Ok. My 2 cents.If I'm flying in a world that is based on the real one, then reality is my marker. Plausible will only suffice for creating data based on that which defines a norm. That data is incomplete. XP has to MAKE UP the zoning data to figure out residential, industrial, seaway, roadway, railway etc. Perfect examples posted of the seattle overlays. XP10 version has rails on the left side with limited residential buildings on the right. NO WAREHOUSES at all for the seaway and commercial sector that is the shipping area of Seattle. That is where plausibility fails most people.A plausible city is placing a house at an intersection instead of in the middle of it. A plausible city is placing a stop sign or light at an intersection to direct traffic. When I'm flying in a city, I would expect there to be a COMMERCIAL sector, RESIDENTIAL sector and BUSINESS sector as there typically is. This data is not available world-wide and the formats the data would be in would be various. This is where reality is a pipe dream. Google Earth does a good job at bringing the 2d to 3d, but even then, is a compromise. Maybe a partnership with Google would assist in gathering the missing data and placement of building/forest/landmark data that would flush out the issues.My biggest issue with flying a plausible non-realistic sim is simply that when I fly into NYC, I would expect to see manhattan full of towering skyscrapers, central park with its trees, sprawling rocks in areas with small lakes in others instead of a green mass with houses around it. Hopefully when my copy of XP10 comes, I'll be able to see the plausible version of NYC for myself and be excited. Nonetheless, I purchased XP10 knowing that:XP will be better in a month than it is now performance-wiseXP will have some input from its users where the input makes sense - adding in a feature just cuz it was there in FSX isn't good enough - it has to make sense and assist the userXP will update the current features - we are dealing with a NEW platform for most everything we see...the weather, world mesh and landclass, autogen, roadway vector data, lake and ocean data, ALL are new and expected to be improvedIn time, XP will get better. The one focus that I wish LR would do is that when something is scratched off the list, it is near 100% of the intended and expected results - i.e. default aircraft that are pitiful in performance and lack any viability. If I strip out all the half-assed upgraded aircraft from older versions of XP, I'd have 4 or 5 good quality aircraft. I like the 747. I really do. It is a great demonstration at showing what XP is capable of. The C172 is good as well and maybe 3 other aircraft I have tried I really like. I can't remember a time when an aircraft was included in a new version of MS Flight Simulator that it was the same version from FS98 without modification except to get it to load. They would update as needed to get it fully usable. In FS2004, they didn't add VCs to any of the older aircraft, but the 2d panels, which were the standard for most people at the time, were fully usable, the exteriors were flawless with no glitching or artifacts. FSX rolls around and the aircraft seem to all have the same level of detail. All have VCs with 3d switches. All have multiple views. They didn't just make 2 new aircraft and import the old ones. That is what was done with several for XP10.But the advancement on other areas of the sim needed a sacrifice somewhere. To focus on getting the base of the sim to a usable state, they had to cut something somewhere. As long as, in time, these things are rounded out, I will have gotten my $80 worth. XP has always been a kind of "pre-pay" software. Buy it now and it will get better as time goes on. Flight Simulator has been a "buy it now and we'll only fix big things" software. Very little done after purchase of the title, but all features are 100% when released, there are fewer new features however. This go round, FS works on weather. Next is autogen. Next is general graphics. Finally AI/ATC improvement. The ATC system from FSX is not wholly different than FS2004. The weather in FS2004 is somewhat similar to FS2002 with minor changes. Each major release works on ONE thing. XP seems to work on all things at once and give you incremental updates as they roll out upgrades to their product. I don't have to buy the next version just to get access to the next feature. I just update the version I have.Now, back to waiting at the door impatiently for UPS to arrive with my new XP10!!!!!!

Till then, there is Flight, Prepar3d and this new AeroflyFS to look into to see if my civil flight sim itch can be scratched.

Oh my.... if that AeroflyFS is true and the whole world is like that.....

My biggest issue with flying a plausible non-realistic sim is simply that when I fly into NYC, I would expect to see manhattan full of towering skyscrapers, central park with its trees, sprawling rocks in areas with small lakes in others instead of a green mass with houses around it.

I'm not that pessimistic. Here's what New York looks in my X-Plane 9. Will only get better.

Oh my.... if that AeroflyFS is true and the whole world is like that.....

