I'm trying to maintain hope. Please keep my hopes alive! It's quite difficult to be a flight sim geek and NOT purchase a new product, but that is the position I find myself in right now.First impressions are always important, and I regretfully report that my first impressions of the XP10 demonstration, as well as the initial customer reports from the first shipping copies have me worried.I've made several posts here on AVSIM over the past few days about the scenery generation engine in XP10, so I'll try to be brief with my summary of concerns. The plausible world concept seems to work great in rural settings, but towns and cities are challenged. Urban areas look like large tracts of suburbia. Downtown centers are shadows of themselves. Neighborhoods have 8 story buildings in them. Bridges are a bit glitchy. Suburban areas are rife with roads to nowhere, roads isolated from any other, and housing developments look like something which only a SimCity player could enjoy. There seems to be no real rhyme or reason as to what is placed where, at least none that parallel reality.Phoenix, Arizona looks more like the Great Plains than it does the Sonoran desert. Even with 100% density settings in place, users get trees and parks on the docks of New York City, and neighborhood houses on the tip of Manhattan.Something is out of whack, and we need to restore sanity to the world we fly in!Development Roadmap...Is there a development/improvement roadmap in place to address the implausibility of the much-touted plausible world? I'm sorry if this rubs folks the wrong way, especially those who may have created this technology or scenery generation method, but as it stands today, things are just not realistic in the XP10 scenery world when you get "inside the beltway" and away from the mountains and farms. I'm curious if a marked effort will be made to improve this aspect of XP10, or if the system is working "as designed" and won't have much energy put towards it.Textures Perhaps?One of the things I recall reading from Austin Meyers was that scenery was to be built from the blades of grass upwards - unfortunately, in many urban areas, the only grass you find is in the cracks on the sidewalk. Are there any capabilities or plans to somehow texture or better re-create the urban/town environments? Meyers said that we would never see the roof of a building flat on the ground, but these types of scenery elements are often times needed to give the region you are flying in a sense of realism. Short of plastering the ground with 100% building coverage (*to the considerable performance impact), there needs to be some way to fill in the gaps and give cities and large towns their due.Tools and Customer ParticipationHow does XP10 know what class of object to place along the roadways of the XP10 world? Is there an underlying class map which can be edited? If so, are there any tools available to the customer to better lay down the zones and regional delinations which would drive the plausible world's "building codes"?Another AVSIM user had the same thoughts as me in that intrepid customers could use a tool such as Google Earth to lay down some specific KML polygons to better define what is a light/medium/heavy residential area, versus a light/medium/heavy industrial area, versus a light/medium/heavy commercial area...etc. etc. The Plausibility Engine (*sounds like something out of a Douglas Adams novel) could refer to these maps to know if it should lay down houses, apartment buildings, strip malls or office buildings, warehouses or factories. It would give hints to the "Plausibility Engine" as to what it should should be showing up above ground.I understand that WED is a tool which can help accentuate airports and other spot objects, but is there a tool to help improve a the bigger picture?The Unknown...As someone with very limited X-Plane experience, I don't know how the point releases and improvements are made as time goes forward, but I am hoping that the development team doesn't rest too long on the laurels of a newly shipping product. As a flight simulator hobbiest and enthusiast, I have found several things within the XP10 demonstration which are very appealing to me, but because I am a visual person when flying in sims, all the good things are held hostage by the scenery generation engine. I don't know if I am barking up the wrong tree, or if the issues I have noted are already being worked on.I apologise for my candor with this situation, as I am sure the plausible world concept was not something easily programmed. I'm hoping that something constructive can come from it and the system can be improved to a point where cities become more believable in their default state in XP10, without having to rely too heavily on 3rd parties or paying customers to re-work the landscape.-Greg

The problem is, that while XP10 is a big leap forward from XP9, it is still behind what we have in many ways with FSX and as such with all the hype, FSX users are comparing it to what they know which is kinda unfair..I tried XP9 and didn't really get into it and from what i have seen of XP10, some things have me very excited, others not so much. I plan on getting it when released and giving scenery design a fair shake to see how feasible it is for my workflow. from what I have read, the object import process is a no brainer, but any kind of ground work seems to be the biggest obstacle.

