Having watched Austin's latest XP10 presentation several things have been made clear about what he's doing. They are either good, bad, or indifferent depending on how you look at things.I'm curious to see how everyone feels. Obviously, most on the XP board love it so there was no point in starting this there. The contrast however can be drawn directly with what FLIGHT will likely be (i.e. covering the world) and how it accomplishes that and what we want to see technology wise going forward.Laminar Research set out to make a "plausible" world but not one that models the current world we live in (his words, not mine). From his description given, this means roads will be there based on OSM databases but auto gen, forests, city buildings, stadiums, etc. will all be dynamically created using AI to populate the earth. For example (one he gave), if you have a road by a beach then the AI system assumes and places beach houses and palm trees to populate that area.This also means (his words, not mine) that there will not be things like city textures to fill in the gaps. Everything is modeled in 3d based on the render level you set. Because traditional land class and airport charts aren't used though you will have 99.9% of airports out of the box with either no buildings or completely made up randomly generated buildings (they are hoping to auto-populate airports somehow with the latter so they aren't empty). Without city textures you are also left with buildings and roads spread out over simple green textures and the effect can be lost in areas.Parts of this in theory are amazing and exciting. Not even in theory. It is amazing and exciting. Everything in 3d (including each individual light source) has never been done before but where does that leave those who require and seek out an accurate real world presentation of scenery in the world?As most on this board are used to and enjoy Microsoft's current approach of traditional land class, ground textures, and realistically placed city/airport buildings (especially in major cities that are custom placed) what is your opinion on these differing philosophies and what do you want to see going forward?I'm struggling on how I feel about it. On the one hand it's exciting and looks like the logical next step (i.e. everything in 3d, individual light sources, etc.). The results can be breathtaking, especially at night. On the other hand is that a step we are willing to take if it means the world and airports you are flying in and into are not an accurate presentation of the real world? Of course neither is MSFS on some levels but you get the gist of what I'm saying.Opinions on whether this is the right or wrong direction and whether it's a deal breaker or not for you?

I always think why they don't use the resources that already are available. Google Maps imagery for example. They can use that to place cities and real world textures. I know that making them at high definition would make a huge install, but maybe they can find the way to make affordable. I don't know.

For me suspension of disbelief is essential. As a real world pilot and Platinum Continental Onepass member, I fly a lot either at the controls or sitting at a window seat, if what I see on the computer screen doesn't remind me of what I see in the real world, I won't use it.For me, that suspension starts at the airport. I horde realistic airport sceneries because airport accuracy sets the stage for the start of the flight as well as lends the satisfaction at the end of the flight. When you fly into and out of realistic airport scenery it a largely different experience than trying to get your brain to pretend that what you see on the screen resembles anything like its real world counterpart. If most airports in Xplane don't even have buildings...that is going to be a huge non-starter.Next, after I depart, I want to continue that suspension of disbelief when I look out of the windows. Even FSX default city scenery does a reasonable job of getting the landclass and textures of large cities and towns in the ballpark of believability. Addons just take that to the next level. I've seen the XP 10 city scapes from the air and they are, in a word, terrible. Cities aren't built with suburbs, dense urban, industrial and rural all piled on top of each other. Cities tend to be dense in the city center and thin out as you move out into the suburbs. Industrial areas are generally in their own areas and in areas where industrial and residential are mixed it is a concrete jungle and looks very "gritty". XP scenery doesn't reflect this at all and looks unrecognizable as a familiar depiction from the air. The roads being spread out over green pastures randomly passing through an industrial park randomly placed next to a suburban sub division just looks silly and inaccurate.AI is another big issue. I generally fly commercial aircraft out of large airports in FSX. I paid a lot of money and spent a lot of time on computer equipment so that I can turn my AI up to 100% and have every gate filled with real world custom traffic at every gate - and still get very good frame rates even with the most complex aircraft. XP is limited to 20 AI aircraft. Why on earth would I want fly from unrealistic looking airports with unrealistic traffic?3D lighting? I do really like XP10's night lighting. It's still a little too dark for a hugely lit up city scape but it beats FSX's night lighting into the ground. That's nice. But I have to give up realistic airports, scenery and traffic to have 3D lights? REALLY?Look. When FSX was released and you had to "dumb down" the sim just to get it to perform properly I refused to move to it from FS9. Why would I have up everything I have working in FS9 to move to a sparse FSX? When I could finally run FSX at my chosen settings without compromise, then I moved to it and I love it. When FLIGHT comes out I will evaluate it the same way. If the trade off is too large then I'll wait however long it takes until I can do the same things in FSX as I can in Fight. XPlane? That would be starting over from scratch with absolutely no advantages at all (okay 3D lights), to fly in a unrealistically represented world at sparse airports, with no buildings?I think of Xplane like I do of Prepar3d. IF you are an FSX user and everything is working properly and performing well, there is absolutely no reason to move to Xplane or Prepar3d (unless you want to simulate submarines). IF you are still struggling with tweaking and searching for the holy grail then maybe you will find what you are looking for in XPlane or Prepar3d. But XPlane shows me nothing to be excited about. I don't care about them being the first to release global 3D lights. If they said they were the first to release a realistic global 3D environment then count me in for at least a peek. There are too many steps back vs FSX for me to even download the XP10 demo.

