It's not really that detailed of a scene... What could you possibly take away and still justify it as next gen? I like to fly heli's at times and little details make all the difference. With a smooth LOD system and unlimited development time you could easily push much more detail than seen in this shot into the entire world.

Don't get me wrong I like details too, but I think more detail work is needed in the immediate airport environment that's going to get more exposure to pilots' eyes than a battleship moored at a dock.For example, X-Plane has 3-D lights and advanced pavement markings by default. I'm talking about non-movement area markings, enhanced centerline markings for taxiways approaching runways, etc. To add the same things to scenery in FSX takes work with laying out a ground polygon.I just hope the same amount of detail is going towards the default airport environment as well. It makes it easier for amateur scenery builders like me.

Don't get me wrong I like details too, but I think more detail work is needed in the immediate airport environment that's going to get more exposure to pilots' eyes than a battleship moored at a dock.For example, X-Plane has 3-D lights and advanced pavement markings by default. I'm talking about non-movement area markings, enhanced centerline markings for taxiways approaching runways, etc. To add the same things to scenery in FSX takes work with laying out a ground polygon.I just hope the same amount of detail is going towards the default airport environment as well. It makes it easier for amateur scenery builders like me.

Default airports can not be custom scenery based because there are over 24000 of them. Microsoft's job should be to allow creation of detailed scenery without significant performance penalty. Once they create that, Third party developers then can run with it and create very detailed airports you desire.

Default airports can not be custom scenery based because there are over 24000 of them. Microsoft's job should be to allow creation of detailed scenery without significant performance penalty. Once they create that, Third party developers then can run with it and create very detailed airports you desire.

I understand they can't super-detail 24,000 airports around the world. I'm saying that X-Plane 9.7 has more "default" features that allow for easier, more realistic (not just scenery but operations-wise) airports. The 3D light objects are generated by default. If you fly into any airport that has lighting, the lights will be accompanied with 3D objects. In FSX and previous versions this is not possible without extensive 3rd party work.Same goes with apron/taxiway/runway markings. X-Plane has a much larger library of markings that allow the 3rd party scenery developer to make much more realistic looking ramp/taxiway/runways. In FSX, if you use something like ADE (a fantastic program) in order to make convincing looking taxiway centerlines reflecting real life you end up using so many nodes that you effectively disable AI operations. The other option is working with ground polygons which can have their own side effects as well and are time consuming.

I wouldn't talk about the advantages of Xplane airports if I were you, I'd take microsofts crude efforts over Xplanes none existent effort any day of the week, think Fsx with the scenery complexity slider at none and that's what you get in XP plus some slightly better lighting effects, which don't seem to work with the current Nvidia drivers anyway.

so does anyone want to take a guess as to why MS would post this picture jsut to quickly take it down? Is it just to create this kind of online chatter about it? i can not think why else they would do this.

50% of the thread, has been about your questions

I wouldn't talk about the advantages of Xplane airports if I were you, I'd take microsofts crude efforts over Xplanes none existent effort any day of the week, think Fsx with the scenery complexity slider at none and that's what you get in XP plus some slightly better lighting effects, which don't seem to work with the current Nvidia drivers anyway.

Are you kidding? From what experience do you make those accusations? Just take the time to download the XP 9.7 demo and compare the FSX default Innsbruck to XPlane's Innsbruck...Even many airports outside of the XP demo scenery (just pavement sitting on water) have apron/taxiway markings that are much more realistic and true-to-life, and again... 3D light objects by DEFAULT.If you ever tried to add these kinds of details in FSX you would understand the advantages X-Plane possesses.Sure, X-Plane has plenty of disadvantages but I'd like for you to be a little more objective regarding this. MS Flight could stand to have 3D light objects by default instead of having "floating" light bulbs. Same goes for non-movement area markings as well as a higher fidelity taxiway marking system in general.

