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.

Only "code driven" ? That's false, there's not only code in X-Plane, but also data from various sources and databases. Thanks to OpenStreetMap, X-Plane 10 is able to draw exactly my street where I live. X-Plane knows the rivers, lakes and forests near my location, the power lines and also the railways. Thanks to very nice meshes, terrain elevation is very good for a default scenery. Many months of hard work were necessary to collect land-class data and build all these things together. Read more about this here:http://xplane10.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/developer-interview-andras-fabian-mr-x-terrain/Code is only a few megabytes. For the default X-Plane scenery you need 8 digital versatile discs and about 80 gigabytes of hard disk space ! :(

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.

What's a "complete" product for you ? Is it a product with 100 or 400 real world landmarks or buildings ? How would you choose these buildings ? Or is it a product with 40 millions of landmarks ? Where's the point where you would say it's "complete" ? I would like to know exactly what you are expecting in a "complete" product. Is it something like Google Earth for your default scenery ? Do you have enough terabytes of free hard disk space ? :wink:I'm not expecting a default scenery to draw everything exactly like in the real world. Where I want it to be more detailed, I'm using add-ons or I'm improving the OpenStreetMap database and import everything again with tools like XPOSM and OSM2XP.Please don't forget, flight simulation is not only about nice towns and landscapes. But if this is the only thing you need, then just try the free flight mode inside Google Earth.Happy flying with your favorite simulator.

Just been reading the thread a bit, I feel like I dont want to jump in but I had initial thoughts after buying the program around the scenery that were along the lines of some that were posted. It has to be agreed that the flight sim series has set the bar for providing worldwide scenery in the game where you can go to destinations and there are landmarks and building that should be there for a heck of a lot of places. That is the reference for a lot of people coming to xplane including myself. In any sim it's going to need huge help from developers to take it to the next level. I fly in my town in FSX and I know where I am and where I am going, I can see building I recognise and there are no problems. I can get 3rd party stuff that takes it to the wow level but by itself it is ok. I remember taking off in xplane and I was not sure where I was or where I was going until I got altitude and saw the water features etc. No sim developer can deliver to a 3rd party level all the scenery for all the world, it's just too much work and it's not expected either. On the flipside, no third party is going to give you worldwide coverage like fsx does, they probably would not get a return on their product. So, I see the only viable way that you get worldwide coverage out of the box is from the sim developer themselves. XPX doesn't do it and sounds like they won't. I have never read LR say that they expect the users to create the scenery but they have done a couple of things. One is to deliver no scenery and the second is to base the scenery around an open 'community' project OSM. I could sell you a bike in pieces without saying the expectation is that you need to assemble it but what are your choices? I dont think there is much doubt that to round out the world the community will do it and LR know that. You can see the good work that is being posted here.

XPX doesn't do it and sounds like they won't. I have never read LR say that they expect the users to create the scenery but they have done a couple of things. One is to deliver no scenery and the second is to base the scenery around an open 'community' project OSM.

http://developer.x-p...lan-for-cities/It's a start.

Thanks Goran I have read it all and it was interesting but it has certainly left me in two minds. There is more emphasis that plausible does not mean accurate but flying vfr in a lot of places you need accurate, plausible could put you completely off. The other is that when I started to read it I thought they were working on a completely different engine to overcome some of the issues that generate some complaints. It wasnt until a little further down that I realised he was talking about the current engine and these were all historical things that were known well back when. That annoys me a little as on one hand before launch we heard Austins version enticing us to buy and then two months later we hear the developers version of why its like this because of a lot of issues they knew about. That's in the past now but I still agree that it's going to be a community effort to get things going with a realistic view of the world. By realistic I mean real landmarks for navigation etc. A community is never going to get it done so I envy the parts of europe who actually have useful OSM data available to them. I don't see myself flying over New Zealand anytime soon the way I want to.

I can definitely see what you're talking about, and I do understand, as a pilot, one needs landmarks to navigate successfully when flying VFR. It's one of the issues I do take (believe it or not!) with X Plane. When it comes to a scale of that caliber, there are only so many resources one can use. And then the question of "How many landmarks are enough?" or "Which landmarks are important for X Plane users?" comes up. When I used to fly out of Hoxton Park airport, the tomato sheds were the most important landmark for me. They were about 5nm west of the airfield and they were the only indicator that the airfield was close. But I seriously doubt they will be important enough to add to a flight sim.In saying that, I've looked into scenery development for x plane, and I can tell you, it's MUCH easier than people think. We've seen complete beginners spend a day or 2 reading up on importing scenery into X Plane. Even using OSM software and data that is freely available. Whereas I totally and unequivocally agree with you that we may not see the landmarks that we ALL want to see, I have to say, I cannot agree with you on your point where you say the community is never going to get it done...to a somewhat acceptable levelThere are complete beginners making very acceptable freeware scenery. Aircraft are much more difficult to make than scenery. Aircraft have flight models, 3D models, textures, animations, virtual cockpits, testing, manuals and plug ins. Scenery just has a 3D mesh (A basic one at that), textures and software to place it all in the correct location and position. To add to that, there is also the FSX scenery conversion scripts for x plane. Overlay Editor and World Editor are very simple programs to use. I learned how to use overlay editor in literally 10 minutes. Then it's all a matter of just finding the objects you want in Google Warehouse, converting the file, texturing it, importing it, placing it and you're done.Bottom line, for me at least, is that important scenery is a subjective topic. What's important for you (New Zealand) isn't as important to me...and vice versa. Although my texturer is from New Zealand and he keeps going on about OrbX's latest New Zealand scenery.The only thing I can say is X Plane isn't going anywhere, and that leaves the door (and market) wide open for potential scenery developers.

