And the list goes on :o

And of course you can always contribute your fair share by learning how to use the tools and add your own local airport.......

 

There are - what - 33,000 airports in the database?  I wonder how long it would take programmers to find each and every one via Google earth, put control towers in the proper locations, add hangers, FBO buildings, fences, and other features, set up exclusion zones, taxi signs, jetways, etc.  Let me do the math:

 

2 airports per day (assuming an average of 4 hours each) = 16,500 days @ 360 days per year (must give them 5 days off for vacations) = about 46 programmer years to complete the database.  Sounds reasonable to me ...

 

 

     I dont see why I should contribute my fair share TBH.   I understand why people do it, some find it as much part of the hobby as flying, some find the content creation to be more than the flying.   The modelling and creating your own area can be quite cool.   I know from similar interests.

 

     The thing is, I have no interest in doing it for a flight sim but I hear it all of the time.  We have a few dedicated people here that do the content creation side of things and say how easy it can be but the vast majority of people have no interest in this part of the hobby.

 

      There is no obligation to the community to do this except the obligation some people may feel others should have because of what was left short by LR.

 

       I understand your point.  I understand it's not reasonable for LR to populate a world full of airports with buildings etc.    IMHO while pointing out how it's not possible for LR to do it you have pointed out how it is just as unreasonable to expect the users to do this job as well.

 

        LR have to give up on the idea that the user does it all and start to populate airports with generated buildings.  They may not be accurate but they wont be baron and they can be replaced properly as people do add ot the database.

 

     By your own calculations we will never have buildings at airports for years to come if left to the community.   It's up to LR to autogen them.

i have actually started to dable in x-plane 10 and i am amazed with the payware plane models,i would like to see x-plane create default airports like fsx has, if that would ever happen, more developers would probably start looking more towards x-plane, i am getting ready to pick up the shared cockpit plugin and buy the flight factor a350, who knows when fsx or p3d will actually have an a350 thats usable, we dont even have a good a330,340,380,what surprises me is how much better and it seems like more heavies for x-plane than fsx/p3d, just from the outside looking in,if i had my efb, gsx,and active sky i would probably dump fsx and p3d.

An M.S.-based ATC engine, with full A.I. intelligence, a' la' M.S.-based 

@JasonHarris has shown why X-Plane is difficult for FSX converts to accept. FSX is heavy on eye candy - fake airport scenery. But it's a matter of philosophy. FSX fills airports with unrealistic building placement, control towers in the wrong place, hangers and jet bridges where there are none. XP, on the other hand has put their emphasis on the flight engine, giving users far more room to create and refine aircraft, and tools to create scenery that truly represents the real world.

 

One is not better than the other, just different. Having surfed both FSX and XP forums for many years, I find XP better suited to my interests in accurate flight models and reasonable non-airport scenery. For many, simming is not a game.

 

XP seems to have greater European following than FSX and it seems to attract more of the serious simmers and fewer gamers. One is not "better" than the other, just different approaches to an overwhelming task.

 

 

I dont see why I should contribute my fair share TBH. I understand why people do it, some find it as much part of the hobby as flying, some find the content creation to be more than the flying. The modelling and creating your own area can be quite cool. I know from similar interests.



The thing is, I have no interest in doing it for a flight sim but I hear it all of the time. We have a few dedicated people here that do the content creation side of things and say how easy it can be but the vast majority of people have no interest in this part of the hobby.



There is no obligation to the community to do this except the obligation some people may feel others should have because of what was left short by LR.

 

I understand the point of view of "why should we have to do this?". Well, you don't. However, the reality is that LR is not going to do it immediately so we can either all sit here and stew or some of us can use the provided tools and try to fill in the gaps.

 

Speaking only for myself as someone who contributes to the gateway, I don't feel others are obligated to contribute. However, I have tried to gently persuade others that it's not that hard to do if you are upset about a missing airport or some missing buildings at your favorite strip.

 

That's basically how I started. My local airstrip that I soar out of every summer was nothing by a patch of trees in Xplane. I knew there were tools to create our own airports, but I thought for sure it would be really complicated and I didn't want to waste days trying to figure it out.  Finally I gave in an fired up WED. Well, without reading any documentation (who does that!) or looking at the great tutorials online, I muddled around a bit and managed to create something, but there were issues. The first being trees all over my runway. I almost gave up at that point, thinking this is junk.  However, the fact that I had just created something that I could instantly fly around grabbed me and I decided to suck it up and go read the WED manual and do a few searches online.  Once I found the 'exclusion zone' and my runway popped out all nice and clear I was hooked!  If I had taken the time to read the manual first and check out a few basic tutorials it would have been a smoother experience

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think everyone is obligated to jump in and learn how to use WED. However, I am trying to say that if you are upset enough to maybe give up on Xplane due to missing airports/buildings, learning to create one yourself may keep you simming in Xplane and you may also find yourself a new aspect of the hobby.  It's not for everyone, but it's also not as hard as it sounds and many may be surprised how easy it is once they give it a go - and read the manual

 

 

FSX fills airports with unrealistic building placement, control towers in the wrong place, hangers and jet bridges where there are none.

 

As a point of order, that's not entirely correct.

