For X-Plane 9, a few years ago, it was Innsbruck in Austria (LOWI).

I take Austin to be a smart man. He has to be to have delivered a product that has existed as long as it has and hasn't succumbed to the way of the digital era where products come and go quickly.

 

He knows that the value of a product is partly what you can see and what you can feel. When showing off his product to the masses in any way, why would he go to Detroit, MI or New York, NY when so much time has been spent upgrading the area around KSEA for the Demo. If he were to use any other area, the flaws of the "plausible world" would shine through with lack of any definable landmarks or anything other than geography that will tell you where you are at.

 

He knows that to show the product fully for what it is will undoubtedly stray some possible customers who would be led to believe the entire world is of the same quality KSEA is at. I did some videos just after launch to demonstrate just how "plausible" the autogen system was and it was an eye opener for some as they expected most cities to have some references to the actual city they portrayed and NYC was a big letdown for me. Hell. Governor Island is nothing but a forest without proper non-autogen specifically placed scenery/buildings.

Pardon me everyone if the following may seem overly defensive or combative. Perhaps I am confused as to the intentions of the OP. If this is the case, I apologize for being off base. I do not wish to make any enemies or anything, I think this is a great community in general, But I come to this section of the forums to read about other X-Plane users' experiences, discuss all things XP, and read constructive criticism about said program. A snarky topic headline and a 9 month old video with no explanation as to why it was posted doesn't fit any of that criteria in my eyes.

 

To OP: You are aware this is a pretty old video from 8-9 months ago before XP10 even came out right? You probably are.

 

Also, What's up with the seemingly patronizing title of this thread? What's wrong with KSEA? I am at a loss here. You didn't even say anything about the video you posted, which, perhaps in my opinion only, strikes me as bizarre.

 

So Austin chose KSEA for the demo, So what? If this is a joke, I don't get it. Please enlighten me.

How is this any different than the FSX demo of St. Maarten? Both were specifically upgraded demo areas.

How is this any different than the FSX demo of St. Maarten? Both were specifically upgraded demo areas.

 

The difference is FSX has 1200 other detailed airports around the world, with the remainder have at least generic airport buildings. XP just has KSEA.

 

PS. I have a suspicion that Austin picked Seattle this time as a subtle dig to MS!

The difference is FSX has 1200 other detailed airports around the world, with the remainder have at least generic airport buildings. XP just has KSEA.

 

PS. I have a suspicion that Austin picked Seattle this time as a subtle dig to MS!

 

Everyone has their own standards of airports. And they plan to fill them up using a different technique (whether or not it will work remains to be seen). The issue at hand was that both MSFS and Xplane have certain areas which are showcased, and that in both cases the rest of the default world isnt quite as good.

I felt a bit ###### when I bought my wife a car and when I test drove it I never sat in the back seat.

 

They guy told me it had electric windows which it did. Later when it was at home I noticed that the rear passengers did not have electric windows.

 

The moral of the story is get to know the details. Xplane said something along the lines of fabulously detailed airport on their original webpage. It was missing the 's' on the end of airports, hence only one.

 

Everyone has their own standards of airports.

 

Yes they do, and an empty airport is at the bottom of the standards. I presume this as there is nowhere lower on the scale to go. The original poster has merit in what they say.

Yes they do, and an empty airport is at the bottom of the standards. I presume this as there is nowhere lower on the scale to go. The original poster has merit in what they say.

 

DONT say that...we could have airports with the active runway only and a make-believe runway with parking pad on a random side...instead we do have as accurate as the data allows taxiways and parking ramps, just sans buildings...It could be worse, but not by much.

DONT say that...we could have airports with the active runway only and a make-believe runway with parking pad on a random side...instead we do have as accurate as the data allows taxiways and parking ramps, just sans buildings...It could be worse, but not by much.

 

Umm... actually.... many of the X-Plane airports are just as you described... Based on runway data only, they often have synthetically generated taxiways and aprons. I'd reckon that the majority of airports in XP10 are "autogen'ed" this way. By no stretch of the imagination should you consider the taxiway layouts in XP10 to always be true-to-life!

 

Only those which have been hand-edited in some way, shape, or form are more true to life.

 

-Greg