Well, I would say you are pretty much out of the loop if I consider Laminars Blog and especially the multiple comments after the developers conference in Mallorca.

I'd have to agree with you there. It seems that the direction Laminar is pursuing is increasing large commercial 3rd party development at the expense of individual 3rd party development. I am not completely comfortable with that, but I am sure many would probably be.

Instead you always demand things, that no sane developer would give to you...

Perhaps so. The difference is Laminar EXPECTS it's users to contribute to X-plane. That is somewhat of a demand by Laminar of it's users. And if that's the case, the users have a right to ask Laminar to furnish the users with ALL the necessary and appropriate tools.I think that's only fair.

I'd have to agree with you there. It seems that the direction Laminar is pursuing is increasing large commercial 3rd party development at the expense of individual 3rd party development. I am not completely comfortable with that, but I am sure many would probably will be.

Well, I would say it doesn't really matter who they are listening too. Since all developers will use more or less the same tools and the same documentation, so if they improve the tools or the documentation it helps the whole community.I expected this from the beginning: if companies like Aerosoft start to support you they don't do it for free. If they ask for something they want a reply since it is their money on the line. IMHO it helps Laminar since they are forced out of their ivory tower, to look at the world as others see it. I think in the long run this will improve the whole world of X-Plane.

Interestingly the new racing simulation "rfactor2" has gone down the same or similar route as Xplane. Buy now while it is in beta and be a part of it's continued improvement/bug swatting etc, or wait around until the release is final. Price is the same regardless.I wonder if they independently thought this one up or took note of the Xplane way of doing things.Anyway on the original topic, xplane is under continual improvement in the scenery area during it's development cycle so apart from the external scenery addons, it will continue to get better. Especially look out for the official release of WED as this will really open up scenery availability (IMHO of course).

Hello and welcome !I'm recommending OSM2XP + photo sceneries if OpenStreetMap is detailed near your location. There's a topic here about improving the sceneries:http://forum.avsim.n...lausible-world/Screen shots here:http://forum.avsim.n...fr-test-flight/http://forum.avsim.n...6-vfr-to-nancy/http://forum.avsim.n...ojan-in-france/http://forum.avsim.n...ace-and-clouds/http://forum.avsim.n...eres-sur-seine/http://forum.avsim.n...th-the-bonanza/You'll find airports here:http://forums.x-plan...showtopic=30718http://xpfr.org/?bod...es&cover=francehttp://www.openscene...g-opensceneryx/http://www.scenery4xp.com/http://www.jrollon.com/Matacan.html...Converting FS sceneries to X-Plane:http://marginal.org....nery/tools.htmlhttp://forums.x-plan...showtopic=44099Happy flying ! :(

Great info! I'm trying to do a little bit of the South East of the UK with the Zones-Photo photographic scenery, and combine it with XPOSM for fitting roads and OSM2XP for the buildings and trees. I've installed the photo scenery, but I got completely lost when it came to editing the OSM data for XPOSM! Is there any chance you could pssibly share a little info on how you use these tools for a newbie?!Thanks!

Interestingly the new racing simulation "rfactor2" has gone down the same or similar route as Xplane. Buy now while it is in beta and be a part of it's continued improvement/bug swatting etc, or wait around until the release is final. Price is the same regardless.

Since it was brought up...One huge difference is that rfactor2 makes it abundantly clear that you are purchasing a beta product. Such language was/is nowhere to be found on the X-Plane website. I have no doubt that many new customers of X-Plane were caught off-guard by this and Laminar Research's reputation has suffered for it. It could even be legitimately argued that even the current stable releases of X-Plane remain at a beta level due to the scope of the missing features which are expected to be added in in the weeks/months/years ahead.Many products, including the incredibly popular Minecraft, allowed the purchase of beta and development software versions in advance of their final editions - however they all made this distinction very clear prior to purchase, and even offered a discounted price as compared to their planned v1.0 price.If this continual development cycle which Xp-Plane finds itself in is such a benefit to the platform and product, why on earth isn't Laminar Research taking credit for this superior process and making it quite clear on their website how things work? They could credit where credit's due, and avoid any frustrating situations their customers find themselves in. X-Plane supporters are surely tired of having to explain that "this is how X-Plane does it".Back to your regularly scheduled forum posting... :)

And the rfactor2 guys get the same whining we get. Heads I win Tails you lose.;)Hmm that came out wrong. What I mean is it would not matter how or what they did it would always be a problem for some.

