And the size of trees ... :-) ... well, thats a long standing discussion. Well, they are a bit larger maybe than they are in real life. This is, because with their height, their width changes proportionally too. So, to have denser forests (make look them denser), we often used the "trick" to make them a bit higher, so they become wider (this was especially important with conifers, which are usually rather high, but thin if looked at from the side). But, this can be changed ... tuned ...

Andras,Thanks for the information. Just for clarification, when you state that the size of the trees can be changed/tuned, does that mean that a user of XP10, like myself when it becomes available, will be able to make the changes or is that something that would be done by the Laminar team? Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. It is really great to have such a high level of involvement from the developers.

Just for clarification, when you state that the size of the trees can be changed/tuned, does that mean that a user of XP10, like myself when it becomes available, will be able to make the changes or is that something that would be done by the Laminar team?

You can change it if you want, you can play around if you want (just keep backups ). The way the forests are defined is quite neat (well, essentially most aspects of the scenery works this way, which is quite a nice aspect of it). In the DSFs (the scenery file), there is no artwork encoded! Only the - hmm , more or less - geographic information, vectors, mesh structures, positions etc... So, forests are only polygons, which define the form and extent of an - for the DSF - abstract forest entity. AND, each of this structures in the DSF (in the forest case the forest polygons) are associated with an artwork definition. In the case of forests these are the so called FOR files (and ground texturing has the TER files, etc. etc.). So, an exemplary forest stand in the DSF might have the FOR file conifer_hot_dry.for associated (thats really all the DSF knows), then this FOR file defines, how in the end it will be populated with artwork (how it looks in the sim). The FOR file includes which textures (trees) will be used, how they will be distributed, mixed, sized etc. ... And yes, there is already a documentation of this. Look here (even if that doc is quite old, it is more or less correct).http://scenery.x-plane.com/library.php?doc=forspec.php

You can change it if you want, you can play around if you want (just keep backups ). The way the forests are defined is quite neat (well, essentially most aspects of the scenery works this way, which is quite a nice aspect of it). In the DSFs (the scenery file), there is no artwork encoded! Only the - hmm , more or less - geographic information, vectors, mesh structures, positions etc... So, forests are only polygons, which define the form and extent of an - for the DSF - abstract forest entity. AND, each of this structures in the DSF (in the forest case the forest polygons) are associated with an artwork definition. In the case of forests these are the so called FOR files (and ground texturing has the TER files, etc. etc.). So, an exemplary forest stand in the DSF might have the FOR file conifer_hot_dry.for associated (thats really all the DSF knows), then this FOR file defines, how in the end it will be populated with artwork (how it looks in the sim). The FOR file includes which textures (trees) will be used, how they will be distributed, mixed, sized etc. ... And yes, there is already a documentation of this. Look here (even if that doc is quite old, it is more or less correct).http://scenery.x-pla...doc=forspec.php

Does this work for areas other than forests, such as in urban areas? Thanks.

Does this work for areas other than forests, such as in urban areas? Thanks.

Can't answer. The completely new autogen technology for cities is not on my table and I don't exactly know how exactly the system works. But usually the artwork definition files are open (and i expect that the new one might get documented at some point in future too), and then it will be able to "tweak" them. But I would expect them to be a more complex beast than forest .

Can someone give me a brief explanation why x-plane is so huge (8DL DVDs)? Compared to the size of FSX (3-4 CD-ROMs I guess) it seems way too big to me. And FSX has lots of night textures, seasonal textures and covers the whole world with more modeled airports and cities (I think so at least), has lots of missions and soundfiles etc. Hence it would be more reasonable to me if it was the other way around.What is in X-plane that needs soooo much data and that isn´t in FSX too?Thanks

Can someone give me a brief explanation why x-plane is so huge (8DL DVDs)? Compared to the size of FSX (3-4 CD-ROMs I guess) it seems way too big to me. And FSX has lots of night textures, seasonal textures and covers the whole world with more modeled airports and cities (I think so at least), has lots of missions and soundfiles etc. Hence it would be more reasonable to me if it was the other way around.What is in X-plane that needs soooo much data and that isn´t in FSX too?Thanks

X-Plane has more elevation points for topography, than is standard with FSX.edit: You don't need to load all the discs, if you don't plane to fly in a particular area.L.Adamson

X-Plane has more elevation points for topography, than is standard with FSX.

70gb and yet ... no Antarctica. I'm convinced that it's some kind of running joke at LR

Maybe because the data isn't available?

Out of interest I did a couple of comparisons of default X-plane 10 with default FSX from Andras's screenshots (Hope you don't mind Andras!). I tried to match it as much as possible. Not sure I got it quite right. As i've said before my computer is pretty old by today's standards. an Intel Core i7 920 with an Ati 4870 GPU, doesn't really set the world alight does it? I remember when it was pretty good though {sigh} I'm crying inside! Anyway... really like the atmospheric qaulity to the X-plane 10 screenshots and as I have said before FSX does a pretty good job of holding it's own for an older platform, testamount to ACES' programming. I love the haze of the scenery in the first picture. I assume this is what Andras means by 'atmospheric rendering'???

Xplane images appear to dark if the comparison is the same time of day.......

It's the bright blue rivers and lakes and featureless bridges and roads in FSX that I have grown tired of. So we have had to resort to payware enhancements GEX, UTX to get more realistic inland water colors and more defined roadways.

The roads in those XP shots still look really fake, like they are painted on the scenery with straight edges only. I know the city shots have shown better looking roads.

Jim,Maybe you remember in an earlier release of XP all the roads were perfect grids with IKEA stores on every fourth corner or so? I almost gave up on XP back then. Even as much as I have invested time and money in FSX I will most likely not throw it out. I think it will be just like the previous releases for MSFS, I will eventually put more into the newest copy until it no longer fulfills my interest to spend time or money on the older one.

I used XP 9.7 for about a month, that's it. Too many things I didn't like about it.

Jim, I think

The roads in those XP shots still look really fake, like they are painted on the scenery with straight edges only. I know the city shots have shown better looking roads.

I see your not a big ###### of XP 9 or 10. Jim maybe you should hangout in the flight forum since you think XP looks so horrifically fake... Or better yet maybe you can program your own Flight Simulator ! Let us know when you have something remotely plausible !