Good Point Tierborn. I appreciate you mentioning that point. XP-9, Ugly yes, recognized, no. Meaning, Orbx fixes ugly FSX but passes over XP-9. FSX would be a coaster on my desk without Orbx. Not recognized in that way. As far as XP-9 sales and those who own it, really enjoy it, due to it being a great sim, it has recognization in that way. I am a shallow eye candy type, like flying low, so graphics are important for me. If I flew tubeliners, not that much of an issue. Not to start a FSX vs Orbx with a trolling off topic flame war, but I always believed XP-9 with a makeover would receive more attention. FSX has gotten a lot of attention and has come a long way. I really enjoy Orbx / FSX. XP-10 will be a hit in the making. My friend swears by XP-9 and calls FSX a toy. And we are buddies! He insulted my sim but I am getting XP-10 so the fight ended. LOL! All is good!

Although I suspect the data coverage has to be of uniform density everywheres

No, it doesn't needs to. X-plane uses an irregular mesh, which can have an - almost - arbitrary shape/density of triangles. But this doesn't helps, if we don't have the really accurate data from all airports to begin with.

Good Point Tierborn. I appreciate you mentioning that point. XP-9, Ugly yes, recognized, no. Meaning, Orbx fixes ugly FSX but passes over XP-9. FSX would be a coaster on my desk without Orbx. Not recognized in that way. As far as XP-9 sales and those who own it, really enjoy it, due to it being a great sim, it has recognization in that way. I am a shallow eye candy type, like flying low, so graphics are important for me. If I flew tubeliners, not that much of an issue. Not to start a FSX vs Orbx with a trolling off topic flame war, but I always believed XP-9 with a makeover would receive more attention. FSX has gotten a lot of attention and has come a long way. I really enjoy Orbx / FSX. XP-10 will be a hit in the making. My friend swears by XP-9 and calls FSX a toy. And we are buddies! He insulted my sim but I am getting XP-10 so the fight ended. LOL! All is good!

thanks for the clarity .. and i understand your points. I believe this time might be different for XP. The turning factor, what will be the final nature of Flight. If it is a continuation of FSX, then XPX will still struggle, If it is not a continuation, the XPX will become the flightsim of choice for the enthusiasts. Then Orbx and others will come.....Austin, improve the UI .. its worth millions to ya ....

The biggest thing that "upsets ME" is the fact that, people that are in love with MSFS are comparing a very large corporation, with a very small company with very limited resources.What Austin has been doing in reality is incredible for the size of his company. Whether you like the sim or not you have to give the man a lot of credit.Is XP perfect no. Is FSX perfect no. And with the resources MS had, in my book it's a disaster. MS is also about the money, XP is all about the "community"!Take away Orbx, Flight1, PDMG.... what do you have out-the-box. Garbage-in, Garbage-Out.I see a few MSFS "Developers" coming here and saying ton's of bad stuff about XP.So... create something for XP SHOW us what YOU think is right!As far as the UI, put some real time in the program it's really not that bad.

Well, theoretically yes, practically - of course - it will not always be "perfect". Let me tell you a bit more about this, as there are a few factors influencing this.The global scenery is built from quite some different data sources (GIS data, of you understand what I mean), and essentially those sources have been improved (in many aspects vastly improved) over XP9.We have new landuse data for all of the planet. Though there are also different quality levels (depending on what was available). For the Europe, the USA (including Alaska/Hawaii) and New Zealand we could use 100m res data ... and for the rest of the planet, 300m res data (mind it, XP9 had only quite coarse, 1km data for all of the planet). And this new landuse data is a big improvement, as it makes the landscape usually look much closer to reality (as there will be forests, where you would expect them, and meadows, where you would expect them etc.). We also have new climate data (oh yes, we use annual mean precipitation and temperature, to make the terines fir - approximately - to their climate). We have new elevation data (which fixed many of the extremely strange errors seen in XP9 - just look to the Andes for example). And we have the all new vector data - trough OpenStreetmap (compared to the quite bad VMAP0 + Tiger data in XP9) - which makes a big differenc as you all have seen. BUT,OSM is not equally detailed all over the planet, so you will find quite some remote locations, where we have no roads at all (or only very few).So, this defines the basis more or less, on which we built the scenery. And as long as our source data was good (detailed enough), the scenery has good chances (all over the planet) to look good too. But there are many places, where even the high quality data (or at least where we believe it should be high quality), can be dull ... to little variations in the landuse, to o few roads in OSM ... etc. So, you see, when you are working with big datasets and big algorithms to generate the planet (and you have no other chance to do it at this level), you always have to accept some uncertainties.At least we have a good basis, and hope, that at least a lot of places over the planet will look quite nice (comparable to the KSEA area). But we also know - at least I do - that there are also quite some places, which are maybe less interesting (hey, even in reality, there are many places, where you wouldn't go on vacation :) )There is also another factor. Namely the texturing. The texturing is - technically - decoupled from the DSFs themselves. A few of you might know - but I think the most don't - how the DSF format works. It uses kind of an abstraction. The scenery only knows about terrain names which are assigned to each triangle (often more than one, when we have transitions which overlap). Then, the definition how that terrain type should look, is defined via the terrain definitions, so called TER files (you will find them in you resources/world terrain folder). Those TER files then specify a lot of parameters (shading technique etc.) and which texture(s) to use for that part.And here we still have a few shortcomings. We still didn't exchange all textures from XP9 for new ones in XP10. Yes, they are almost completely done for temperate and colder climates, but especially in the warmer ones, there are still many textures used from the XP9 set (which are also still there in you resources folder). They often look nice (as those textures weren't bad on their own), but they are sometimes not up to the level of our newer creations. BUT, the good thing is, that changing a few (or even many) TER files and shipping new textures is not a big problem, and can easily be done trough the usual update process. So, yes, we will continue on refining the textures and TER files ... especially for the hotter climates. But rest assured, that even now, that doesn't mean that those places are just homogeneous, grey patches :) (to the contrary).That said, I think, I can say with confidence, that the new global scenery should surpass (in some place vastly, in others just a bit) the old global scenery in all places on the globe.PS: by the way, what is your town Geofa?