Youre right, the tomato shed will never make it but FSX doesnt provide that level of detail but it gives you enough that as you approach important areas there is something recognisable. I dont know if I have been lucky with FSX but it seems someone read the book '100 most recognisable landmarks + 100 most recognisable building + 100 most recognisable airports + ...' and added a good amount of key stuff. It probably wont help you at small rural airports but its a pretty good coverage at no effort to the end user. I though about making some scenery after reading the early efforts that was going on here. I would like to but it seems I have hardly enough time to fly for fun. My sim has just been relocated but I haven't turned it on for four weeks other than to check the last XPX beta. I find all this stuff fun but it's too easy to get carried away so if I have spare time its for flying :) I agree what is important for me may not be important for you but FSX seems to have covered a lot fairly well. If I see something on a documentary like scariest airport etc I can go there and try to land and it's OK in default. Thats where I dont see how the community can get that broad a coverage while making it easy for me to access.

There will always be elements lacking, be it for FSX, FS9, Aerofly, X plane, et al. and whatever is added will never be enough for everyone. In speaking of the two main flight sims, if we're all totally honest, there are certain things missing from X Plane that FSX has, and there are also things missing from FSX that X Plane has. It all comes down to what makes people satisfied in an overall sense. For some people, such as yourself and "greggerm", scenery appears to be very important. For some others, such as myself, I prefer IFR and radio navigation and a "feel" of flying and inertia, while taking in the scenery and environment around me. Personally speaking (and it's just my opinion), X Plane excels in all of those departments. Airports are bare, no seasons, but the positives vastly outweigh the negatives. Overall, I enjoy X Plane far more than FSX. And like I said in many earlier posts, I was a die hard MSFS ###### since FS5. I think you should dedicate a little time to a bit of scenery. An hour or 2 on the weekend and, judging from your passion for scenery, I don't doubt you could make something very nice for a small rural airport or a landmark here and there.

I am not trying to compare FSX with xplane. I would like to stay out of those arguments these days but on the topic of scenery xplane has none with regards to landmarks other than seattle. Myself, I am not too bothered as most of my sim time is not in xpx or fsx (or p3d). So I am optimistically keeping an eye out for improvement in GA sims. Right now I am happy to wait but based on my thoughts when I first got it I can empathise with some of the guys here.

My apologies if I came across as comparing XP to FSX. It wasn't my intention. I was just trying to make a point.

No problem, I was trying to make it clear that I wasn't :) It's been a good discussion and as I say, with little flying time at the moment I am more mellow about it all lol. I am liking the break at the moment while I move a bunch of stuff, so I just moved an oscilliscope - check avsim. Move a few soldering irons - check av, move a pc, check av :)

For some people, such as yourself and "greggerm", scenery appears to be very important.

You betcha!

For some people, such as yourself and "greggerm", scenery appears to be very important. For some others, such as myself, I prefer IFR and radio navigation and a "feel" of flying and inertia, while taking in the scenery and environment around me. Personally speaking (and it's just my opinion), X Plane excels in all of those departments.

As to myself, I'm a scenery addict, and the feel of flying is also of upmost importance. I could care less about radio NAV, but might try getting back into IFR when I'm bored at about 75 years of age (14 to go). I just couldn't see supporting a plane, renting a hangar, and paying for all that fuel & insurance costs............to just look at shades of gray, and feel good when the needle centers. I have always preferred looking at sights such as the Grand Canyon, Lake Powell, Monument Valley, Yellowstone, etc............since they're close to where I live. I'm also a GPS & synthetic vision advocate, although I rarely use GPS in flight simming.IMO...............both FSX & X-Plane are capable of the "feel". I have not changed my mind on that one. X-Plane has some excellent mountain topography of the Mt. West as standard, and it's a toss up between MSFS & X-Plane, when flying this area of the USA. Sometimes the X-Plane mountains are preferrable, while the cities and towns within those areas might look better in FSX.I do prefer the thought of going somewhere that is recognizable if possible! Both MSFS & X-Plane have helped, to take simulated excursions to airports, that I hadn't yet flown to in real life, but would later do, in the real plane.L.Adamson

Whereas I totally and unequivocally agree with you that we may not see the landmarks that we ALL want to see, I have to say, I cannot agree with you on your point where you say the community is never going to get it done...to a somewhat acceptable level.