This is the right way if you ask me, no more road cutting thrue baseball fields, buildings or parking lots or flying over 1/2 of a golf course, as far as populating airports or cities with accurate buildings the door is wide open for 3rd party developers, I think the sky is the limit.Another thing that is very anoying and you will not see in XP-10 is popping autogen.....Austin explained that the sim. is building the scenery as you go....fantastic work if you ask me, they listen to the major complain we had about FSX and made sure not to duplicate them in XP-10, will XP-10 be perfect....naaaa but IMOH FSX is dead in the water.....give it another year.

For me suspension of disbelief is essential. As a real world pilot and Platinum Continental Onepass member, I fly a lot either at the controls or sitting at a window seat, if what I see on the computer screen doesn't remind me of what I see in the real world, I won't use it. For me, that suspension starts at the airport. I horde realistic airport sceneries because airport accuracy sets the stage for the start of the flight as well as lends the satisfaction at the end of the flight. When you fly into and out of realitic airport scenery it a largely differenct experience than trying to get your brain to pretend that what you see on the screen resembles anything like its real world counterpart. If most airports in Xplane don't even have buildings...that is going to be a huge non-starter.Next, after I depart, I want to continue that suspension of disbelief when I look out of the windows. Even FSX default city scenery does a reasonable job of getting the landclass and textures of large cities and towns in the ballpark of believability. Addons just take that to the next level. I've seen the XP 10 city scapes from the air and they are, in a word, terrible. Cities aren't built with suburbs, dense urban, industrial and rural all piled on top of each other. Cities tend to be dense in the city center and thin out as you move out into the suburbs. Industrial areas are generally in their own areas and in areas where industrial and residental are mixed it is a concrete jungle and looks very "gritty". XP scenery doesn't reflect this at all and looks unrecognizable as a familiar depiction from the air. The roads being spread out over green pastures randomly passing through an industrial park randomly placed next to a suburban sub division just looks silly and inaccurate.AI is another big issue. I generally fly commercial aircraft out of large airports in FSX. I paid a lot of money and spent a lot of time on computer equipment so that I can turn my AI up to 100% and have every gate filled with real world custom traffic at every gate - and still get very good frame rates even with the most complex aircraft. XP is limited to 20 AI aircraft. Why on earth would I want fly from unrealistic looking airports with unrealistic traffic? 3D lighting? That's nice. So I have to give up realistic airports, scenery and traffic to have 3D lights? REALLY?Look. When FSX was released and you had to "dumb down" the sim just to get it to perform properly I refused to move to it from FS9. Why would I have up everything I have working in FS9 to move to a sparce FSX? When I could finally run FSX at my chosen settings without compromise, then I moved to it and I love it. When FLIGHT comes out I will evaluate it the same way. If the trade off is too large then I'll wait however long it takes until I can do the same things in FSX as I can in Fight. XPlane? That would be starting over from scratch with absolutely no advantages at all (okay 3D lights), to fly in a unrealistically represented world at sparse airports, with no buildings? I think of Xplane like I do of Prepar3d. IF you are an FSX user and everything is working properly and performing well, there is absolutely no reason to move to Xplane or Prepar3d (unless you want to simulate submarines). IF you are still struggling with tweaking and searching for the holy grail then maybe you will find what you are looking for in XPlane or Prepar3d. But XPlane shows me nothing to be excited about. I don't care about them being the first to release global 3D lights. If they said they were the first to release a realistic global 3D environment then count me in for at least a peak. There are too many steps back vs FSX for me to even download the XP10 demo.

Yup. What he said

Hello MikeThat says it much better than I could, XP10 looks like an alien planet to me

This is the right way if you ask me, no more road cutting thrue baseball fields, buildings or parking lots or flying over 1/2 of a golf course, as far as populating airports or cities with accurate buildings the door is wide open for 3rd party developers, I think the sky is the limit.Another thing that is very anoying and you will not see in XP-10 is popping autogen.....Austin explained that the sim. is building the scenery as you go....fantastic work if you ask me, they listen to the major complain we had about FSX and made sure not to duplicate them in XP-10, will XP-10 be perfect....naaaa but IMOH FSX is dead in the water.....give it another year.