 

While you're right in noting that the bulk of MSFS airports were not crafted by hand, they were created intelligently using various data sources (government, Jeppesen, etc.) to place buildings where they are on the map... place terminals where they are on the map.... and control towers where they are on the map, among other things. Nearly two years ago this topic came up as it related to X-Plane 10 and FSX... I reached out to Phil Taylor, one of the project managers who was working on FSX. Although the conversation was held under a different context, the concepts remain the same. Here's the link.

 

For an average Joe airport, compare an airport diagram from here against its default FSX colleague in the sim, and I think you'll find it's far more similar than you give them credit for.

@JasonHarris has shown why X-Plane is difficult for FSX converts to accept. FSX is heavy on eye candy - fake airport scenery. But it's a matter of philosophy. FSX fills airports with unrealistic building placement, control towers in the wrong place, hangers and jet bridges where there are none. XP, on the other hand has put their emphasis on the flight engine, giving users far more room to create and refine aircraft, and tools to create scenery that truly represents the real world. One is not better than the other, just different. Having surfed both FSX and XP forums for many years, I find XP better suited to my interests in accurate flight models and reasonable non-airport scenery. For many, simming is not a game. XP seems to have greater European following than FSX and it seems to attract more of the serious simmers and fewer gamers. One is not "better" than the other, just different approaches to an overwhelming task.

 

     As far as basic 'philosophy' of structures in x-plane, x-plane goes for a plausible world, not an accurate world.  Far from it.

 

    So if we take the philosophy that x-plane has gone for then some auto generated scenery in airports is certainly more 'plausible' to me than none at all.

 

    Every time you come in to land at a new airport is a bit of a disappointment.   

 

    The thread was titled what would you like to see in x-plane in 2015,  is it hard to have a wish list without people telling you why you dont need your wishes?  This is a pretty popular one btw, along with other pretty common thoughts that take this away from a 'game' and more in to the realms of a 'sim'

There is no question that we would all like to have all airports populated with appropriately placed buildings and control towers.  But if we compare the sheer size of Microsoft with LR, the reason that isn't likely should be apparent.  The alternative is to rely on simmers in various parts of the country to contribute their local airports.

 

I haven't had time to look into WED, but I will do so to "fix up" my two local airstrips (KJLN and KEOS).  It will take me hours away from flying, but I feel I owe it to others who may someday have to land here, and it's a way to thank others who have done the same. 

 

You can share, or you can just use what others provide for free, or you can pay for some great commercial airports.  There is no "right" way or "wrong" way, but there is a way that makes me feel a bit better for sharing.  It was only a suggestion, not an indictment.

 

I might also add that the level of your hardware also determines the level of "realism" your sim of choice is able to display.  If you have weak hardware and must pull sliders back to obtain reasonable framerates, you'll miss out on a lot of what is hiding in the upper end of the Rendering settings.

As a point of order, that's not entirely correct.

 

While you're right in noting that the bulk of MSFS airports were not crafted by hand, they were created intelligently using various data sources (government, Jeppesen, etc.) to place buildings where they are on the map... place terminals where they are on the map.... and control towers where they are on the map, among other things. Nearly two years ago this topic came up as it related to X-Plane 10 and FSX... I reached out to Phil Taylor, one of the project managers who was working on FSX. Although the conversation was held under a different context, the concepts remain the same. Here's the link.

 

For an average Joe airport, compare an airport diagram from here against its default FSX colleague in the sim, and I think you'll find it's far more similar than you give them credit for.

 

 

Exactly correct. I was there for the beta testing of three versions of MSFS. As advertised, Microsoft did go to the trouble of using actual Jeppeson data for airport building placement.  Considering I had flown to numerous airports across the western US as a pilot, I was quite pleased with the results.  It was never a case of haphazard placement, that's perhaps worse than no buildings at all......as is sometimes stated by others.

 

On the bright side, I was very happy to see that my new copy of X-Plane 10 (last evening) , had buildings at KSLC by default. Only used the trial version before. Didn't spend enough time at the airport before heading over the mountains to study all of the layout, but what I did see was generally in the right place. I didn't expect, and had used a third party addon for XP9. Night lighting on the freeways looked good too! 

edited--- from L.Adamson  (can't get rid of the notation, as if from Greg)

the MS FSX default airplane are miles ahead of Xplane 10 planes. If LR needs to fix something, that's it. The out of the box experience is pretty dry to me.

the MS FSX default airplane are miles ahead of Xplane 10 planes. If LR needs to fix something, that's it. The out of the box experience is pretty dry to me.

 

Please elaborate

Please elaborate

 

Most of the default plane in X-pane 10 has half the panel not operational or very basic functionality. As a new user to X-plane 10 I was really turn off by the fact that I would really need to buy an 3rd party plane form the start.

Most of the default plane in X-pane 10 has half the panel not operational or very basic functionality. As a new user to X-plane 10 I was really turn off by the fact that I would really need to buy an 3rd party plane form the start.

Good luck with that one.

Most of the default plane in X-pane 10 has half the panel not operational or very basic functionality. As a new user to X-plane 10 I was really turn off by the fact that I would really need to buy an 3rd party plane form the start.

 

 

Lol