How about fs2xplane? Got it, trying it, no success yet-but if this can work there is an answer!

Hi all !For the new readers here, WED is available here:http://scenery.x-plane.com/tools.phpTutorials here:http://wiki.x-plane....irport_Creationhttp://wiki.x-plane....t_Customization

I understand that WED is a tool which can help accentuate airports and other spot objects, but is there a tool to help improve a the bigger picture?

Yes ! You can import OpenStreetMap data (open content license, the best you can get) !Roads, railways, power lines can be imported with XPOSM:http://marginal.org....nery/tools.htmlBuildings, forests, objects (lighthouses, wind turbines, etc...) can be imported with OSM2XP:http://osm2xp.com/Here's what X-Plane 10 already has in the default world:http://www.x-plane.c...al-scenery-use/If something is wrong or missing near your location, it's your fault. Read more about OpenStreetMap here: http://en.wikipedia....i/OpenStreetMapTo contribute, start here: http://wiki.openstre.../wiki/Main_Page My favorite OSM editor is here (JOSM):http://josm.openstreetmap.de/You can also find payware tools for making sceneries:http://www.x-scenerybuilder.com/Happy building !

How about fs2xplane? Got it, trying it, no success yet-but if this can work there is an answer!

FS2XPlane is a nice tool to convert FS2004 (and FSX?) sceneries. But it's not working for every scenery, you have also to make sure the EULA for the scenery allows this, and then you have to correct everything that couldn't be converted automatically (windsocks, etc...).Read more about this here:http://forums.x-plan...showtopic=35790http://forums.x-plan...showtopic=44099

Sorry, I posted the old link for WED. New beta version for WED is here:http://scenery.x-plane.com/beta.php

Sorry, I posted the old link for WED. New beta version for WED is here:http://scenery.x-plane.com/beta.php

Does it work for v.10?Is it that "brick" system?

Does it work for v.10?Is it that "brick" system?

Yes it works because X-Plane 10 is compatible with X-Plane 9 sceneries. But this is not the new "brick" system. You'll get this in a future WED version. Read more about this here:http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php/topic/2611-x-plane-10-scenery-q-a/

Ok, see my post here:http://xplane10.word...-stop-building/

OMG! That's amazing! Hats off to you, sir! In your blog, you said for scenery gurus to build their favourite buildings and sharing them. I presume you meant the more generic ones that can be re-used?

The progress by individuals has been good in this month or so of XP10's existence... however I'm still looking for more concrete information from Laminar Research themselves as to what they will be doing about the crazy bridges, the baffling landclass definitions/missing models, the grassy deserts, and adding some plausibility and legitimacy to the cities.I've read the various blogs and such, but the "roadmaps" being given don't actually map out their timelines or plans - they only discuss some hopes and wishes about what additional features they'd like to code with no indication as to when repairs will be made to the existing data.As great as all of the customer input has been thusfar, I'm starting to get less and less enthusiastic about XP10 and it's significant do-it-yourself level of completeness. I know I've been criticized for focusing too much on the scenery and perhaps not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to the whole package, but with a simulator already in my possession that provides me with great visuals with great performance alongside good flight characteristics and good weather - I was hoping to up the ante to "great" on all counts with XP10. For me, this is looking less and less likely.Those models you've all been working on do look fantastic, don't get me wrong - but the quiet coming from LR makes me fear that they are quite happy with having all of you do the scenery work while they figure out a way to add another unnecessary decimal place of accuracy to their holy grail flight model. (Sorry, that was snarky - I haven't had my coffee today)-Greg

