Well, not everywhere... but, we didn't expect such a setback.Buyers outside of detailed coastline coverage BEWARE! We are going back to FS98 style coastlines with FSX. Even with FS2K we've had a free DCW data (Pic 2). Although very basic it still beats by a long shot this medieval cartographer that MS hired for FSX (Pic 1). Can anyone confirm this?Croatian coastline near LDSP and LDSB airportsFSX's new and "improved" sceneryhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158284.jpgOld DCW data used in FS2K. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158285.jpg

Wow ... that's quite a sight. I hope someone releases enhanced scenery for Croatia!-------------------------------------------If it doesn't have a VC I won't be concerned :)

That's a bit worrying. OK MS, its time to have a detailed description of the areas that do and don't have the correct `detailed coverage`. What have you got to hide?I think we are finally beginning to see just how holy the MS statements are from MS - and I don't mean a religious experience, I mean full of holes. "Use Navteq data". Yes, but to what extent? Come on boys, time to come clean before you get found out. Because this on top of everything else is not going to restore consumer confidence. And at least this would give the mesh, landclass and costline specialists a chance to focus their efforts. That screenshot looks awful.Missing rivers in Canada is simply inexcusable, as is erroneous data that is a retrograde step in a major port area in Europe compared to previous FS versions.I am beginning to wonder what is going on with FSX? No-one expectde the accuracy of information of the likes of Ultimate Terrain, but it simply isn't acceptable to have any default area less accurate than in a previous sim version! This could create huge problems for the aftermarket scenery developers who accurately place their airports, only to find they're in mid ocean.Allcott

There's some excellent info over on the Ultimate Terrain forums regarding the data FSX uses.No, it's not a conspiracy.http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=18424Tony

FS9 had a massive number of bridges missing when it was released. Still turned out to be a fantastic sim.James

>Buyers outside of detailed coastline coverage BEWARE!Anyone know which areas do have detailed coastlines in fsx and are they much improved from fs2004?.John

I think it takes a great deal of blissful ignorance to come up with a shoreline like that. Even freeware flight simulator Flightgear has a better rapresentation of these areas (using free data, of course)Could NAVTEQ be source of this mess? Or is it some household dumbing to reduce the size of the data for the rest of the world (outside US and EU)?If I were the product manager I would be ashamed to have come up with a solution that is substandard in a flagship franchise. And to anyone that says not everyting can be perfect; Is asking for known and free solution too much?

My reply is on board the black helicopters. They should be at your home in a few minutes. ;)

>My reply is on board the black helicopters. They should be at>your home in a few minutes. ;):) :) :)

You mentioned the data used in FS2K, it also seems more accurate in FS9:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158301.jpgI wonder if there's a way for users to simply import the non-US coastline, lake and river data into FSX and replace what's there? It does seem like a step back, although some may remember that FS9 was shipped with a bad coastline for Long Island which I believe someone somewhere fixed. FS2002 was missing part of Canada. I am afraid the changing sources of data are unavoidable--it costs money to license the data and if someone chooses to make it more expensive for Microsoft to deliver a product, I wouldn't go blaming Microsoft for that. Everyone has to have their hand in the cookie jar, I am afraid.However, I think many saw the FSX promo shots, some of which emphasized the increased coastline detail, and felt the product was going to deliver that worldwide. -John

Hi there,interesting indeed. FSX comes with its own data viewer in the Environment KitTerrain SDK folder (I believe on Disk 1). It's called TMFViewer and pointing it to any of the cvx*.bgl files in the numbered subfolders of Scenery loads the entire vector and polygon set for a specific area. You need to read the Terrain and Scenery.html document to understand the QMID grid system but it's not difficult.Anyway, loading up the file for the Split area (cvx5216.bgl) reveals that the Navteq shorelines (yellow lines) are really poor for this region whereas the DCW (i.e., FS9) shorelines are much better (blue lines). FSX actually uses both data sets at the same time, which is why they are visible in the cvx files. However, the DCW data are used only for GPS views and are not visible in the landscape. The reason given to us for this was that the Navteq water data are very detailed in most areas, thus overwhelming the GPS display. Unfortunately, for Croatia at least, the Navteq data are less detailed than the DCW data so the reverse is happening.In FSX we'll be able to exclude specific polygon layers and it may be possible to exclude the Navteq layer in this region and somehow "entice" the DCW data to take over. Even if that works, however, you would lose the vector shorelines because those are tied only to the Navteq data.In ACES' defence: anyone who has ever tried to combine geographic data from two or more different sources knows that this is almost impossible (e.g., trying to match Navteq roads to DCW shorelines, etc.). Thus, they had to make a decision on using one or the other. There are many areas of the world that are hugely improved over FS9 with the Navteq data so that's probably why they decided to use this approach.Cheers, Holgerhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158302.jpg

Interesting Holger.... thank you :)Tim

Interesting from tdragger too. His response to a reasonable question about coastlines was met with a threat to fly his toy black helicopter over someone's house! So what about replying to the Croatia issue then?

Hi there,well, if I was part of the development team and had to read words like "inexcusable", "not acceptable", "huge problems", "ashamed", "substandard", and the like at a rate of 20 per hour I would be very much tempted to use sarcasm too ;-)After all, isn't "black helicopters" what our conspiracy therorists want to hear? :-spacecraft Cheers, Holger

:-lol :-lol :-lol