+1 for you, Greg. That post really added some light to my thoughts about XPlane.

For my native country the default XPX scenery is very good. Every tiny village and airfield is there and the default textures are pretty good. My country has got many glaciers and mountains and it's all there. To much vegetation in places but as default scenery goes, fine.

 

Before XP I have had every MS Flight Sim there is since Sublogic so I've been simming for a long time. FSX with a great addon from Aerosoft, covering the whole country, comes close, but default XPX is better. Every domestic flight is a scenery tour.

 

I left my beloved FSX and all the addons about a year ago and never looked back. It took time and effort to switch platforms. It's difficult to be a novice again and having to seek advice for simple stuff, but the XP community is helpful (as is the MSFS community) so things are looking good. I'm not happy with everything in XP but this is a platform in development and that's great. Things can only get better.

greggerm, on 22 Apr 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

(*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)

I was probably one of the people who made those videos of flying over areas per user requests back in the XP 10.03b days. Maybe it's time I go back through the videos and re-do them with the current capabilities on display. I myself have little to no 3PD on any of my sims, only exceptions being upgraded textures and AI/Player aircraft. I fly only a few aircraft depending on the mood I'm in. For me, though, I like the whole experience. When you start up at the gate, I like to at least have a building in front of me without a C172 parked next spot over from a 747. I like to take off over an airfield with trees and building around that resemble the city you're in (this part XP does better with no buildings placed on top of textures with buildings in them that may or may not match up). I like to hear and see other traffic on the radio as they check in and out from each station. I like to land at an airport and have to get off the active because of the next guy on his 5 mile final behind me and have to avoid other traffic as I taxi to the gate. I like to fly in good and bad weather alike where the clouds resemble the color and shapes of the Cumulus, Nimbus and Stratus clouds that would be in those situations (haven't seen ANY thunderheads in FSX or XP that take the cake - that would be a great thing for me).

 

XP has a vast potential and one of my biggest gripes is being filled by 3PD (AI traffic), but that doesn't cut all the mustard. It is usable as it is, but there are flaws such as landmarks being missing (fly to San Francisco and find the big red/orange bridge across the harbor or NYC and find the statue of liberty or the Eiffel Tower in Paris - NO 3PD downloads - this should be a default feature, not something 3PD are expected to fill the void). I just hope the aim of XP isn't to get a platform others can build on, but to get a platform they themselves can fill in once time allows. Given Austin's current financial battle with the patent trolls, he may opt for not filling out a feature, but making the base part and moving on to let others R&D that feature out to fully utilize the platform built.

 

We shall see how quickly the user base takes to the WED 1.2 group sourced airport buildings and how quickly the airports fill up. I don't believe that everyone will want to partake just for their corner of the world to have buildings at all the local airports. Some will and most won't is my prediction. If you want to have buildings at Joe Schmoe's FBO Landing Strip, you'll have to put it in yourself, same for a local regional airport that no other member knows about or lives near.

How accurate is OpenStreetMap ? The Default X-Plane 10 scenery is based on OpenStreetMap for roads, railways, power-lines and water:
http://developer.x-plane.com/2011/04/osm-what-data-will-the-global-scenery-use/

So you should check OpenStreetMap near your location and contribute to the project: ^_^

http://www.openstreetmap.org/

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide

 

Be ready for the dsf refresh !

http://developer.x-plane.com/2013/04/dsf-recuts-some-basics/

http://developer.x-plane.com/2013/04/if-its-not-blue-you-know-what-to-do/

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.

Well, not only ... in the list on Bens Blog, there is a last point about landclass:

http://developer.x-plane.com/2013/04/dsf-recuts-some-basics/

 

This last point "hides" some little efforts to better map the urban landclass information to X-Plane scenery (how much, or how well it improves will have to be seen).

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.

 

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

 

 

   So xplane is better than a dog?  I feel much better about the sim now.

 

   In fact xplane is much better than a dog but I highlight the point that I never buy in to the theory that this apple is so much better than that orange so I should be happy.

 

   I wouldnt want to fly that 'full flight sim' (whatever that actually means) as it would be lacking what a lot of people actually want in their home based simulator.

 

   I do smell irony in your point about relaxing, dont fly it your way, fly it my way

 

   PS, the photos you posted  don't in any way make me not want scenery because things look small.

This has been a very helpful discussion.

 

From what I'm hearing, X-Plane 10 still hasn't reached the point that I would be satisfied with in terms of scenery.

 

I am mostly interested in the takeoffs and landings -- especially the landings. I like viewing the local scenery as you approach the airport. If simming was mostly about transcontinental or transoceanic IFR flights at FL350+, I would be bored out of my mind by it all.

 

And I am much more interested in major landmarks, including buildings and other manmade structures.

How accurate is OpenStreetMap ? The Default X-Plane 10 scenery is based on OpenStreetMap for roads, railways, power-lines and water:

http://developer.x-plane.com/2011/04/osm-what-data-will-the-global-scenery-use/

 

So you should check OpenStreetMap near your location and contribute to the project: ^_^

http://www.openstreetmap.org/

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide

 

Be ready for the dsf refresh !

http://developer.x-plane.com/2013/04/dsf-recuts-some-basics/

http://developer.x-plane.com/2013/04/if-its-not-blue-you-know-what-to-do/

 

I'm not so much interested in seeing little towns and suburbs in my local area. But I don't think it's a lot to ask that major landmarks around major hub airports be well represented.

