XP has NONE of these nor even cities that resemble the actual layouts of the real cities for use in land navigation.

XP has real roads, HDR Night Lighting, Amazing autogen(homes, condos, high rises, gas stations, 3D clouds, 3D cars, trucks, trains, buses, street lights, police cars :lol: )  etc. etc. and remember......... It's STILL IN BETA.

In my hometown of Auckland I can easily take off in FSX from auckland international and navigate  VFR to the area that I live.   I can do it because downtown has landmarks, the harbour bridge is there among other things.

 

    So much more difficult in xplane, I have to really think about where things are with respect to the geography.

 

    So in answering your question I had to compare but I was hoping to show why landmarks are nice to have.

In my hometown of Auckland I can easily take off in FSX from auckland international and navigate  VFR to the area that I live.   I can do it because downtown has landmarks, the harbour bridge is there among other things.

 

    So much more difficult in xplane, I have to really think about where things are with respect to the geography.

 

    So in answering your question I had to compare but I was hoping to show why landmarks are nice to have.

here you go:  http://www.alpilotx.net/downloads/x-plane-10-new-zealand-pro/  :lol:

 

XP has real roads, HDR Night Lighting, Amazing autogen(homes, condos, high rises, gas stations, 3D clouds, 3D cars, trucks, buses, street lights, police cars :lol: )  etc. etc. and remember......... It's STILL IN BETA.

 

   With respect, it could have a whole lot of other things that some people dont find as important as what we are talking about.

 

    Sometimes a fudge covered ice cream sunday just doesn't make up for something else

 

    While it is still in beta I dont see any talk to remedy this, in fact I think I have heard that LR will never address it so why does the fact it is BETA mean anything for this point of discussion?

   

 

    Sometimes a fudge covered ice cream sunday just doesn't make up for something else

 

   

now you made me hungry, there goes my diet :lol: 

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.

 

If you have FS, you can convert the landmarks using FS2XPlane:

http://marginal.org.uk/x-planescenery/tools.html

 

Do you expect that a small team like Laminar Research will build landmarks for thousand of cities in the world ?

 

Less features ? X-Plane 10 has already a lot more landmarks than FS: you have all the roads and rivers based on OSM, and roads crossing rivers. OK, a bridge is not looking exactly like the real one, but it's there.

 

In P3D and FS, there's just nothing near my location that's make it possible to fly VFR. You just get lost because even the rivers, the highways, the mesh and landclass are not realistic.

For some hardcore XP users, landmark is not important in a flightsim, flight dynamic is #1 important! I even read a XP user said something like this is .org forum: "flightsim is not a 'tourism program', why you need those landmarks?"

This is another discussion that leads to nowhere.

 

XP is missing landmarks. No matter how big the LR team is, landmarks are missing and many XP users would like to have them.

 

If we like to compare roads, rivers, autogen and landmarks with FSX we'll soon enter the next stage with a list of add ons for FSX that would give you very nice VFR flights at your home region and you can have the landmarks.

 

But that is not the point. All of us have reasons why we use XP. Otherwise we would not discuss those topics here.

 

I would like to have landmarks and I would gladly pay for them. Let's hope some scenery creators will notice the demand.

For some hardcore XP users, landmark is not important in a flightsim, flight dynamic is #1 important!

 

For some hardcore FSX users, realistic flight behaviour is not important in a flightsim, landmarks are #1 important!

 

 

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.

 

Well, let's see ... am I understanding this correct?

 

For XP you have to download e.g. landmarks (usually freeware), but that's too much work and is not ok.

For FSX you have to download/buy e.g. streets (usually payware), but that's not too much work and is ok?  :Talking Ear Off: Think about the amount of work you have to do for earning the money to be able to buy the streets addons. Aahhh, you inherited a million dollars? You lucky guys.

 

Seattle Space Needle (in stock XP10), Liberty island, Sears Tower Chicago, KLAX Tower & Restaurant, Golden Gate Bridge, Burj Al Arab Hotel, VFR landmarks France, the whole city of Paris, Dubai landmarks, Chicago landmarks, Quebec landmarks, North of England landmarks, Rumeli Hisari, Istanbul, Hoover Dam & the Grand Canyon, Toronto Skyline, Ted's X-Plane Scenery Page, Nuremberg landmarks, Staten Island, New York, Central City, Manhattan, Upper West Side, Manhattan, Upper East Side, Manhattan, Downtown Manhattan Buildings, Mackinac Bridge, Stonehenge, Cerne Abbas and Uffington, USS Arizona Memorial, Mallorca landmarks, German Airspace Obstacles, Martha's Vineyard, Madeira landmarks,  .....

 

Is it really this complicated?? It took me 5 minutes finding the above (a few minutes more to write it down). Please do us a favour: don't waste your precious time with useless discussions (think about the economic damage - meanwhile you could earn the money for buying FS payware) and enjoy your FSX. I herewith state that FSX is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Do you feel better now? If yes, glad to help you - if still not, sorry that's above my capabilities.

I would like to have landmarks and I would gladly pay for them. Let's hope some scenery creators will notice the demand.