Thanks for your lengthy explanation. I fly out of kptk just north of Detroit. Here is a shot of xplane 9 scenery in xplane 10. The ground textures are blury, runny and the landclass is not correct(I once said look like a nuclear incident happened lol, and the area is populated with office buildings like New York where in fact it should be subs of houses primarily). I am hoping the nice sharp ground textures of the Seattle demo is what we will be able to expect with 10 and not something like this as despite the nice flying I do like to look out the window!

The biggest thing that "upsets ME" is the fact that, people that are in love with MSFS are comparing a very large corporation, with a very small company with very limited resources.What Austin has been doing in reality is incredible for the size of his company. Whether you like the sim or not you have to give the man a lot of credit.Is XP perfect no. Is FSX perfect no. And with the resources MS had, in my book it's a disaster. MS is also about the money, XP is all about the "community"!Take away Orbx, Flight1, PDMG.... what do you have out-the-box. Garbage-in, Garbage-Out.I see a few MSFS "Developers" coming here and saying ton's of bad stuff about XP.So... create something for XP SHOW us what YOU think is right!As far as the UI, put some real time in the program it's really not that bad.

I'd have to disagree with that argument. I don't care what company makes the product-I just want the best one I can get. I have been in love with MS for the last 10 years because imho it was the best product. I also didn't use it all in the 1990's because I didn't think it was-and I will not be using it anymore if xplane 10 imho is the best product now. Isn't that how a consumer should be thinking?

@Tierborn,This is you supporting XP?

the most realistic simulator to date ... ??no real AI - wrongATC is bad - compared to what FSX, you have to be kidding.no aircraft push back - want a linkno airport scenery .. when the plane is on the ground 100% of the time it should be at the airport.and no scenery, what? - 90% of the time you should be in the air.worrisome UI - because it's new to you?horrible default aircraft .. this is a sin for the simulation that claims to have the best FM - And FSX is better, really, look at most of the default 3d cockpits.

@Geofa,To each his own I guess.I understand your view-point.

MS is also about the money, XP is all about the "community"!

I'd say that Austin has very much enjoyed his financial gains from XP, too...

I'd say that Austin has very much enjoyed his financial gains from XP too...

Based on my having met Austin... I'd say he spells community m o n e y.

No, it doesn't needs to. X-plane uses an irregular mesh, which can have an - almost - arbitrary shape/density of triangles. But this doesn't helps, if we don't have the really accurate data from all airports to begin with.

Some not too serious beleivers could do it manually "to fit real conditions" and contribute it to the undeserving adictees.

I see a few MSFS "Developers" coming here and saying ton's of bad stuff about XP.

FSX is their bread and butter right now, and XP10's success could threaten their bottom line, so of course they're going to trash-talk the competition.

FSX is their bread and butter right now, and XP10's success could threaten their bottom line, so of course they're going to trash-talk the competition.

X-Plane's success or failure will have a zero impact on my bottom line. Zero.What I do for a living these days has nothing to do with commercial development in these forums. However, I used to do work for Eaglesoft... thus the commercial tag.

@Tierborn,This is you supporting XP?@Geofa,To each his own I guess.I understand your view-point.

Your anger post wasnt based on these comments, but we will let that go. Second, my previous comments below (your response in blue) are in support of XP, and let me tell you how. If I invest in MSFS or XP I get poorer, and MS or Austin gets richer, so it really "normally" doesnt matter to me which wins ... I will fly the best one more frequently versus the other. This time, however, I believe Flight might be taking a departure from the norm...one that will not be a progression for the franchise. As a result, I need XP to be better. Better XP, more sales. More sales, more 3rd party developers join. More 3rd party developers join .. the better ALL of our XPX experiences become. So dropping your head in the sand about the short comings of XP is actually detrimental to the the XP franchise. Get the list of things fixed that I highlighted and XP will be poised to take over MSFS... dont fix it and it will go the way of XP9. So, yes I am in support of XP getting better for the future of the hobby.the most realistic simulator to date ... ??no real AI - wrongATC is bad - compared to what FSX, you have to be kidding.no aircraft push back - want a linkno airport scenery .. when the plane is on the ground 100% of the time it should be at the airport.and no scenery, what? - 90% of the time you should be in the air.worrisome UI - because it's new to you?horrible default aircraft .. this is a sin for the simulation that claims to have the best FM - And FSX is better, really, look at most of the default 3d cockpits.

X-Plane's success or failure will have a zero impact on my bottom line. Zero.What I do for a living these days has nothing to do with commercial development in these forums. However, I used to do work for Eaglesoft... thus the commercial tag.

I don't think Mountain Man was referring to you in particular. He is correct in his assessment. XPX could prove to hurt their bottom line if it takes off. I personally believe it will, and I'm not alone. We have no allegiance, the better simulator wins.

Thank you for your SUPPORT!Have a GREAT day!

X-Plane's success or failure will have a zero impact on my bottom line. Zero.What I do for a living these days has nothing to do with commercial development in these forums. However, I used to do work for Eaglesoft... thus the commercial tag.

My comment wasn't directed at you.