You do know that outside of that one tiny airport in XP 9.7, there isn't a SINGLE building at a SINGLE airport in the ENTIRE XP world? Yes, this is even after installing SIX DVDs of scenery. Then let's talk about the NON-EXISTENCE of ANY default AI Traffic unless you download and install traffic loops or a utility that will actually convert FS traffic so that it can be used in XP. So how is XP better in this regard again?

You do know that outside of that one tiny airport in XP 9.7, there isn't a SINGLE building at a SINGLE airport in the ENTIRE XP world? Yes, this is even after installing SIX DVDs of scenery. Then let's talk about the NON-EXISTENCE of ANY default AI Traffic unless you download and install traffic loops or a utility that will actually convert FS traffic so that it can be used in XP. So how is XP better in this regard again?

Plus the fact that any aircraft made for version 10 of MSFS actually continue to work because there is not a huge amount of updates to the sim that make them incompatible, which is not the case I've heard about X-Plane. (X-Plane gets updated a lot, which makes aircraft become incompatible rather quickly, is what I've heard)

...

In English please?

Are you kidding? From what experience do you make those accusations?

No I am not kidding I've never been more F'in serious in my life, I installed something like 75Gb of data for not a single building on an airport outside of Innsbruck, sounds like you have never been anywhere else other than innsbruck in the world of XP. Don't even get me started on the view distance an god awful scenery textures. I think they could work on XP for another 5 years and it still wouldn't be up to the standard of FSX(default). Before I got XP about 8 weeks ago I always found it strange when I read stories where FSX users were bashing XP and just put it down to Microsoft fanaticism. Now that I have it I can see why it gets all the flak it does, it really is that bad, I don't think they could have purposely made the GUI any worse than it is if they had paid someone to try, it looks like something from a concept version of Windows decades ago.You even need to install complex plug-ins to get simple things like joystick type hardware working properly. You can't load a flight at any place other than the middle of an active runway in many instances because those blank airports don't even have bloody parking locations. If you go on to the grass and it's raining you cannot stop the aircraft and it seems to defy all the laws of physics and keeps sliding forever. These are all points I picked up with just a few weeks use of XP, the only reason it's staying on my PC is for support purposes and nothing else.

Again. I was simply noting a few advantages that X-Plane has over MSFS.3D light housings for airport lighting, by default.More accurate taxiway markings, by default.Ability to place non-movement area, enhanced taxiway centerline markings by default among other things.It would be nice if Microsoft Flight had those features, by default.I really don't care about AI traffic. I find the ATC and AI traffic behavior rather unrealistic and it creates extra strife when trying to design an airport scenery. For free, I can fly on VATSIM or on any of the countless online ATC communities that provide a way better experience for me at least.What in the heck is so wrong with saying that X-Plane has some advantages over FSX? I would get a more tepid response squawking 7500 in Washington's airspace....

What is so wrong with pointing out a major downside of owning X-Plane 9? I was pointing out that I'd much rather have airports with buildings than no buildings at all and 3d light structures. Besides you can buy an add-on from FS-Tools that will let you add 3d edge lighting rather quickly to FSX, but like you I do hope that Flight has them by default, I imagine we will get them though as its not going to effect performance much on today's hardware.

but im the one who leaked this picture from Facebook to twitter and Youtube which is how people found it

Uh, OK. Great for you, huh? Are we suppose to call you Hero or something? Sorry if I don't "get" what it is that you're after...

You get a gold star! Now run along back too the kiddy table. The adults need to have a serious conversation here.

Uh, OK. Great for you, huh? Are we suppose to call you Hero or something? Sorry if I don't "get" what it is that you're after...

You get a gold star! Now run along back too the kiddy table. The adults need to have a serious conversation here.

Lol, you guys are missing his point :rolleyes:He's saying it obviously wasn't 'planned'...because he was the one that captured the pic.It's just an unapproved pic that accidentally got posted...then removed...there's no drama in that :)