 

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.

 

Well, what about "real-world pilots" who fly helicopters? Or Cessnas? And now we have a whole new group of light sport aircraft being introduced, intended to fly at relatively low altitudes.

 

I specifically mentioned the approach to LaGuardia Airport in New York in the opening post because it is routine even on commercial jet flights to be able to see the major landmarks, like the Empire State Building, the Twin Towers (when they still stood), and the clusters of skyscrapers surrounding Central Park, as the planes fly low heading northbound parallel to Manhattan island then land at LaGuardia. You point to Paris, but the major airports are far enough away from Paris that it's hard to see smaller landmarks en route to or from CDG or ORY. (Yet even with Paris, from a helicopter those landmarks should be visible.)

I got into flying 24 years ago solely because I liked the view from above-so I am with Greg on this one.

 

Even though flying the last 15 years out of 24 almost exclusively ifr it is very,very rare that a filed ifr trip is exclusively ifr, or even mostly ifr-especially when covering 500-600 nm per leg.. With landings/flights in all US states I also have seen most of the landmarks the US offers-and there are many, many. When I flew over Mt. Rushmore the 2nd time on an ifr flight plan I asked if I could do a few 360's around it to get some good pictures-atc granted this even this was not that long after 9/11 . Hollywood sign, Avalon ballroom, Seattle space needle, Renn Center in Detroit, Chicago landmark architecture, the pyramid in Memphis, Niagara falls-the big crosses in the hills of  Indiana, meteor crater in Arizona, the cotton/rice fields in Missouri -could go on and on-and always got great shots/movies of them all from the plane. This is what makes flying for me.

 

Right now a little frustrating that flying vfr in my area of the world now I get lost -cause there are no landmarks and everything looks great but all the same! For vfr flying landmarks are most important-why they are marked as reporting points on vfr charts. Some good photo scenery would help in this area-but as of now there is none in my area.

 

I haven't seen anyone else report this but since the new beta most of the quirky fm problems that made the sim unusable for me the last 9 months seem to have been corrected and I am back to a positive fm experience as when xplane 10 first came out. A great step! I hope the scenery part can come together likewise-sooner than later, and another issue I haven't seen reported yet that could be a permanent deal stopper for me. It is getting there though-so much positive going on!

You want landmarks ? Install add-ons:

http://www.libertysim.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=38515

 

You'll find very good freeware add-ons for most landmarks you want.

 

But I would really like to know why FS users want landmarks in default X-Plane sceneries. Just consider most top cities in the world: FS has no landmarks for these cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population

Or, if you are into good - and free - landscape (ok, is not so much about "man made" andmarks ... but lots of "natural" landmarks), you might be interested in this (a little self promotion, I know  B)  ... but, its often "overlooked"):

• X-Plane 10 New Zealand Pro

 

Screenshots (with comparison pictures to default scenery):

• https://plus.google.com/photos/101666907909842492197/albums/5815977041762196401

PS: by the way, did anyone already see (find) the "easter egg" ski lifts?

Edited.

Or, if you are into good - and free - landscape (ok, is not so much about "man made" andmarks ... but lots of "natural" landmarks), you might be interested in this (a little self promotion, I know  B)  ... but, its often "overlooked"):

• X-Plane 10 New Zealand Pro

 

 

Screenshots (with comparison pictures to default scenery):

• https://plus.google.com/photos/101666907909842492197/albums/5815977041762196401

PS: by the way, did anyone already see (find) the "easter egg" ski lifts?

New Zealand Pro is amazing and free :yahoo: I love it.  Also Truscenery is offering Helsinki Scenery for free.

You want landmarks ? Install add-ons:

http://www.libertysim.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=38515

 

You'll find very good freeware add-ons for most landmarks you want.

 

But I would really like to know why FS users want landmarks in default X-Plane sceneries. Just consider most top cities in the world: FS has no landmarks for these cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population

MdMax-I've added tons of freeware and pay ware stuff but the experience in this area is still lacking. I have been waiting for more payware to make up for this but it still hasn't appeared-a great opportunity for someone. Not sure why you brought up FS again, but yes the default and payware both do a better job presently.

You want landmarks ? Install add-ons:

http://www.libertysim.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=38515

 

You'll find very good freeware add-ons for most landmarks you want.

 

But I would really like to know why FS users want landmarks in default X-Plane sceneries. Just consider most top cities in the world: FS has no landmarks for these cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population

Well, let's see...FS9 (until the patch that removed them) had the world trade centers, the distinct bridges in NYC, Walt Disney World, Golden Gate Bridge, several distinct buildings in the skyline in Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle, Mount Rushmore, Paris, Cliffs of Dover, London, Niagara Falls and many more. XP has NONE of these nor even cities that resemble the actual layouts of the real cities for use in land navigation. Why do FS users want these default? BECAUSE THEY ARE DEFAULT IN FS and basic parts of VFR navigation useful as checkpoints as well as things that people who have no access to real world aviation may wish to make a flight to an area just to have the experience of being as close to reality as you can get. A more advanced simulator as XP is touted to be shouldn't have less features than its counterpart, especially one that is nearly a decade older in design and feature set.

 

Downloading freeware is a great asset, but I don't want to scour all over to find hopefully all the landmarks that may or may not be out there to download from the many different sites. Something that is basic like landmarks should be included in the base platform. I should only have to go to 3PD if the base landmarks are of poor quality and I would like better, not to have it at all.