You are getting off topic with such statements and obviously trolling but I'll bite.FSX (and Flight going forward) will never be dead in the water as long as XP10 lacks basic ATC, limits AI to 20 planes, only has one populated airport (and whatever 3rd parties might make), has no seasonal changes, no PMDG quality aircraft, and it's scenery doesn't represent the real world to some large degree.The AI issue along with airport scenery is the biggest killer for me. From the way Austin explained it, I wouldn't look for that limit to go up in the future any time soon either. In fact, listening to his presentation it made it seem like you'll need a 20 core processor just to reach the 20 plane limit without bringing the sim to a halt.There's currently a huge give and take going on here with XP10. A lot of basics are being taken (or were never offered) in order to give you 3d highways and lights.That's what this thread was about. Is there enough given by XP to overtake what isn't there or do you prefer what Microsoft is doing and has done to model the world despite it's flaws as well?

This is the right way if you ask me, no more road cutting thrue baseball fields, buildings or parking lots or flying over 1/2 of a golf course, as far as populating airports or cities with accurate buildings the door is wide open for 3rd party developers, I think the sky is the limit.Another thing that is very anoying and you will not see in XP-10 is popping autogen.....Austin explained that the sim. is building the scenery as you go....fantastic work if you ask me, they listen to the major complain we had about FSX and made sure not to duplicate them in XP-10, will XP-10 be perfect....naaaa but IMOH FSX is dead in the water.....give it another year.

Right Alain - and THIS is what you get from that wonderful scenery engine.... A city designed by a manic-depressive city planner who was off his medication for a few weeks. The good thing about this layout is if you are living in the inner-city you only have to walk down the street to get to the swap, forest, park, beach or industrial park. It's actually pretty convenient.

Going off the most recent screenshots Xplane 10 is looking like FSX or FS2004 and in many cases somewhat worse.

Having watched Austin's latest XP10 presentation several things have been made clear about what he's doing. They are either good, bad, or indifferent depending on how you look at things.I'm curious to see how everyone feels. Obviously, most on the XP board love it so there was no point in starting this there. The contrast however can be drawn directly with what FLIGHT will likely be (i.e. covering the world) and how it accomplishes that and what we want to see technology wise going forward.Laminar Research set out to make a "plausible" world but not one that models the current world we live in (his words, not mine). From his description given, this means roads will be there based on OSM databases but auto gen, forests, city buildings, stadiums, etc. will all be dynamically created using AI to populate the earth. For example (one he gave), if you have a road by a beach then the AI system assumes and places beach houses and palm trees to populate that area.This also means (his words, not mine) that there will not be things like city textures to fill in the gaps. Everything is modeled in 3d based on the render level you set. Because traditional land class and airport charts aren't used though you will have 99.9% of airports out of the box with either no buildings or completely made up randomly generated buildings (they are hoping to auto-populate airports somehow with the latter so they aren't empty). Without city textures you are also left with buildings and roads spread out over simple green textures and the effect can be lost in areas.Parts of this in theory are amazing and exciting. Not even in theory. It is amazing and exciting. Everything in 3d (including each individual light source) has never been done before but where does that leave those who require and seek out an accurate real world presentation of scenery in the world?As most on this board are used to and enjoy Microsoft's current approach of traditional land class, ground textures, and realistically placed city/airport buildings (especially in major cities that are custom placed) what is your opinion on these differing philosophies and what do you want to see going forward?I'm struggling on how I feel about it. On the one hand it's exciting and looks like the logical next step (i.e. everything in 3d, individual light sources, etc.). The results can be breathtaking, especially at night. On the other hand is that a step we are willing to take if it means the world and airports you are flying in and into are not an accurate presentation of the real world? Of course neither is MSFS on some levels but you get the gist of what I'm saying.Opinions on whether this is the right or wrong direction and whether it's a deal breaker or not for you?

What the video doesn’t say is MSFS has been using this method to generate scenery too...as far as I can tell.What we’ll want to see next, is who does it best :)

What the Xplane10 video doesn’t say is MSFS has been using this method to generate scenery for years.

