I looked at KSEA and surrounding areas and I have flown over these areas many times and by the definition of "plausible" I do not agree.

plau·si·ble (plôz-bl)adj.

1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.

2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.

3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking:

I looked at KSEA and surrounding areas and I have flown over these areas many times and by the definition of "plausible" I do not agree.

Then you are not talking about "looking for plausible" experience (in the way I try to interprete it - see above), but you try to compare with your real life experience ... which will and can never work 100% with autogen.

Had they opted for a more layered scenery construction approach, it is entirely possible that we would not have to wait on their already overtaxed, overworked, and overburdened development staff..

 

I always understood this big problem from the customers point of view ... but I think you did still not understand WHY this decision was made (quite some years ago). I tried to make that clear a few times (especially in my article where my link pointed to) ... but obviously its a complex topic.

 

The main reasons for the way X-Plane does scenery the way it does (without the MSFS style layering) is:

• take away the burden from the sim to do all the GIS (layer) interpretation at sim time (this gives you more smoothness etc.)
  
• do the scenery interpretation / generation at pre-sim time (thats what WE do when creating the DSFs) ... take all the time you need ... and use that time to make the final scenery as good as possible. Creating DSF tiles can take many minutes ... because a lot of complex GIS interpretation / meddling is going on in the background ... making it possible to have cool results (like the irregular mesh, and nicely overlapping triangle patches etc. etc. etc. etc.) ... All this would be NOT possible (at least not today - future hardware might change this) at sim-time ... as you would either need to wait very long for scenery to load OR you would accept much lower visual quality
  

Thats it ... and especially the last sentence should make you thinking! All the DSF format was created the way it is very intentionally (and was not designed overnight!) with most of its pro-s and con-s in mind.

 

Though, this doesn't means, that it will stay this way until the end of the world ... when the time comes, it will change (in which direction, I don't know :rolleyes: )

My two cents, if allowed, is that flying is what this simulation is all about. If the landscape is right, it helps, but basically I am happy if everything works right. With Beta 5 (it is still beta) there are a few add-ons that don't work right yet, but there seems to be progress in getting there. I am a low and slow flyer and enjoy the scenery, but after flying simulators since the very first ones, I accustomed to some things not being where you expect them to be - some misplaced - some misrepresented - and some just not there. When you consider the whole world, I still find it amazing that we have it represented as well as it is. I can only imagine the size of the program if every neighborhood was shown exactly as it is. I have flown most all of them over the years, and think that between X-Plane, FSX, and P3D (maybe even Flight - in it's limited way), we have some pretty good stuff to occupy our time.

Is the look of the new scenery "plausible", sure it's plausible, but I think the problem lies in that plausible is not good enough. When I fly over areas that I'm familiar with, for the most part there are buildings where buildings should be, that's fine. Are they the correct buildings, most of the time, no, are areas recognizable, no, do I get a sense or illusion of flying over an area I recognize, no. So what good is plausible if it doesn't reasonable represent and area of the world. It needs to be a lot better.

 

Glen

.. ok ... I think some still not see it. One takes the plausible approach when you can't afford to do the perfect approach. And allow me to say, that this is acceptable when you talk about a planet the size of our earth. Its just too big to have each and any neighborhood perfect. That is not possible! Or would you like to have "just your" neighborhood right .. and all the others are irrelevant?

 

Well, the X-Plane Global Scenery is here to give a middle ground, where the planet is not empty and at least remotely looks like the original one (and compared with sims 10 years ago it is more than just "not empty") ... while accepting, that with this - more or less automatic approach - its not possible to have it all right.

 

What we have now is what is possible with the Global Scenery approach (and this will always improve over time - but here we are now). If you want that "lot better", really correct scenery, then you go the ORBX way (and keep in mind, that there is nothing - technically - that would stop a developer from providing the same realism in X-Plane!) ... But then don't forget (and I too often get the feeling that people forget this - or don't even think about it), that creating scenery at that detail leve takesl:

• a lot of time
  
• lots of hands
  
• lots of money
  
• lots (really lots) of storage space
  

... and now how would that all work on a global level (with todays technology and resources)?

... thats why we try the plausible approach (because it tries to avoid most of those obstacles, and accepts other shortcomings for that).

".. ok ... I think some still not see it"

 

Oh, we see it, and I won't speak for everyone, but the sense or tone I'm seeing / reading is we still don't like it, fair enough? I'm as tired as the rest at hearing all the excuses over the years why things can't be done differently.

 

Not trying to be rude, just tired of the empty rebuttals all the time. As Geof said, hard core Xplane users are far too sensitive and defensive when it comes to criticism. I'm still far from happy with the representation of scenery in Xplane 10 (don't think I'm alone) and I'm expressing those feelings, nothing more, nothing less.

 

Glen

but the sense or tone I'm seeing / reading

...seriously?

 

I'm as tired as the rest at hearing all the excuses over the years why things can't be done differently.

 

...and you are not trying to be rude. Really?