Yes, no sim will ever be "complete", but there's an acceptable level that can be reached when using licenses like Creative Commons or ODbL. The same happened with encyclopedias. You can find awesome editions with very detailed articles, but no one is complete. Today, when I'm searching something, the best source where I can start is often Wikipedia, and it reached an acceptable level thanks to a community.The same happened also with operating systems. No one is "complete". But with free software and communities, it's possible to build a distribution that is more complete than any commercial operating system, and where you don't need to spend hours downloading and updating service packs, searching for "add-ons", I mean all these tools to read and unpack files, to view videos, to secure your system, or to start working. Nearly everything is included by default and up-to-date.Nowadays, you can find flight simulators with a very nice default Hawaii scenery, or with an excellent default Switzerland scenery. But if your goal is a world wide scenery, you just can't expect a default scenery with every shed and every coconut tree. The best way to go is having good tools to import from open databases.

Yes, no sim will ever be "complete", but there's an acceptable level that can be reached when using licenses like Creative Commons or ODbL. The same happened with encyclopedias. You can find awesome editions with very detailed articles, but no one is complete. Today, when I'm searching something, the best source where I can start is often Wikipedia, and it reached an acceptable level thanks to a community.The same happened also with operating systems. No one is "complete". But with free software and communities, it's possible to build a distribution that is more complete than any commercial operating system, and where you don't need to spend hours downloading and updating service packs, searching for "add-ons", I mean all these tools to read and unpack files, to view videos, to secure your system, or to start working. Nearly everything is included by default and up-to-date.Nowadays, you can find flight simulators with a very nice default Hawaii scenery, or with an excellent default Switzerland scenery. But if your goal is a world wide scenery, you just can't expect a default scenery with every shed and every coconut tree. The best way to go is having good tools to import from open databases.

I agree with both of you that we can only expect so much out of a sim, no argument there. The trouble is I find myself using extremes. FSX on one hand that doesnt model every coconut tree but lets me explore so much of the world complete with landmarks and recognisable cities. Xplane on the other hand which has not provided anything in the sim except for seattle which is primarily for the purposes of the demo. The default scenery in FSX doesnt compare at all most commercial scenery or freeware scenery but without hassle I can load up somewhere and see some of the sights without anything else. That in itself is a huge difference in whats provided with the xplane scenery. The trouble is a lot of people expect this because it's what we have had for so long. It has been the default for a huge flight simming community. Again, I don't doubt the community will fill in a lot of the gaps but I don't know how long I will have to wait. Thats me being greedy but there will be a lot of people like myself in the same boat. I bet there is a lot of GIS information that will not make its way in to OSM because of contractual agreements. I don't mind the philosophy but I doubt how effectively it will deliver. Some will get great gains but a lot of people will have to fly in areas which they wouldn't normally just so they can have more of a real world experience. MDMax, I know you live in France and it has very good OSM coverage, I am not sure your opinion would be exactly the same if it had none which is what a lot of us are faced with. I guess we will see how it pans out, I am also interested in how we get this data in to the sim. I know all about installing additional scenery with FSX so it's not unusual to have to do it but I hope it's not an arduous process if you have to get something for everywhere you fly.

I agree with both of you that we can only expect so much out of a sim, no argument there. The trouble is I find myself using extremes. FSX on one hand that doesnt model every coconut tree but lets me explore so much of the world complete with landmarks and recognisable cities. Xplane on the other hand which has not provided anything in the sim except for seattle which is primarily for the purposes of the demo. The default scenery in FSX doesnt compare at all most commercial scenery or freeware scenery but without hassle I can load up somewhere and see some of the sights without anything else. That in itself is a huge difference in whats provided with the xplane scenery. The trouble is a lot of people expect this because it's what we have had for so long. It has been the default for a huge flight simming community. Again, I don't doubt the community will fill in a lot of the gaps but I don't know how long I will have to wait. Thats me being greedy but there will be a lot of people like myself in the same boat. I bet there is a lot of GIS information that will not make its way in to OSM because of contractual agreements. I don't mind the philosophy but I doubt how effectively it will deliver. Some will get great gains but a lot of people will have to fly in areas which they wouldn't normally just so they can have more of a real world experience. MDMax, I know you live in France and it has very good OSM coverage, I am not sure your opinion would be exactly the same if it had none which is what a lot of us are faced with. I guess we will see how it pans out, I am also interested in how we get this data in to the sim. I know all about installing additional scenery with FSX so it's not unusual to have to do it but I hope it's not an arduous process if you have to get something for everywhere you fly.

OSM covers some faily large cities in the US as well (Boston being one of them). I am currently working on Peoria and so far it's amazing. It's downright crazy how many buildings one can accurately place in XPX and have it hardly affect FPS. Havign said that, I wish there was more coverage, especially for places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego.