I am an X-Plane 9 owner, but I haven't used it in at least 2 years. While I liked the handling of the planes, I was very frustrated that the scenery in major cities like New York was so lacking by comparison to what was available for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

 

So where are things now with X-Plane 10? If you fly low over Manhattan on approach to KLGA, does the default scenery actually look anything like Manhattan really looks? How about add-on sceneries? Are add-ons available for sceneries that fill the gaps?

the autogen buildings, roads and highways have improved alot after this video was made, xp10 now in April 2013 looks better than the video.

there is also a KJFK and KLGA PAYWARE ADDON available at the .org

my 2nd home Toronto looks great:

 

Landmarks are not there but it easy to make scenery and add it. Still, autogen for certain regions is off inaccurate needs regionalization Las Vegas looks like Chicago. Improvements in rural areas is incremental. Xplane needs regional autogen, but fsx overall is still better in terms of accuracy and landmarks. Xplane has certain things like about it and and other things make me use for certain regions. Arizona and Nevada only use fsx

Here is a video I made last year, landing at KLGA. I used Areosoft Manhattan converted to XP10 and a payware XP scenery of KLGA. This was on my old computer which was a 2600K at the time and an lder video card (sorry, I forgot which one it was)

 

Rob

I have yet to purchase XPlane 10, but I had the opportunity to try a demo of it last year at a conference and I can say this: although, on the surface XPlane may seem "different" when run out of the box, I get the impression that it has the potential to out-win FSX in the multitudes as more third-party developers get excited about it (just look at Ben Supnik who now works for XPlane). Something I'm curious about is converting sceneries from FSX over to XPlane, but I also haven't had too much time to look into it.

 

Nonetheless, to answer your question as an outsider, the one thing we do best is pool as much money as we can into our bank account only to drain invest it in quality add-on software to make FS more enjoyable, ten times over.

 

Main point, IMHO: as much work as XPlane needs (which it's getting), it's only getting better.

 

Disclaimer: I migrated to FSX from FS9 in 2011, so yes: you can say I'm a slow-poke to semi-large upgrades.

I have yet to purchase XPlane 10, but I had the opportunity to try a demo of it last year at a conference and I can say this: although, on the surface XPlane may seem "different" when run out of the box, I get the impression that it has the potential to out-win FSX in the multitudes as more third-party developers get excited about it (just look at Ben Supnik who now works for XPlane). Something I'm curious about is converting sceneries from FSX over to XPlane, but I also haven't had too much time to look into it.

 

Nonetheless, to answer your question as an outsider, the one thing we do best is pool as much money as we can into our bank account only to drain invest it in quality add-on software to make FS more enjoyable, ten times over.

 

Main point, IMHO: as much work as XPlane needs (which it's getting), it's only getting better.

 

Disclaimer: I migrated to FSX from FS9 in 2011, so yes: you can say I'm a slow-poke to semi-large upgrades.

My concern has been that that's been the case for years now.  :lol:   So wondering whether enough 3rd-party developers had taken an interest yet or if it's still a "maybe one day" sort of thing.

 

Here is a video I made last year, landing at KLGA. I used Areosoft Manhattan converted to XP10 and a payware XP scenery of KLGA. This was on my old computer which was a 2600K at the time and an lder video card (sorry, I forgot which one it was)

 

Rob

 

Your flight looked really good! I will have to take another serious look at getting back into X-Plane.

I didn't realize 3rd-party sceneries could be converted to XP so successfully.

How hard -- or easy -- is it to do, for the average, non-IT sort of person?

Where can I get info on how to do the conversions?

All you need is FS2XP. Its a free utility.

Of course, you need to own the FSX or FS9 version of this scenery. Then you set FS2XP to the directory of the scenery you wish to convert and your XP10 custom scenery directory and run it. It took about 2 mins to convert ManhattanX.

 

There are some buildings that are missing textures. They can be fixed with the overlay editor, but I didnt bother as they are not that visable.

 

Many other aerosoft city sceneries also convert well as do some other FSX scenery. Orbx does not.

 

Also, I should ad, that Aerosoft does not support converting any of their scenery. Why they haven't just made an X-plane version of their city scenery packages, remains a mystery. I really think they are missing the boat on this one.

 

Rob

And no one is concerned with the fact doing this 'conversion' probably violates the EULA you agreed to abide by when you installed the scenery?

 

the autogen buildings, roads and highways have improved alot after this video was made, xp10 now in April 2013 looks better than the video.

 

 

 

Bear in mind, that video is not default XPX scenery.

And no one is concerned with the fact doing this 'conversion' probably violates the EULA you agreed to abide by when you installed the scenery?

 

No.  In fact I sent an email to Mathijs Kok twice with photos of the Manhattan X and Detroit scenery in XP10, asking for an officail conversion for X-plane. I never heard anything back. Not even a "dont do that anymore" response. Since then Ive converted all my Aerosoft sceneries for FSX (that would work) to X-plane 10. I dont use FSX anymore, so its only installed an my system once.

 

Rob

 

Guys !! How good is the scenery accuracy in a full flight sim? I was twice in a full flight sim (Lufthansa MD11 and A380), and I would say, many of the people here would react like this: "WHAT???!!! This is a million dollar flight sim??? I won't fly this thing!!!" and walk out backward.

Why? The airport detail is FS9 (at best) - some airports (like Tenerife Sur where I landed in the MD11) even have no airport buildings at all. It's only a runway. I'm not kidding!!

And the cities (at least in the MD11) are only a texture, in the A380 there are at least a few generic high rise buildings in e.g, Frankfurt (EDDF). All other locations outside are also only a texture. And there are no trees, no forests, no television tower, no 3D cars on the roads, no moving (but only static) aircraft at the airport, let alone "flowing" people :lol:.

 

Regarding this "landmarks" thing: although not mentioned in this thread (but others here in the forum), this is - sorry to say that - a typical pedestrian statement, but not from a real world pilot. People who aren't flying themselves in RL are watching the landscape from their focus on the ground: "there is a high building there, so it must be very visible from the air, too". No! Usually a city is a sea of houses from the air, see e.g. the below picture.

 

 

There is a famous landmark in it, and although the picture is taken from low altitude, it is hardly visible (the wide roads are helping to find it).

 

Or this one - same city and another very, very famous landmark is there. But where?

 

 

Intellectual pastime: imagine, you are walking along a street, and are told, there is a high and very well visible landmark. You are watching around and see ... nothing. Then, you are told ... directly in front of your toe-cap. You are looking down and see ... a pebble. WHAT?? This is high and visible? Well ... simple explanation : you were told about this high landmark from an ant.

Conclusion: from above (i.e. the air), the world is looking quite different than from the ground.

 

Nevertheless ... don't get overly excited about this scenery accuracy and landmarks thingy, enjoy FLYING.

Full flight sims have also been getting scenery enhancements. When I use a desktop sim these days; I want as much terrain surface detail as possible. I'm not doing IFR currentcy here. And my controls are not replicating a real airplane, with all knobs in proper places. I went to the trrouble of real flight for all those years........ For the scenery, more than anything else. It wasn't because my job depended on it. Would I be interested in a lifeless runway only sim........for the sake of proceedure? No!

 

 

don't get overly excited about this scenery accuracy and landmarks thingy, enjoy FLYING.

 

One of the biggest draws to real-world general aviation is in fact the beauty and fascination of seeing the world from the air. Flying is simply the method one uses to get up there. The (real world) VFR corridor alongside Manhattan is one of the most impressively scenic flights a pilot can make. Whether in the bush of Alaska and Australia, around the major cities of the world, or just in your backyard, VFR pilots have their eyes out the window and looking down and around... it's as much a part of flying as climbing up to 35,000' and seeing nothing but blurry smudges on the ground.

 

 

 

So where are things now with X-Plane 10? If you fly low over Manhattan on approach to KLGA, does the default scenery actually look anything like Manhattan really looks?

 

Out of the box, and in my opinion, it does not. It's gotten better since XP10 first released, but it still has a ways to go. While the geography (land vs. water) is accurate, and the roads are in the correct places, X-Plane's treatment of auto-generated cities is a downfall in the overall world of scenery. This is an often raised criticism of the XP10 world. From huge cities like NYC, to smaller metro areas, there's no visual differentiation between them and the simulation struggles to make you feel like you are actually flying in or around a city.  (*There are some videos on YouTube of Manhattan in X-Plane 10, but they are from the very early days of release and I don't think it's fair to post them here - it has improved since then, but not remarkably so)

 

Now, that said, X-Plane's autogen engine capabilities are quite superior to MSFS - clearly textured and scaled buildings and more of them does give you a good feeling of speed as you approach a runway on final. The technology behind the scenery is a great development... they need to spend more time making the scenery behind the scenery more reflective of real life. The bigger picture of citywide scenery leaves a lot to be desired for many users. Laminar Research is putting efforts into the scenery world as we speak, but I'm not sure how much of it will translate into the cities and metro areas. The current scenery focus seems to be on airports and "global" scenery involving updated geography to account for land/water data which has evolved since the sim first released.

 

If you're still not an X-Plane owner, I recommend downloading and trying the demo. You can fly around Seattle to get a feel for what a typical city will look like. What you see is essentially what you will get worldwide... except of course for local streets and geography. There's still no better way to judge whether or not you'll like the full version than trying the demo out.

 

-Greg

 

(Disclosure: I'm a scenery fan. I put a higher weight on scenery than many other aspects in a sim, so my opinions are colored with that in mind. Others might find the X-Plane scenery perfectly suitable for their use and not see any need to improve it at all. To each their own!)

Skip my splelling errors. Done from tee is IPhone keyboard. A Pain

Thanks Greg. As a pilot who's took thousands of scenic inflight piictures over the years, I agree!