 

You know, Andras (alpilotx) has been kind enough to take the time and explain in detail why LR made certain decisions He didn't have to do that!! This only shows the commitment that they all have and the willingness to take the time and explain.

But here we are with our attitude like if we had all the answers complaining and criticizing (most here don't even have programming experience and have no idea how complicated an app like a simulator can be).

 

Nobody is forcing anyone to like or dislike XP, us "hard core Xplaner's" are just willing to except things as they are now (of course we want more) and with enough patience to ride along.

Nobody is forcing anyone to like or dislike XP, us "hard core Xplane's" are just willing to except things as they are now (not that we are happy with it) but just with enough patience to ride along.

 

So why not use both sims, in the meantime?

 

Perhaps it's this mentality. Over at another forum, I just read some comments from a 2011 thread. Several people that post here, are in the thread also. Someone stated.............that if you're a real pilot, and prefer FSX, then they'd never want to fly with them.

 

A more recent thread had someone question why the plane was running off the left side of the runway................while it didn't happen in FSX.

The X-Plane die hard reply................is that you're using a "real" sim now, and that single engine planes will drift to the left. The proper answer, would have been that FSX uses the option of "auto-rudder" for those who don't have rudder pedals, or use twist grips. Fact is, even in real life, some aircraft have forms of aileron/rudder mix.

 

Another thread that irriated me immensly, had to do with someone complaining that the airplane was to twitchy on landing. Just a lot of bouncing around, and required constant control corrections. The die-hard answer, was that, that's how planes are.................and offered a video to prove it.

I often see comments that FSX is like riding on rails, and XP is much harder to control.................therefor, it must be more realistic. In most cases, the die hards will never lift a finger to say different.

 

That's the difference between the "die hards" and myself. I subscribe to the philosophy of using more than one sim. And my comments on those same threads prove it. I'm the one that would tell a new simmer about "auto-rudder", and explain why single engine prop's drift to the left (in most planes).......instead of just saying "that you're flying a real sim now".

 

I still have the same thoughts. I see no reason to jump completely from one sim to another, at this point. As has been said for many years, both competing sims have advantages and downfalls. But I still get irritated when biased answers to honest questions................leave much of the real answer out..............in order to boost the perception of a specific product. Of course, the die hards just hate when I do that.....

 

L.Adamson

So why not use both sims, in the meantime?

 

Totally agree with you

The problem is that in my case with my pc specs, FSX performance is not as smooth as XPX is, this is why I only use one sim. FSX is a great sim but I spent too much of my time trying to get it right and less time flying.

 

Edit: With the current technology many of you can run FSX very smooth. I would have to spend close to $700 in upgrades just to have that. On the other hand, I spend $80 in a processor upgrade for XPX and have achieved the smoothness I never had in FSX.

Totally agree with you

The problem is that in my case with my pc specs, FSX performance is not as smooth as XPX is, this is why I only use one sim. FSX is a great sim but I spent too much of my time trying to get it right and less time flying.

 

Edit: With the current technology many of you can run FSX very smooth. I would have to spend close to $700 in upgrades just to have that. On the other hand, I spend $80 in a processor upgrade for XPX and have achieved the smoothness I never had in FSX.

 

And, since I'm now ground bound...............I plan to do a CPU upgrade that will benefit both sims..............with more options in the on mode.

And, since I'm now ground bound...............I plan to do a CPU upgrade that will benefit both sims..............with more options in the on mode.

 

I wish I had that option Larry, but for me I still have to think about my daughters semester tuition so for now I'm stuck with my current hardware. The good thing is that besides XPX, I can play other sims like DCS-A-10 Warthog, KA-50 Black Shark very smoothly, also games like Battlefield 3, Grid racing, Dirt3 can play them at very hight settings. So I don't see any sense in spending $700 just for one game (FSX).

I was wondering, how does payware like the CRJ 200 or the new Boeing 777, work with these new betas?

 

CRJ200 from x-plane.org (no Gizmo) runs without any problems and it IS great with 10.20 64bit beta. I've maxed everything except for AI, cars and clouds (no HDR) and still get more than 30 fps with CRJ200.

 

B777 with 64bit plugins has not been released yet (SASL is still not 64bit ready), but it is matter of days. Officially the developers are waiting until 10.20 64bit is out of beta...

I wish I had that option Larry, but for me I still have to think about my daughters semester tuition so for now I'm stuck with my current hardware. The good thing is that besides XPX, I can play other sims like DCS-A-10 Warthog, KA-50 Black Shark very smoothly, also games like Battlefield 3, Grid racing, Dirt3 can play them at very hight settings. So I don't see any sense in spending $700 just for one game (FSX).

 

I was counting on winning the $525 million powerball lottery last night. Didn't do it. I might have to re-think the options now......

DCS-A-10 Warthog, KA-50 Black Shark very smoothly

 

Ahah!!!!! So... you too :-)))) I'm, all on the p-51 now ;-)