Oversized autogen looks wrong.  All objects in the game should be scaled correctly and overscaling houses to make them add more volume and make the world look more populated is a bad design decision.If Microsoft is not fixing this design flaw in Flight then yes they are cutting corners.

its flight simulator not an earth simulator .. plus, everything . i mean everything is an approximation of real world in this game.   

This entire thread has turned into the "Matthew S Opinion Show..." :( ...and has become less and less interesting to me. See ya! :(

...urban environments would be nice. I think its basically a 2 man operation.

Yeah, how they implement urban environments will really test the mettle of this engine.On several levels like: visual quality, performance, geographic accuracy, architectural accuracy, content authoring.Will they use procedural approximations of generic cities? (... Appears to be their forte so far)Or will they use authentic replicas of specific cities? (Google Earth)...Or some combination. (MS FS)And, like I said, how much effort will it take an environment artist to generate the city they need?Solving these issues is going to easily take as much effort as they’ve already invested - likely much more to do really well.And it’s just one piece of the missing layers.They've already proven they’re capable of making an impressive environment...so I'm really hopeful.And they may even find a middleware solution for cities too.So I’m pretty confident they can solve the urban problems well.This will likely take some time to get right. And I think expectations will get a little more realistic in the process.

We need to take a step back and accept that Microsoft isn't developing Flight for the hard-core enthusiast market.- that market's simply too small to justify it. Microsoft is aiming for a much bigger market which will simply not give a **** about the enthusiast's wish lists as expressed in these forums.My personal opiniion is that is one of the reasons ACES was closed was it was developing developing FSNext/11 for the wrong market in Microsoft's view.

We need to take a step back and accept that Microsoft isn't developing Flight for the hard-core enthusiast market.- that market's simply too small to justify it. Microsoft is aiming for a much bigger market which will simply not give a **** about the enthusiast's wish lists as expressed in these forums.My personal opiniion is that is one of the reasons ACES was closed was it was developing developing FSNext/11 for the wrong market in Microsoft's view.

Incorrect, MS has stated a few times that they are going to appeal to both audiences -- not removing features, but adding more features that give everyone else who is not an FS enthusiast something fun to play with. Nothing has proven that they will only be developing for the casual, everyday gamer.

Will they use procedural approximations of generic cities? (... Appears to be their forte so far)Or will they use authentic replicas of specific cities? (Google Earth)... Or some combination. (MS FS)

That's the one thing I don't like about Outerra so far. The procedural based land use.IMO they need to allow developers to specify vector based landuse so that landuse can be accurately modelled. Also they need to allow vector based shorelines imported from OSM (etc), so that accurate shorelines can be modelled.So use procedural only when no vector based data is supplied.They are a 2 man team, what they have accomplished so far is just incredible. And the best is yet to come!

This entire thread has turned into the "Matthew S Opinion Show..." :( ...and has become less and less interesting to me. See ya! :(

What's your opinion on the oversized autogen houses? Do you not find it detracts from the 'immersion'. I actually turn off my autogen because of it (and the grossly oversized trees), the upside of that is better fps.

Just wondering if your so concerned with accuracy why do you have a program based around Google earth. You do realize the coordinate system in Google earth does not match that used by FS? :)

Just wondering if your so concerned with accuracy why do you have a program based around Google earth. You do realize the coordinate system in Google earth does not match that used by FS? :)

Both use WGS84.

Yeah.. no Shapefiles use WGS-84.. google doesn't. They do that so you actually have to PAY for real data from real providors. Not just download it off Google. So really its another scaling issue you choose to ignore to make life easier. Same with Autogen scaling.,

Mathew, we all understand that you have your opinion about autogen scaling...WE GET IT. WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. DO NOT REPEAT IT AGAIN! If it is such a big deal, send spam to Microsoft regarding it. Just...please...PLEASE shut up about it here. It's not changing anyone's opinions.

Yeah.. no Shapefiles use WGS-84.. google doesn't. They do that so you actually have to PAY for real data from real providors. Not just download it off Google. So really its another scaling issue you choose to ignore to make life easier. Same with Autogen scaling.,

Really, haven't had any complaints about it ever with all the freeware and commercial projects that use FSX_KML. So your saying the KML's that you plot in GE and then download do not have accurate WGS84 Lon/Lat's? If that's the case then they must have changed it in the last 3 years since I've not updated it since Aug 07.edit: Veeray do you know what you're talking about? Here's the wiki page for Google Earth. States clearly it uses WGS84 just like Shp2Vec.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth"The internal coordinate system of Google Earth is geographic coordinates (latitude/longitude) on the World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84) datum."In anycase, FSX autogen scaling is wrong and needs to be fixed in Flight.

I have been using FS ever since it first came out and X-plane for the past decade.I want both sims to make "As real as it gets" a REALITY, or as close to it as is possible on a PC. The closer to reality the better. That is the ultimate aim, isn't it ? - within the current hardware availability and capability.If either or both the sims I mentioned are to live up to that claim, it is obvious both have to improve on their flight modeling, physical earth modeling, natural and man made, including the weather and general environment.Come on MS and Laminar, give it your best shots and give us something that truly deserves to claim the title "As Real As it Gets".No short cuts. We know from third party developers what each sim has the "potential" to do. SO, JUST DO IT.

Incorrect, MS has stated a few times that they are going to appeal to both audiences -- not removing features, but adding more features that give everyone else who is not an FS enthusiast something fun to play with. Nothing has proven that they will only be developing for the casual, everyday gamer.

I never said Microsoft would remove features. I suggested that because they are now aiming for a wider market there will be less emphasis on satisfying the needs of hardcore enthusiasts. Everything Microsoft has said is perfectly consitent with adding new features that will increase sales to the larger market while tidying up some of the rough edges of FSX. .

I think people don't realize the only reason MIcrosoft is doing Flight in the first place is to revive the Windows gaming market they destroyed with their own Xbox. If you think it's actually to build the most advanced simulator on earth and not simply a decent game for the masses you will be disappointed. I'm sure adding missions to guide people through the gameplay and share stats on social media is the top priority. Our focus should actually be on getting Microsoft to do less for us by decoupling the physics, flight model, fly by wire etc, not adding to it, that's PMDG's job.

Deleted