Daniel,I wouldn't call it a glitch - it's a design limitation. When this FS engine was created MS made some assumptions. Maybe they thought a round-earth model was too hard (assuming it was even considered) which would have been a fair call in the late '90s. In 2003 this is no longer the case so I hope that by FS2006 it will be there. MS are never on the leading edge with these things. :-)Mind you, I expect that will break every elevation mesh so maybe it's a non-starter because of the backward compatibility issue you mention.Laurie

Are you so sure?The following quote is from a reply at X-Plane Org. dated Sept/2003"X-Plane does not use env files which are a straight plane. As far as I can gather from writing my own scenery developent tools, X-Plane uses the world standard WGS84 system, as does FS2000/2002/2004.You can see how each env file differs in shape if you run WorldMaker and start off somewhere like 52N and go further North. Each env file gets progressively more 'globe segment' shaped.As to why the discrepancy in distances, I don't know, I never take flights that long, can't stand heavies, its GA all the way for me. I've also seen another reply that states the mathematical models fall apart at high latitudes; in addition to the FMS being off on great circle routes, as well as other problems.I use both simulations, therfore it's not a MSFS versus X-Plane on my part. I just don't like mis-information...L.Adamson

I am certainly not trying to start a X-Plane vs FS arguement! I too have used both, plus Flight Unlimited. I still prefer X-Plane for the its feel, but FS is prettier. My point was that a round-earth model would solve a whole raft of "issues" and that it is possible because other people are doing it. Oh, and the original poster's point - it's time the FS engine was given a major overhaul.My assertion that X-Plane uses a round-earth model is based entirely on messages to the mailing list from Austin Meyer regarding the switch sometime in the early version 6s. I haven't been back to X-Plane since FS2004 came out so I can't comment first hand. For all I know it simply doesn't work well or has to its own set of problems.That both sims' terrain editing tools can read WGS84 is unsurprising, but I seriously doubt either uses this projection when actually drawing terrain. If either do than I can suggest a quick way to improve its fidelity :-)Incidentally, I went looking for what projections resample.exe actually takes and the SDK says FS's world model is an oblate sphereoid, so maybe I am on entirely the wrong track. The FS world certainly doesn't look like an sphereoid from the inside :-)I am, as usual, somewhat confused on the details.Laurie

>Incidentally, I went looking for what projections resample.exe>actually takes and the SDK says FS's world model is an oblate>sphereoid, so maybe I am on entirely the wrong track. The FS>world certainly doesn't look like an sphereoid from the inside>:-)>>I am, as usual, somewhat confused on the details.>>LaurieFor those who don't know what an Oblate Spheroid is:http://164.8.13.169/Enciklopedija/math/math/o/o003.htmNow you are edjicated.Andy b

>>I wonder if you'd grin if you had a "somewhat workable" TV set? You could only get channels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Nothing else...<<

How about - if things are broke they should fix 'em...-Daniel

Oh dear I've opened a hornets nest.In 62 years, I have never expected anyone to do what I can't do myself.If it burns Kerosene and makes a noise, I'm interested.

Actually, the "round world" model in X Plane is flawed as well. It's really made up of a number of flat facets mapped to a sphere. You can see the effect of this if you fly a lot above mach 1. Every few min. your airplane will rock and shudder as if hitting a wall as it crosses a facet boundry and the "round world" corordinates reset. I'd gladly trade not being able to fly over the poles for bumpless high speed flight in X Plane (it's a huge pain when speed testing). Of the two solutions, the one used on MSFS seems a better choice.TonyDigital-Flight