No AI, no ATC, no airliners, not every airpport with buildings, only Switzerland … It is high resolution photo-scenery. If you want the world like that then better start saving for a harddrive that can take it ;)

No AI, no ATC, no airliners, not every airpport with buildings, only Switzerland …It is high resolution photo-scenery. If you want the world like that then better start saving for a harddrive that can take it ;)

Hehehehe yeah, i read the others post after mine. Is the dreamed simulator..... one day......

I'm not that pessimistic. Here's what New York looks in my X-Plane 9. Will only get better.No AI, no ATC, no airliners, not every airpport with buildings, only Switzerland …It is high resolution photo-scenery. If you want the world like that then better start saving for a harddrive that can take it ;)

That is what it looked like in XP9...with the static placed buildings. Look at seattle in XP9 and XP10 and tell me they look similarly. The algorithm used for XP10's plausible scenery makes up EVERYTHING and places it all as it sees it should be. The only time it ignores the plausible engine's placement is when there is an exclusion for specifically placed scenery objects, like the Statue of Liberty, washington monument, etc.

Look at seattle in XP9 and XP10 and tell me they look similarly.

Of course they don't, but that is actually good news. The new system gives a way much better base to build up upon.oh… and no; these screenshots are not only default XP9. There is free- (islands) and payware (KLGA) in it.

In what way is that silly?Would you care to tell me how a scenery can be valid, likely, or acceptable if it doesn't express an awareness of things as they really are?Effectively, tell me how something unrealistic can be plausible.

Plausible, in this context, simply means, "Something that could exist, or at least has the appearance that it could exist, even if it doesn't actually exist."

As I said earlier, if we want to talk about XP10's graphics capabilities then let's start with these photos as the baseline: https://picasaweb.go...capesOfTheWorld

At what settings were these pictures taken? What system is needed to use these settings?Is my system sufficient?AMD Phenom II X4 965BE 3.4 GHz4 Gb PC6400 RAMNVIDIA GTS 250 1 Gb (use 1920*1200 res)7200 rpm 500 Gb harddriveWin7 x64

At what settings were these pictures taken? What system is needed to use these settings?Is my system sufficient?AMD Phenom II X4 965BE 3.4 GHz4 Gb PC6400 RAMNVIDIA GTS 250 1 Gb (use 1920*1200 res)7200 rpm 500 Gb harddriveWin7 x64

jfri,The best way to find out is to download the demo. Set it up as best you can, you can always come back here and ask for guidance. We'll help if we can.

jfri, remember, this is a XP9 screenshot that is a few posts above yours. That is a response to my inquiry as to whether XP10 will have a realistic, yet plausible, cityscape that isn't just houses and roads as seatac seems to be. The specs you post should work great for XP9, not so sure yet for XP10, but at moderate settings, shouldn't be too terrible. As Mike posted, DL the demo and try it out. There are numerous posts about settings and how to get a good baseline for your FPS.http://www.x-plane.com/blog/2011/12/tips-for-better-frame-rates-pt-1/This is the best place to start. In short, turn everything down to absolute minimum/low/off, then one by one, increase notch by notch, starting with what you can't live without. You want detailed airports more than houses and roads? Put the airport detail from low to default. Now. Check your FPS. Now try the next one until you've got your settings where you want and your FPS is acceptable. The list at the bottom shows where FPS can be limited by either CPU or graphics card.

...and roughly the same view in FSX (extremely dense scenery, dense autogen) and in Google Maps.Now I am sure that there are rural areas or mountain areas that look a thousand times better in X-Plane 10 versus FSX - but as far as I can tell, for urban areas, even with the settings fully maxed out, X-Plane 10 does not deliver even a bare approximation of a city.

XPX rural looks good .. but most of us have addons that make FSX rural look good as well.

I'm not that pessimistic. Here's what New York looks in my X-Plane 9. Will only get better.

Here's the south tip of Manhattan in X-Plane 10....The Brooklyn Bridge and East River area...EYIKES.(Thanks to an early adopter who graciously provided these shots for me to review...)

Phoenix, Arizona...

Here's Manhattan in FSX default:It's debatable which one looks better.

Here's the south tip of Manhattan in X-Plane 10....

It's a base only, Greg. What I said: It can only get better. Now the possibility is there. There is no real final result yet. And still a lot of bugs (like the bridge that seems to be just fine directly in OSM itself). But if you see what other guys are doing with OSM in X-Plane 9 already, I am still convinced the move was a good one.Let's not fool ourselves: Laminar made a move to a WHOLE new data source. And on top of that, they planted a whole new approach in regards to how the new data source is processed. That's massive and I did not expect it to be most impressive in the initial release.