Gregg,I see it perhaps a little differently and perhaps not. First-yes they could use a few more decimal places on the flight models-they are not perfect either!As far as unfinished-I really don't see xplane anymore unfinsished than the similar complaints about the deserts of fsx, lack of water/roads etc when it first came out. It actually is very good. Where it falls short is landmarks-e.g. a few famous buildings/bridges here and there that give a sense of flying somewhere different. Unfortunately imho, most will start up the sim, place it in their hometown, and if it is a major town, take it for a spin and see not much that gives them the "feeling" -and then change to another town and it will look much the same..etc...and that is the problem.Luckily for me-someone had done a nice freeware Detroit package already-and the addition of the two stadiums and the Renn Center to Detroit really does make it seem alive-and that actually is two stadiums more than default fs has (though they have the worlds biggest tire outside dtw). I have to admit though the "plausible city" was not bad-just seeing the Renn center in the distance made me feel home.Once you get outside a major city where you expect to see world famous landmarks, the plausible cities work pretty good. Are there a few mixed up bridges-sure...but a whole world is done.However, your question is a great one. If I was Laminar or a xp payware developer I'd be working day and night for either an add in or adding at least 300 or so landmarks worldwide to the scenery-e.g. Golden gate bridge, eiffel tower, las vegas etc. and also a little more variety in the beautiful sub houses which are second to none-but one really does not expect to see in China or Japan.

While the are assets and the landclass definition are not there yet, the osm roads alone is already a pretty big step up from previous flight sims imho. The way I see it is that XP10 offers a very complete and solid base, one that is easy to extend. But that's an interesting point you've brought up, Greg. Hopefully the shortcomings and the scenery anomolies will be improved upon in the coming months. If not, well...it's not so bad. :(

I really don't see xplane anymore unfinsished than the similar complaints about the deserts of fsx, lack of water/roads etc when it first came out.

I recognize that and was actually waiting for someone to bring it up. In my most humble of opinions, I do think the situation is a little worse here than with the release of FSX. Every-street-represented detail was still in the realm of add-on developers when FSX headed out the door, and the only major landscape anomaly was that god-awful desert looking grass texture. Everything else about FSX's scenery was pretty much functional and a good representation of the globe.Here with XP10, we have far higher 'resolution' of land detail and roads, but we also have barren airports, mishmashed cities and towns, and in an interesting flip of fate, grassy looking deserts. Not to mention a complete lack of autumn, spring, and winter seasons. The introduction of the OSM street data does add lots of information which wasn't previously there, but it has also added some pretty rough bugs such as the NYC bridges and Muskoka's roadway viaducts in the middle of the Ontario hinterlands, all of which take a shot against the plausibility of the visuals.With FSX, there were indeed dozens of voices clammoring for a fix - unfortunately, here with XP10, I feel like the only one making hay about it. If that means I'm the only one truly affected by it, I guess I'll have to keep my hopes in check for timely repair.

While the are assets and the landclass definition are not there yet, the osm roads alone is already a pretty big step up from previous flight sims imho.

According to the blogs I've read, the "landclass" definitions ARE actually in there. It seems clear that they have all the foundations there for well classified landscapes and land use. It's the artwork and scenery assets themselves which are not ready and have no public timeline for completion. This causes XP10 to need to "fill in the blanks" with generic items, and in turn causes the world to look generic. ...all the world is Seattle. :)I'm sounding like a broken record so I'll shuttup now. Hopefully this $80 can go towards a new flight simulator sometime in the near future... and not a nice bottle of scotch! (*mmmm, Laphroaig)Thanks for the conversation, guys... keep up the good work.-Greg

I am not sure I would agree. I remember complaints if I recall about Canada, and other parts of the world being pretty baren in terms of water, and roads and landclass when fsx first came out . I know the lake I live on in Michigan was completely missing along with roads being pretty basic. It took utx, and gex, and add in landclass to really get fsx to a good level and if I recall that was about a year before these products started appearing. As far as the seasons-sure there is only one in xplane. There are also things in xplane such as the detailed system model failures you cannot find in default fsx.As with all things and all sims-it comes down to what features are important to individuals.Now -I am rooting for you about the buildings, objects, and better respresentation of landclass-cause I'd like xplane to appeal to the widest market possible and not a nitch market as it has done in the past. In my view-it may take about a year for that to happen...but happen I hope...and the sooner the better.