Look guys, there is a reason the autogen is really big. It is not a bug. Do you really think that they can't produce smaller objects for FSX? After all, custom sceneries are correctly sized. The autogens are big, even, in after market sceneries such as Orbx and this is not a FS limitation. Jim Lacy of ACES explained this problem after he left ACES. Whey you place real size autogens, the sim loses its sense of depth at around 500 to 3000 feet altitude. This is due to limitation of viewing scenery on a small 2D screen. The autogen is enlarged to give this much needed depth to the scenery when flying low. So MS and scenery developers have always had a choice to make; to make the scenery look proportional at ground level or have depth at altitude. They have always decided that depth perception at altitude is more important.So be careful of what you wish, you may not like it.

Hi Alain, I'm not sure I understand what you point is but thanks for the photographic scenery. It just shows the levels of accuracy Microsoft are putting into planning this, and for what is quite a small airport. Great stuff Microsoft!Cheers,Dave.

Honolulu Intl is not a small airport.

Hi Alain, I'm not sure I understand what you point is but thanks for the photographic scenery. It just shows the levels of accuracy Microsoft are putting into planning this, and for what is quite a small airport. Great stuff Microsoft!Cheers,Dave.

I'm not sure this level of accuracy is from MS, if I had to bet money on this I'll say that airport is from a dev. exactly because there is to many details and accuracy, that was my point, if MS is to make all airport like that they will stay in early development for ever, I may be wrong.

Look guys, there is a reason the autogen is really big. It is not a bug. Do you really think that they can't produce smaller objects for FSX? After all, custom sceneries are correctly sized. The autogens are big, even, in after market sceneries such as Orbx and this is not a FS limitation. Jim Lacy of ACES explained this problem after he left ACES. Whey you place real size autogens, the sim loses its sense of depth at around 500 to 3000 feet altitude. This is due to limitation of viewing scenery on a small 2D screen. The autogen is enlarged to give this much needed depth to the scenery when flying low. So MS and scenery developers have always had a choice to make; to make the scenery look proportional at ground level or have depth at altitude. They have always decided that depth perception at altitude is more important.So be careful of what you wish, you may not like it.

Rubbish! That's just a lame excuse from Microsoft to try and explain away the autogen bug.X-Plane looks great with normal size houses.

:( If there's even one bug, one oversized autogen house/tree, or even one blade of grass out of place, I surely will not buy Flight and will just stay on FSX for the rest of my life. Just kidding of course, every version has some sort of a flaws, but that hasn't kept me from buying them and enjoying the daylights out of each version I have ever owned.

The ones you mention, i would call that minor flaws. I don't have any problems with slightly overscaled autogen. But if you can't go away from the sim because your airliner could crash because of overspeed or stall speed coming from sudden wind shifts, my personal feeling is that's a major flaw for a flight sim. I did buy FSX the day it was released but only started to enjoy the daylights out of it after Pete Dowson repaired it.

I'm not sure this level of accuracy is from MS, if I had to bet money on this I'll say that airport is from a dev. exactly because there is to many details and accuracy, that was my point, if MS is to make all airport like that they will stay in early development for ever, I may be wrong.

Oh I see, very good point, it's certainly a tough precedence to follow if all airports of a similar stature or greater are to get the same treatment.

Rubbish! That's just a lame excuse from Microsoft to try and explain away the autogen bug.X-Plane looks great with normal size houses.

You aren't going to believe anything anyone tells you, shows you, explains to you. You should really stick with X Plane or create your own flight sim. You seem to know it all, and are so very unhappy with this hobby. You are like a fungus among us, spreading your poison with every post.

To be fair to Microsoft, even Orbx who had to deal with a much smaller area in the Pacific Northwest, didn't create all areas equal. Look at the level of realism in Seattle versus that in Victoria, a very major difference!!Regards, Mike Mann

Rubbish! That's just a lame excuse from Microsoft to try and explain away the autogen bug.X-Plane looks great with normal size houses.

Hey I don't call your writings rubbish and you won't call mine. But pal, Lacy wrote that on his blog, months after he left Microsoft. He was not trying to speak on behalf of microsoft. And since you are so smart, can you tell me why you can't create smaller autogen?

Rubbish!  That's just a lame excuse from Microsoft to try and explain away the autogen bug.X-Plane looks great with normal size houses.