Since all developers will use more or less the same tools and the same documentation, so if they improve the tools or the documentation it helps the whole community.

I am not sure I agree with that. Same documentation, yes, but same tools, I doubt it. The large commercial developers have the ability and the resources to develop and/or enhance the available Laminar tools and codes which a smaller or individual developer may not have.

I expected this from the beginning: if companies like Aerosoft start to support you they don't do it for free. If they ask for something they want a reply since it is their money on the line. IMHO it helps Laminar since they are forced out of their ivory tower, to look at the world as others see it. I think in the long run this will improve the whole world of X-Plane.

I'd agree to that. Laminar is now stuck with supporting/maintaining "compatibility" to a greater degree, if the likes of Aerosoft and others are involved/committed to developing for X-plane, where the smaller or individual didn't/wouldn't stand a chance.No doubt there are pros and cons to this but, IMHO, overall, on balance, the individual or smaller developer loses. Just like the MS Flight, 3rd party involvement is out of the question for now, MS has infuriated most, if not all developers. I am sure, people who would like to purchase the commercial 3rd party products would not care one way or another.But again, IMHO, the dice is loaded, increasingly favoring commercial developers and I think it's a setback for the smaller and individual efforts that X-plane has benefited from over the past decade or so.

@ fs_avuuuhhhh, you are the man!!!@ fs_avuuuhhhh, you are the man!!!

Do you have ANYTHING to say at all ?If so, DO IT, otherwise ....

I am not sure I agree with that. Same documentation, yes, but same tools, I doubt it. The large commercial developers have the ability and the resources to develop and/or enhance the available Laminar tools and codes which a smaller or individual developer may not have.

No, everyone has the ability to develop and/or enhance the available Laminar Research tools for creating sceneries. The source code is available:http://developer.x-plane.com/code/

No doubt there are pros and cons to this but, IMHO, overall, on balance, the individual or smaller developer loses. Just like the MS Flight, 3rd party involvement is out of the question for now, MS has infuriated most, if not all developers.

I don't think that. The individual or smaller developer often clearly wins. Just compare the X-Plane 10 LFPG airport made by Aerosoft, with this much better freeware add-on made by individuals:http://xpfr.org/?body=scene_accueil&langue=ENX-Plane 10 is not "like MS Flight". It's compatible with sceneries and planes from the previous versions, there's no NDA, most tools from Laminar Research or 3rd party are open source, and I see more and more 3rd party involvement every day.http://marginal.org.uk/x-planescenery/tools.htmlhttp://osm2xp.com/It's even true for the navigation data:http://data.x-plane.com/Now where's the source code for MS Flight content creation tools ? Do you really think it's just like MS Flight ? Even Austin Meyer is joking about this.Happy flying. :(

No, everyone has the ability to develop and/or enhance the available Laminar Research tools for creating sceneries.

Access yes, Not the ability. Big difference. Particularly, using the codes available.

The individual or smaller developer often clearly wins.

Not necessarily. As I said, bigger developers have the technical knowhow that smaller ones may not have. This is not a hard and fast rule and at the same time there are always exceptions to any rule.

X-Plane 10 is not "like MS Flight".

I never made the claim that it is.

Now where's the source code for MS Flight content creation tools ?

There you go comparing again. Yet, your point is somewhat irrelevent in the sense that MS made it clear upfront that they are going with a different marketing model and want to exclude third party development (at least for a limited time - 2 years?) by not releasing any SDK. That's what they decided and that's what the 3rd party developers and many users resent. It's a business decision, not because MS lacks the capability to offer an SDK ! And they could change their mind anytime.How can we criticise one car for not offering a four wheel drive over another which may offer that option ? It's a business/marketing decision.We can go round and round comparing things but the bottomline is there are very few tools available for the current X-plane versions. And if Laminar expects the users to contribute, which was my point in my OP, then Laminar must make the necessary up to date doumentation and all appropriate tools and utilities available to users.And as I said, it's the least they owe their users, considering the incompleteness of the product they released !