Buy the FSX version and covert it to XP, as simple as that! Others have done it, so can you.

 

 

Please do us a favour: don't waste your precious time with useless discussions (think about the economic damage...)

 

This entire conversation is not useless if it helps a user make a more educated decision about their purchase. Colorful opinions aside, I would expect a great many MSFS users to be taken by surprise at just how different X-Plane is... I know I was.

 

Rather than dwell on what X-Plane is or isn't right now, I'd like to propose this from a city scenery perspective:

 

Wouldn't it be nice if they could build in the ability for armchair airport designers to also submit "city center" scenery elements. Airport designers will be using facades and library elements to enhance airports, and the very same tools and techniques can be used to enhance city centers - albeit with "generic" facades, but that is how many buildings are represented in MSFS as well. Using generic textures but accurately placed and sized buildings would be a great way to extend the global city scenery and truly give cities a distinct, individual feel.

This hardcore flight dynamics "myth" is rediculous. Tell me, are you closer to being a real pilot...... If you adopt that concept in your mind? Quite frankly, XP falls somewhat short in some of the flight dynamics department, and a lot of users are not evev aware of it.

 

I want the best flight dynamics possible. I want the best scenery possible. Much of that was possible, right out of my door.....in real life. I don't care to make a hobby of scenery collecting. This whole XP versus FSX debate is silly in my mind. Neither has a special advantage, by themselves, to make me anymore of a real pilot than what I am. It's good to pick and choose from both. Why limit yourself...unless you fall into the closer to a real flyer hype. BTW....a no scenery flight program? Not interested in the least! Slowly typed on Iphone

@@greggerm

 

This can be done in OpenStreetMap, with very easy tools and imported to X-Plane using OSM2XP.

 

The height of a building can be specified with the "height" tag.

 

Learn more here about OSM2XP:

http://osm2xp.com/

 

Learn more here about OpenStreetMap:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/

Wouldn't it be nice if they could build in the ability for armchair airport designers to also submit "city center" scenery elements. Airport designers will be using facades and library elements to enhance airports, and the very same tools and techniques can be used to enhance city centers - albeit with "generic" facades, but that is how many buildings are represented in MSFS as well. Using generic textures but accurately placed and sized buildings would be a great way to extend the global city scenery and truly give cities a distinct, individual feel.

Thats what OpenStreetmap already does as a central repository. And there are quite a few "attributes" you can attach to a building footprint ... like for example the height of a building. This would already help to create those generic, but halfway plausible facades (as far as I know the tool OSM2XP would already use height info ... if it would find it ... which is rarely set).  And this way, if its in OSM, then the data is not in a special XP format/repository, but in a generic format, and an open repository, where many different users can profit from it (in different way ... not just for improved scenery).

This entire conversation is not useless if it helps a user make a more educated decision about their purchase. Colorful opinions aside, I would expect a great many MSFS users to be taken by surprise at just how different X-Plane is... I know I was.

 

"Different" = worse? Couldn't it be the other way round? "Different" = better? Nooo! Of course not. "Different" is always worse. Aaahhh ... well ... now as you're saying it ... Colorful opinions aside, I would expect a great many XP users to be taken by surprise at just how different FS is .

 

And from this perspective of view, one should warn people in the FS forums to help a user make a more educated decision about their purchase, don't you agree?

 

 

Wouldn't it be nice if they could build in the ability for armchair airport designers to also submit "city center" scenery elements. Airport designers will be using facades and library elements to enhance airports, and the very same tools and techniques can be used to enhance city centers - albeit with "generic" facades, but that is how many buildings are represented in MSFS as well. Using generic textures but accurately placed and sized buildings would be a great way to extend the global city scenery and truly give cities a distinct, individual feel.

 

Good that you mentioned this: "city center" scenery with facades. It costs you exactly 0000.00 EUR.

 

This hardcore flight dynamics "myth" is rediculous. Tell me, are you closer to being a real pilot...... If you adopt that concept in your mind? Quite frankly, XP falls somewhat short in some of the flight dynamics department, and a lot of users are not evev aware of it.

 

I want the best flight dynamics possible. I want the best scenery possible. Much of that was possible, right out of my door.....in real life. I don't care to make a hobby of scenery collecting. This whole XP versus FSX debate is silly in my mind. Neither has a special advantage, by themselves, to make me anymore of a real pilot than what I am. It's good to pick and choose from both. Why limit yourself...unless you fall into the closer to a real flyer hype. BTW....a no scenery flight program? Not interested in the least! Slowly typed on Iphone

 

Well, you know ... as far as I remember, Cirrus used X-Plane for research building The Jet (if I'm not mistaken Garrow aircraft too, maybe others?). Of course, for in depth development they used more advanced programs. But as long as you can e.g. slip in X-Plane and feel the wake turbulences when flying behind an other plane or in a thunderstorm (but not in FS), then that's what I call flying.

 

 

Maybe someone could explain this to me: as I already mentioned, some users are wasting their precious time in this subforum instead of having fun with their FSX.

 

 

Aaahhh .... now I understand ... they probably don't have fun with their FSX, so they are searching for other leisure pursuit :lol: .