Xplane doesnt look great ... sry!

This is FSX all over again.! I'm talking about the expectation of a new release. We all wowed over the scenery enhancments of FSX over FS2004 but the real WOWs came along when the add on developers got their hands on the SDK.I personally , am not interested in default anything, and will wait for the gods of the add on market to apply their trade to this next release.That's not to say that I won't buy and play with this one, just that I'll wait for it to evolve before it becomes my sim of choice. (and replace fs9 :( )

Hey I don't call your writings rubbish and you won't call mine. But pal, Lacy wrote that on his blog, months after he left Microsoft. He was not trying to speak on behalf of microsoft. And since you are so smart, can you tell me why you can't create smaller autogen?

I mean Microsoft's excuse is rubbish. Why would I want to see oversize houses and trees when every thing else is to scale, airports, cars, aircraft etc. Just doesn't make sense doesn't it. FSX determines the height for you. So single storey houses with pitched roofs look ridiculously oversized. It's a FSX bug. You cant do anything about it which is why even Orbx scenery has oversized autogen.Of course we see the very same bug in Flight because Flight is a patched FSX.

Xplane doesnt look great ... sry!

Look at the upcoming XP10 use of properly scaled auto-gen.http://www.x-plane.com/pg_news.htmlAre you saying that FSX and Flight's oversized autogen looks better than this? You've got to be kidding.

This is FSX all over again.! I'm talking about the expectation of a new release. We all wowed over the scenery enhancments of FSX over FS2004 but the real WOWs came along when the add on developers got their hands on the SDK.I personally , am not interested in default anything, and will wait for the gods of the add on market to apply their trade to this next release.That's not to say that I won't buy and play with this one, just that I'll wait for it to evolve before it becomes my sim of choice. (and replace fs9 :( )

Did you not see Honolulu Intl in screenshot 4? It's more detailed than you can get in any payware scenery. Even if you can make scenery like that for FSX, shadows generated by Flight itself can't match that of FSX. Everything about Flight is improved. Look harder.And you must not have been around during the FSX previews/release, as I sense no FSX here, except for people being impressed with the changes of course.

Are you saying that FSX and Flight's oversized autogen looks better than this? You've got to be kidding.

After looking at screenshot 4 and comparing it to X-Plane, I'd say MS will win this round. Honolulu Intl and the ;and around it looks better than anything I've seen in the X-Plane 10 screenshots.(for the most part)

Did you not see Honolulu Intl in screenshot 4? It's more detailed than you can get in any payware scenery. Even if you can make scenery like that for FSX, shadows generated by Flight itself can't match that of FSX. Everything about Flight is improved. Look harder.And you must not have been around during the FSX previews/release, as I sense no FSX here, except for people being impressed with the changes of course.

Come back when you've read my post again. :(

I mean Microsoft's excuse is rubbish. Why would I want to see oversize houses and trees when every thing else is to scale, airports, cars, aircraft etc. Just doesn't make sense doesn't it. FSX determines the height for you. So single storey houses with pitched roofs look ridiculously oversized. It's a FSX bug. You cant do anything about it which is why even Orbx scenery has oversized autogen.Of course we see the very same bug in Flight because Flight is a patched FSX.Look at the upcoming XP10 use of properly scaled auto-gen.http://www.x-plane.com/pg_news.htmlAre you saying that FSX and Flight's oversized autogen looks better than this? You've got to be kidding.

You don't have to use phrases like "you've got to be kidding" or throw words like "rubbish" and "lame" to make your point. It doesn't make your points any more effective. It only makes you look like a bitter ex. Just move on to X-Plane and forget Microsoft. But If you insist on thinking about MS, I will tell you that FSX autogen was made bigger to create volume (hence depth) because they couldn't increase the volume by adding extra building and trees. If they didn't increase the size and couldn't add extra autogen, the lack of autogen coverage would been very noticeable at altitude and would have taken away from perception of depth in the sim. Hence,it was a choice and not a bug. Now, with more powerful computers and better coding for multi-cores, they may be able to increase autogen numbers without increasing their size. The fact that XP10 is creating volume by using larger numbers of autogen five years after introduction of FSX and after five years of increase in processor speed is not as impressive as if they had done it so with XP9 or XP8. By the way, I still don't know how XP10 will look like at 3000 ft.