Board index FlightGear Media

3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Screenshots, videos, sound recording etc. taken in/with FlightGear.

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby V12 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:59 pm

How can I give You evidence, that I don't change any settings ? I can make log with all properties, what You want to monitor, start FG with UFO over Lac Leman, then move to VQPR and You will see scenery changes without critical parameters changes.
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
V12
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby legoboyvdlp » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:17 pm

A screenshot when it looks like this:

Image

or this

Image

with all dialogs open?
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:28 am
Location: Northern Ireland
Callsign: G-LEGO
Version: next
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby V12 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:32 pm

Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
V12
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby Thorsten » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:35 pm

How can I give You evidence, that I don't change any settings ?


Your screenshot is sufficient evidence of what settings are on. I know how procedural texturing looks, how shadows cast by mountains look, I know what fog AW produces at what altitude,... I've seen this a thousand times - because I designed lots of it myself.

As you say - you seem to have no issue at all with settings when you want to participate in SOTM contests - yet FG for you apparently does constantly weird things when you go on about how great FSX is.

The rest I just add up in my head.

Edit: And - lo and behold - dialogs are open and suddenly we see mountains, the correct textures, transition shaders - all that 'without changing any settings' was off before.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:33 am

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby wkitty42 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:38 pm

V12 wrote in Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:38 am:Thank You, I will not try it and will be satisfied with FSX or P3D in the future.

awwwww... does that mean you are leaving? :(
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 9146
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 20.04

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby wkitty42 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:42 pm

Figaro wrote in Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:11 pm:If everyone who used FlightGear held the same negative attitude you have demonstrated throughout this thread it wouldn't exist. It's also a surprising attitude given your work in populating airports with objects recently.

couldn't have said it any better! good on you, figaro! :)
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 9146
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 20.04

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby Octal450 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:48 pm

@V12,
ORBX doesn't change the way the terrain is generated, it just applies new graphics to them. The generation is the same as FSX/P3D default.

FSX looks "richer", the colors are more "vibrant". I don't know if that is more real or not. FlightGear tends to be more dull colorwise. So I don't know which is more realistic, but I know they look different.

But FSX's house and so on generation is much better. FG's tend to look weird.

That is my personal opinion.

Kind Regards,
Josh
Skillset: JSBsim Flight Dynamics, Systems, Canvas, Autoflight/Control, Instrumentation, Animations
Aircraft: A320-family, MD-11, MD-80, Contribs in a few others

Octal450's GitHub|Launcher Catalog
|Airbus Dev Discord|Octal450 Hangar Dev Discord
User avatar
Octal450
 
Posts: 5583
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:51 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Callsign: WTF411
Version: next
OS: Windows 11

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby legoboyvdlp » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:14 pm

We don't really have any autogen at all bar randomly vegetation - again it's wierd until you have regional definitions in which case you can manually specify where trees go.

But for other things like houses yep, until osm can be generated runtime it will probably be like that :(
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:28 am
Location: Northern Ireland
Callsign: G-LEGO
Version: next
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby V12 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:02 pm

Thorsten wrote in Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:35 pm:
How can I give You evidence, that I don't change any settings ?


Your screenshot is sufficient evidence of what settings are on. I know how procedural texturing looks, how shadows cast by mountains look, I know what fog AW produces at what altitude,... I've seen this a thousand times - because I designed lots of it myself.

As you say - you seem to have no issue at all with settings when you want to participate in SOTM contests - yet FG for you apparently does constantly weird things when you go on about how great FSX is.

The rest I just add up in my head.

Edit: And - lo and behold - dialogs are open and suddenly we see mountains, the correct textures, transition shaders - all that 'without changing any settings' was off before.


OK, again 2 screenshots :

Image

Image

Ofcourse without settings change.
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
V12
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby V12 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:09 pm

it0uchpods wrote in Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:48 pm:@V12,
ORBX doesn't change the way the terrain is generated, it just applies new graphics to them. The generation is the same as FSX/P3D default.


Yes, I know. I wrote :
V12 wrote in Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:10 pm:If I have correct information about FSX render technology, there is used basic mesh, vectors are rasterized with transparency background and then joined with basic landclass texture, then that texture is applied on the mesh. No tricks with shaders or other advanced techniques, this is 13 years old software.


legoboyvdlp wrote in Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:14 pm:We don't really have any autogen at all bar randomly vegetation - again it's wierd until you have regional definitions in which case you can manually specify where trees go.

But for other things like houses yep, until osm can be generated runtime it will probably be like that :(


We have some autogen :

Image
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
V12
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby wlbragg » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:13 pm

The screen shots I posted verified the scenery issue at that exact location and view direction. I had to look pretty hard though and get in just the right position and perspective to see it. When I first went to that area I was over the mountains in the UFO and I increases altitude and it still looked OK. Until I moved to the same coordinates, looked in the same narrow direction and change visibility through the weather settings I really still couldn't see it clearly. So I don't necessarily think it is purposely being setup. But I don't have too much sympathy when your told how to fix it and you state flatly, "you won't". That's your option.
It doesn't change my opinion of where I think FG is in comparison to the other sims and what areas I think we should invest time and energy in.
Kansas and Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA, 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
Intel i7/GeForce RTX 2070/Max-Q
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 7586
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Linux/RTX 2070

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby sim » Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:45 pm

X PLANE

FLIGHTGEAR
User avatar
sim
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:13 pm
Location: Shropshire England
Callsign: Fly4Fun
Version: 0.9.10 up
OS: 64 Win 10 HD6450

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby legoboyvdlp » Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:05 pm

Well... we certainly have better Viggen, clouds, and not least afterburner effect than XPlane :mrgreen:
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:28 am
Location: Northern Ireland
Callsign: G-LEGO
Version: next
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby Octal450 » Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:19 pm

That is a very old Xplane btw, but yes we still have a much better viggen. I wish you guys would stop arguing, FG is free, and a much better deal. But there are legitamite reasons to use other Sims.

Kind Regards,
Josh
Skillset: JSBsim Flight Dynamics, Systems, Canvas, Autoflight/Control, Instrumentation, Animations
Aircraft: A320-family, MD-11, MD-80, Contribs in a few others

Octal450's GitHub|Launcher Catalog
|Airbus Dev Discord|Octal450 Hangar Dev Discord
User avatar
Octal450
 
Posts: 5583
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 1:51 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Callsign: WTF411
Version: next
OS: Windows 11

Re: 3 sim comparison. Xplane 11, FSX, FlightGear.

Postby V12 » Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:09 am

2 sim comparison - Depart from SPQU - Alfredo Rodriguez Ballon International Airport
FSX :

Image

FG :

Image
Fly high, fly fast - fly Concorde !
V12
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:27 pm
Location: LZIB
Callsign: BAWV12

PreviousNext

Return to Media

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests