X-Plane 10 specific HDR lighting, then release it. They didn't take full advantage of all X-Plane 10's features such as noise/decals features on their ground work, and re-optimization.

I am an X-Plane developer, I'm part of a close-knit community which share new ideas and techniques about developing X-Plane sceneries, a friend of mine now leads a new-just established X-Plane side of Taxi2Gate, he will be converting MMMX and showing the others how to REALLY convert a scenery from FSX properly.

Adi Sahar said...

There's something better about XP's rendering. Some aircraft look more real in it, some do not. The thing though, it seems like all aircraft render the same way, like they are all made of the same material & finish.

Danny said...

I'm liking X-Plane 10 right beside my FS9 and P3D installs. It's definitely a different look, and continues to evolve. Peter's comments above are really interesting as will be brilliant to see what Taxi2gate comes up with.

PMDG have an X-Plane build in the works, but you should also check our TruScenery - their stuff is AWESOME! http://www.truscenery.com/

Don't count X-Plane out. It is still a sim in development, and hopefully will keep a place right alongside my copy of P3D - both receiving progressive updates to take advantage of latest hardware and coding techniques.

Danny said...

I'm liking X-Plane 10 right beside my FS9 and P3D installs. It's definitely a different look, and continues to evolve. Peter's comments above are really interesting as will be brilliant to see what Taxi2gate comes up with.

PMDG have an X-Plane build in the works, but you should also check our TruScenery - their stuff is AWESOME! http://www.truscenery.com/

Don't count X-Plane out. It is still a sim in development, and hopefully will keep a place right alongside my copy of P3D - both receiving progressive updates to take advantage of latest hardware and coding techniques.

dogtrack said...

The Flight Models are IMHO far superior to other Simulators. That being why I use it. For pretty views, on the other hand, I use all the other aforementioned Simulators...horses for courses I guess.

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with the author, even though I'm presently on an FSX shopping binge. I have a2a planes and carenado planes for FSX and they all look great but after recently buying the bonanza F33A for X-Plane and the a2a C172 I have to say that the Bonanza, although it's age, is the most realistic looking of them both. It just looks more....solid, hard to define the impression really, it just looks more real IMO. I prefer FSX for environments but the actual flying in XP10 feels much more "organic" and the ATC, which actually works contrary to popular belief, is so much more immersive once you get the hang of it. If Orbx and a2a products would ever be produce for X-Plane I would leave FSX without ever looking back again, those two things are the only things keeping me from leaving FSX alltogether.

Oh yeah, also, helicopters, no thank you FSX! ;)

DAndre Newman said...

Please do not select the Anonymous option when posting.

Andreas said...

Rgr, sorry about that.

Paolo said...

One of the most interesting phrase that i hear from people using XPL is that the flight models are so good. Yes, that's true, they are better than MS and P3D series but i want to say a thing. If you wanna fly with a really good flight model those simulators are just s**t, all of them, also XPL. They do not reproduce anything near to the physics of an airplane. In this way FlightGear is hundreds times better with their flight models where actual physics is used with a lot of dynamic parameters (any tech guy that checked one of the flight models can say that too). FlightGear is actually derived from NASA studies. Yes, the graphics are in no way similar to our sims but don't come here saying that the XPL models seems realistic...and i fly FS9 mainly! ;)

CGaft said...

"They do not reproduce anything near to the physics of an airplane"
Well that statement is just BS! there are numerous addons who are extremely close to real life! & that comes from an ATPL pilot..who has real life experience in some specific FSX addons! & FYI even FFS & NASA models aren't 100% perfect!

Post a Comment

Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.