Because that's what it looks like in real life, and isn't the entire goal of a flight simulator to make the experience as realistic as possible? That includes a realistic simulation of the environment you see outside of the cockpit.

you can not see truck shadows from your aircraft in flight. The truck shadows would be good for a sims game.

While I love detail scenery as much as the next guy, performance is more important for me.

As long as it's scalable then it shouldn't be a problem. For what it's worth, FSX was extremely scalable, but as you said, too many people tried to make it look like the promo shots even though they had underpowered hardware. I really can't see how that's the fault of the developers.

you can not see truck shadows from your aircraft in flight. This truck shadows would be good for a sims game.

Actually you can if you fly low & slow like I do. :)

you can not see truck shadows from your aircraft in flight.

That's a rather generalized statement, don't you think? I can think of a number of situations in which detail like that would be noticeable, even if only subconsciously. If it really bothers you then I expect there will be a way to turn it off.

The one question I can't find a definitive answer for is whether or not X-Plane 10 will support Linux "out of the box" on release or if the Linux version is planned for a later date.

Most likely it will be out-of-the-box as all the others have been in the past.

you can not see truck shadows from your aircraft in flight. The truck shadows would be good for a sims game.

I thought so too, so I looked at a few helicopter tour videos on YT As the helicopter was passing above the George Washington Bridge in NYC, to my surprise you can clearly see the shadows of trucks crossing it. So at low levels, this would be realistic.

Here is a quick comparison from one of the screenshots at the main X-plane website. What you see in the screenies is Pismo Beech with Pismo Lake to the right hand side and Oceano County Airport to the left. To be honest I did this for myself to see what the differences between the two platforms - FSX and X-plane 10 would be like side by side but I thought it would be interesting to share. I stuck google earth in there as a 'reality' shot to add some clarity on what is there in real life. Unfortunatlely Google's texture data looks rather patchy, which is a shame but I can't do much about that. The other guest missing at this party is 'Flight' so until that is released we would have a much better comparison of all the platforms limitations and strengths.IMHO X-plane 10 should be marketing itself at 'Flight' rather than FSX. I assume that 'Flight' will use newer technolgy and better up-to-date data than it's predescessor. It will be interesting to see what it will bring to the table to our very niche hobby. By the way sorry about the low qaulity of the jpeg I was conscscious of how big the final image was going to be. Also my computer is a corei7 with an ATI 4870 card (it certainly isn't cutting edge, blimey I remember when it was pretty good though...booo!!!) so please take that into account when looking at the screenshot!!!

Here's a comparison shot to current addons, (UTX/GEX) Which in my opinion is a more valid compare, as next gen sims should equal or surpass current state. I use this same standard for MS Flight as well. If it doesn't come at least close to what I currently have,why would I change? I'm not going to base my purchase decision on what I had 6 years ago.

The XP10 shot looks great detail-wise, but lacks the sand, water class and terrain colours. Overall looking promising though.

The XP10 shot looks great detail-wise, but lacks the sand, water class and terrain colours. Overall looking promising though.

I agree, detail wise it's pretty good, but at least in this area, it needs work in it's land class.

First of all the images posted have low autogen & trees as Austin has stated.And UTX makes FSX even more ugly in my opinion and your comparing DEFAULT vs ADD-ONS.No Contest, XP10 Default vs FSX Default, XP10 wins.Also, Microsoft is a large company with millions to spend (and they still didn't get it right), while LM is 4 to 6 guys creating this sim.At least you could tip your hats for their efforts.Looking for perfection will just drive you crazy.

First of all the images posted have low autogen & trees as Austin has stated.And UTX makes FSX even more ugly in my opinion and your comparing DEFAULT vs ADD-ONS.No Contest, XP10 Default vs FSX Default, XP10 wins.Also, Microsoft is a large company with millions to spend (and they still didn't get it right), while LM is 4 to 6 guys creating this sim.At least you could tip your hats for their efforts.Looking for perfection will just drive you crazy.

No I'm comparing current state, to a next generation sim, same as I do with each version of FS or other simulation software like FLY!! or ProPilot when they came out. I don't care what what my sim looked like 6 years ago, I care what it looks and performs like today. For the record, I like a lot of what I see, but we're supposedly less then 2 months from release, and we still haven't seen what other aspects, like AI and ATC will be like. Only the promise it will be good. I hope their right.

Here's a comparison shot to current addons, (UTX/GEX) Which in my opinion is a more valid compare, as next gen sims should equal or surpass current state. I use this same standard for MS Flight as well. If it doesn't come at least close to what I currently have,why would I change? I'm not going to base my purchase decision on what I had 6 years ago.

I can see what your'e trying to say Tom. I remember people saying the same thing when they went from FS2004 to FSX. "With all my addons why would I switch to FSX, because it practically looks the same etc etc".FSX with the latest addons such as ORBX look stunning. I remember because I was one of them.I fly with all of the UK VFR scenery, REX and PMDG addons, FSX looks absolutely incredible, (not bad for a sim released in 2006) The base X-plane 10 will provide the same sort of sandbox that FSX provided and I suppose like all flight simulator platforms will mature over time, as long as it gets developed by LR and by 3rd parties. Will X-plane 10 look like this when it gets to 10.70? probably not, I'm sure it will look completely different, for the better I hope. But to be honest the fairest comparison would be with 'Flight'. That is Microsoft latest and greatest and it would provide a more equal comparison. Not that I would want to replace my current setup. All these flight sims can co-exist alongside each other. When I bought FSX did I erase FS2004? Nope. When I installed X-plane 9 did I erase FSX? Nope! I enjoy them all in equal measure. Heck I even fired up Fly II the other day and after all those years still enjoyed it. A simulator, A very mis-understood sim Fly II, it was way ahead of it's time. Good times!CheersRhydian

The one question I can't find a definitive answer for is whether or not X-Plane 10 will support Linux "out of the box" on release or if the Linux version is planned for a later date.

Yes, it will suport Linux. I am one of the scenery devs (the natural landscape - all the planet), and I do all my work (including testing in XP10) with Linux (have no Mac or Windows).

The XP10 shot looks great detail-wise, but lacks the sand, water class and terrain colours. Overall looking promising though.

Be careful, there is maybe one more difference in the shots: the sun angle which is quite low in the XP10 shot compared to the others. At this low sun angle you get much warmer colors ... And the new atmosphere shader did a few "tricks" too here. But of course, the general tone of the textures is different too ...And as I wrote somewhere else, the texturing part is not completely finished. There are many regions which will get step-by-step updates (in this aspect XP is quite different from many other - uhm - monolithic software) after the first release ...

I agree, detail wise it's pretty good, but at least in this area, it needs work in it's land class.

Hmm, work in the landclass ... of course, we could improve it (I am never running out of ideas). But I think the improvement to 100m (well originally 30m) landclass data resolution in XP10 compared to the 1km resolution in XP9 might be not so bad. And it was the most detailed - to my knowledge - US nation wide (Alaska/Hawaii included) data I could come by.(as a side note: here I am referring to the US raw data we used! On global scale we could use 300m data, and for Europe and NZ other very good 100m resolution sources).