High altitudes do wonders for ugly scenery.Here's something a little closer to the ground:

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

I would say, rather, that you should email them with a polite request. Austin doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who will respond favorably to whiny customers with a false sense of entitlement.

When one is sold a bill of goods with the hype that they have put out, politeness is one thing, DELIVERING ON YOUR HYPE ANOTHER.What does a customer care about how Austin responds, whether the customer is whinny or not. Laminar advertised and hyped a product and the product todate, does not live upto or even come close to it's own hype. That isn't the customers fault, whether the customer is whinny or not.DELIVER THE FULL BABY UPON FULL PAYMENT ! The customer paid the price IN FULL, ON TIME and the customer is always right.IT IS UP TO LAMINAR TO LIVE UPTO IT'S END OF THE BARGAIN - not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 months or more from now - TODAY !

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by m_av

High altitudes do wonders for ugly scenery.Here's something a little closer to the ground:

Another stock default FSX pic, from 2006. The point is, not to find the ugliest screenshots we ever came up with.................just to make a point...........as if it's the default standard.

To m_av:Fine, go ahead and email your demands to Austin. Let us know how for it gets you.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

Another stock default FSX pic, from 2006. The point is, not to find the ugliest screenshots we ever came up with.................just to make a point...........as if it's the default standard.

That cuts both ways:"The point is, not to find the prettiest screenshots we ever came up with.................just to make a point...........as if it's the default standard."I'll concede that there are circumstances under which default FSX can look good, namely high altitudes while looking straight down at the scenery, but more often than not these days, it looks outdated and ugly. Fair to say that it generally looked pretty good six-, seven-years ago, but it hasn't aged gracefully.

To m_av: Fine, go ahead and email your demands to Austin. Let us know how for it gets you.

Appreciate your "permission".However, you miss the point !The idea is to get enough people to send an email registering complaints about the unsatisfactory state of X-plane v10 and get an answer on how quickly can the current unsatisfactoriness (is that a word?) be corrected. BTW, that includes you sending an email too.That's all.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by m_av

I'll concede that there are circumstances under which default FSX can look good, namely high altitudes while looking straight down at the scenery, but more often than not these days, it looks outdated and ugly. Fair to say that it generally looked pretty good six-, seven-years ago, but it hasn't aged gracefully.

I believe that FSX has matured rather well, thanks to 3rd party addons. And of course, that's what XP10 is going to require.Crank up the music for this one:

6 years ago, FSX + Acceleration cost $US140 in Australia ($95 for FSX and $45 for Acceleration). In 6 years from now, X Plane 10 will probably cost $30.For eighty dollars, you get HDR lighting, OSM street data, 3D volumetric clouds, a flight model that x plane users say is very realistic, sloped runways, bird strikes, incredible rural scenery and updates for the life of the version run. Urban areas are lacking, but that's one element of the whole picture.

Im sure in 6 years, XP12 will be out, and still fail to beat FSX in scenery, and still cost $ US.

When compared to what's available recently (Prepar3d), you got a lot more for a lot less $$'s. Prepar3d is $10 a month or $399 to buy outright. Prepar3d has x plane beat with airport buildings. It has 45 detailed airports and 23 detailed cities...worldwide. I sure as hell hope so for $400! X Plane 10 looks FAR better than Prepar3d. And in my opinion, the flight model is better than Prepar3d.

You keep forgetting Prepar3d IS FSX. All those assets came from FSX except for what LM put in, and thats very little. Also, in 3 months you equal the cost of FSX Gold, and 4 months pass the cost. Do you only play 2 months? Also P3D is made for professionals and military, hence the high price for the buy. Overall, it seems you dont deny the fact that XPX is both incomplete and more expensive then similar products that are complete.

I believe that FSX has matured rather well, thanks to 3rd party addons.

That's precisely what I said earlier, that FSX Gold might only be $29.99, but "you'll still want to shell out the cash for 3rd party scenery packs if you want a nice looking sim."However, my opinion is that default XP10 looks better than default FSX.

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by Mountain Man

I believe that FSX has matured rather well, thanks to 3rd party addons.

Curse you, curse you curse you, LAdamson. Didn't notice the title so I thought it was the Hawaiian volcano ! Thanks for the clip and the wonderful truly immersive sim-flying experience.I gotta get a new rig ! Gotta do some flying and slow down on Xp development !

Edited January 3, 201214 yr by m_av

"Certification requires not only that the user have the certified X-Plane software, but also certified hardware (cockpit and flight controls) "Obviously, X Plane that you buy for $79.95 is NOT FAA certified. But it contains elements INSIDE the program that is unlocked by a USB key that enables the FAA certified portion. Along with having the certified Hardware.

I Don't care how you think you are reading that, it is not correct. The FAA do not certify software. Are you telling me you stand by that quote even though you just said you dont really know in your other post? Her is a piece from lockheed martin, although you will find the same information all over the place.For those that are not aware, the FAA and JAA does not approve flight simulation software. FAA/JAA approves flight training devices (FTDs) and simulators. These devices include software, plus control, hardware, displays and so on. A common question we are asked: "Is Prepar3D FAA/JAA certified/qualified". The answer is no, it cannot be. Software alone, is unable to be certified/qualified.

However, my opinion is that default XP10 looks better than default FSX.

Show us some beautiful Fall scenery or Salt Lake City with some snow.

Why, so you can ignorantly tell me that my opinion is wrong? Why don't you show me a post where you don't come across as a blatant troll.

MM-how about addressing the content rather than attack ....?For me landing in a different seasonal texture is not worth much if the plane does not feel or react like a real plane when it lands. Of course, if one is flying on autopilot one may never know the difference....and therefore the seasonal flavor may become paramont.

6 years ago, FSX + Acceleration cost $US140 in Australia ($95 for FSX and $45 for Acceleration). In 6 years from now, X Plane 10 will probably cost $30.For eighty dollars, you get HDR lighting, OSM street data, 3D volumetric clouds, a flight model that x plane users say is very realistic, sloped runways, bird strikes,

BTW, I didn't get one single reply to my thread on sloped runways and if you are a bush flyer or such I wonder how many of them will work all that well. Sloped runways.