We can go round and round comparing things but the bottomline is there are very few tools available for the current X-plane versions. And if Laminar expects the users to contribute, which was my point in my OP, then Laminar must make the necessary doumentation and all appropriate tools and utilities available to users.

Well, just give me the name of another commercial flight simulator where the editor provides for free:- a tool to build planes like PlaneMaker- a tool to build airports like WED- easy to read tutorials like here:http://wiki.x-plane.com/Airport_Creationhttp://wiki.x-plane.com/Tutorial:_Airport_CustomizationOK, we're still waiting for documentation about X-Plane 10 specific features, but they're working on it:http://developer.x-plane.com/I just don't know any commercial flight simulator where the situation for developers is better. If documentation and tools is your complaint about X-Plane, what's your alternative ?

Ah, fs, you in on this thread too?! "there are very few tools available for the current X-plane versions"....Very wrong, anyone with talent, a few working neurons and a work ethic can produce great scenery for Xplane 10 or 9. Google IS your friend. Yes, documentation for 10 features needs to be provided, but the vast bulk of scenery work hasn't changed in 10. Have you even tried to build anything for xplane?

@MadMax:I think you are missing the point.As I said, it's a business/marketing decision and Laminar EXPECTS the users to contribute, where it, Laminar has not provided a complete product.The entire X-plane program is code driven, whether scenery engine or the flight model, hence the "plausible" world rather than the "real" world. It's been that way for a decade that I have been fiddling with various versions of X-plane and isn't likely to change anytime soon.There is not one building that is comparable to a real world building. NOT ONE ! If there is, todate, it's probably a few landmarks around the world, like the Seattle Space Needle,etc; otherwise it's not intentional.But that's, again, a business/marketing decision by Laminar.**************************************************************

Yes, documentation for 10 features needs to be provided, but the vast bulk of scenery work hasn't changed in 10. Have you even tried to build anything for xplane?

Documentation is and has ALWAYS been lacking and/or incomplete and/or inaccurate in many instances. That's the price we pay for Laminar's hurry in pushing out a product.Yes, have for almost a decade. Don't ask me what. You can chose to believe me or not.

I think you are missing the point.As I said, it's a business/marketing decision and Laminar EXPECTS the users to contribute, where it, Laminar has not provided a complete product.

When and where did ANYONE from Laminar ever say "We EXPECT users to develop scenery and other add ons for x plane (contribute)"?They never said any such thing in the 15 odd years x plane has been around. They said if you WANT to develop for x plane, here's the SDK, here's the wiki, here's the export scripts, have at it!Of course, I could be wrong. Austin may have sent you a personal email and told you "We expect users to contribute to x plane". I really would like to see the word "expect" in a statement from Austin regarding contributions towards x plane.On top of that, you seem to "know" all about Austin's marketing and business decisions. Unusual considering you dislike X Plane so much.

The entire X-plane program is code driven, whether scenery engine or the flight model, hence the "plausible" world rather than the "real" world. It's been that way for a decade that I have been fiddling various versions of X-plane and isn't likely to change anytime soon.

You keep saying you've been around x plane for a number of years. Yet you want LR to provide easier tools and better documentation to build scenery. I've been on the x plane train for 3 years and I learnt how to make payware aircraft on my own.If you haven't figured out how to do scenery (which is FAR easier than aircraft) in the last 5 or so years, then I'm afraid you never will.

There is not one building that is comparable to a the real world building. NOT ONE !

If there is, to date <----- (ed's note: I corrected that for you), it's probably a few landmarks around the world, like the Seattle Space Needle,etc; otherwise it's not intentional.

Well which is it? There either are buildings or there are not buildings.And otherwise it's not intentional? LOL. I guess some buildings popped up by accident, then?

But that's, again, a business/marketing decision by Laminar.

Again, I suppose you're in touch with Austin's marketing guy.Half your luck!