That makes me wonder why XP10 wouldn't just apply their new models and lighting to realistic land class/ground textures/airport charts using these already given methods and just make the world the way it should look.In theory you could match FSX's depiction of the world in accurate placement while upping the visual quality ten fold.Why stop short like they have, and not only stop short but telegraph that you won't be going any further with realistic scenery placement aside from what 3rd party developers want to do?I was really pumped about XP10 for a while but the more I learn the more I scratch my head at some of the development decisions.All I know is that FLIGHT better deliver now or we are stuck because XP10 isn't the answer and doesn't look like it will be for the many who like real world scenery, high detail accurate airports with realistic traffic, and IFR airline flying.That's kind of my answer to this question as far as what's important to me so I obviously think XP10 is going in the wrong direction. I think they've miscalculated just how important some of the major elements they aren't offering are to hardcore flight simmers at large.It saddens me because there's so much freaking potential there visually.

I think they both have a lot of promise.And it's a very difficult set of problems to solve.It’s prone to creating those odd scenery errors.Frame rate, is a big limiter too obviously.It’s very easy and tempting to add detail, but it has to run at a practical speed.Hand built scenery still offers the best impression of realism.I imagine both sims will keep encouraging people to develop more hand built detailed add-ons.

Guys, trolling for what? Don't get me wrong here, both sim have their own flaws, what I'm saying is look at FSX from years ago when addons like FTX were not available....what then...we were flying with what we had, don't you remember FSX SP2...same with XP-10, until 3rd party developers do some sceneries for XP-10 we will have to deal with what we have, also, XP-10 will release patches from time to time (correct me if I'm wrong) including new scenery and that is why I said give XP-10 at least another years to see what they can come up with including 3rd party developers, Aerosoft is already making some sceneries for XP-10, just take their US cites X for example, I can imagine them in XP-10.Do I want everything at released....of course I do but like FSX I think XP-10, with time, will get better and that is why IMHO after a year or two FSX will slowly fade because of XP-10, if Flight is release sooner and it's a fantastic sim. without the usual bugs XP-10 will compete for the pole position.I wonder if we will have to buy the regions we want to fly over from MS's store......naaaaa probably not, right? Edit: AI is also bugging me, one core per plane with only 20 plane is also bugging me, so I guess I will have to buy this board http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813188070 with a 8 core CPU x 2 for 16 core = 32 thread .....will they make more AI plane available in the future....I'll ask.

Guys, trolling for what? Don't get me wrong here, both sim have their own flaws, what I'm saying is look at FSX from years ago when addons like FTX were not available....what then...we were flying with what we had, don't you remember FSX SP2...same with XP-10, until 3rd party developers do some sceneries for XP-10 we will have to deal with what we have, also, XP-10 will release patches from time to time (correct me if I'm wrong) including new scenery and that is why I said give XP-10 at least another years to see what they can come up with including 3rd party developers, Aerosoft is already making some sceneries for XP-10, just take their US cites X for example, I can imagine them in XP-10.

FSX came out of the box with realistic airport building placement, city placement, etc for most of the world. That was what this thread was about. Not which one looks better.As a simmer, can you still be immersed in XP10's "plausible" yet randomly generated world vs. Microsoft's more accurate scenery placement? That was the question.

Do I want everything at released....of course I do but like FSX I think XP-10, with time, will get better and that is why IMHO after a year or two FSX will slowly fade because of XP-10, if Flight is release sooner and it's a fantastic sim. without the usual bugs XP-10 will compete for the pole position.

Why though? Because of 3d highways and lighting? Is that enough to make up for limited unrealistic AI, limited ATC, lack of ground textures (city, seasonal, etc.), and a world where any airport details will have to come from a 3rd party? And this is assuming all the new 3d auto gen eye candy can even be run at a reasonable FPS at high levels.Again, it's not about what looks better. It's about practical use. Going back to my original question, can what immerses you in MSFS be duplicated at a higher level in XP10? If not, then that answers this thread one way or the other.What immerses you may be different from someone else. For me the ability to simulate IFR airliner ops is what immerses me, from ATC, to airport environments, to realistic city placement, down to AI traffic that fill the skies.

I wonder if we will have to buy the regions we want to fly over from MS's store......naaaaa probably not, right?

The irony of this post is that XP10 pretty much does what you are insinuating FLIGHT will do in a defacto sense by omission. Sure, you can fly anywhere in XP10. The question is what will be there to see having airports with no buildings and no region specific textures and autogen? 3rd party developers will have to do the grunt work and it won't be free.

I doubt why you need such detail 3d highway in a "flight simulator", when most of your time are several thousand feet above ground? Still, I am not sure how xp10 new system work, how about those areas without OSM data? is that mean those areas will be empty land? Those people who tried to create scenery for FSX know they can create different ground landclass texture for specific country and the ground will looks ultra realistic when you fly thousands feet above looking down. I am just not sure xp10 can create that kind of "feel" with its new system. Time will tell.