I think The OP made a good point.John

Thanks for the very useful info. From the brief inspection around the world with this tool I can say Greeks (shorelines) and Canadians (lakes) will be very "enthusiastic" that MS entrusted their data with NAVTEQ.Greek islands http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158308.jpg

I like my coastlines curvy:)How does my homeland Scotland look in FSX?.John

Hi John,Scotland is a nice example of a big improvement of the Navteq-based water polys over the FS9 DCW data. In the screenshot below of the Scourie area yellow are the visible shorelines and blue the FS9 equivalent: more lakes included and much more detail. Slartibartfast would be proud ;-)Cheers, HolgerP.S.: Something else to note in the image: FS9 is plagued by a systematic offset of the DCW shoreline data to the real-world position and thus the underlying terrain mesh data, leading to cliffs and flat foreshores in all the wrong places. It appears that the Navteq data are much more accurate in this regard, meaning they fit better with the FSX (or add-on) mesh files.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158312.jpg

>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 ;-)It's more that I'm repulsed by trying to frame discussions in black and white. The world is gray--that's reality. Some stuff gets better, some stuff gets worse. Hopefully the balance is on the former.

Hi Holger,I ALWAYS love reading your responses. Thank you.Rather than suppressing the Navteq data in places, would it be possible to extract the DCW data in a region and create vector shoreline data etc. etc. from it?I understand that ACES would have had trouble doing a comparison worldwide to decide which to use. But with so many users, I have faith we'll eventually do it for the whole world on a piece by piece basis.Man, I can't wait to get the SDK. The wait is killing me.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

Oh beleive me we are!!!!!MS ruined everything in Greece even worse than every other time... (From a friends website)http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/bass/fsx.htmlDesert like looking islands I didn't know LGKO is placed in the middle of desert or LGKR has no sea but only land!!!!!!!!!Well done MS $#%$#%Chris MakrisAthens Greece

That looks pretty bad. On another note I can confirm the Australian rivers and coastlines look better, although the textures leave alot to be desired.

You could do well in politics with that type of excuse.So, you are selling a new sports car with tiny, but observable rust spots. Can we as malicious onlookers observe that you could've had a decency to patch up those spots before embarassing yourself in front of potential buyers as a wealthy but sloppy owner. "Customer will buy an add-on, after all." I think this phrase was used more than once amongst your team.

Come on, excuses won't sell products, or maybe they will unfortunately. Why didn't the adverts mention that some parts of the world would like like the screenshot of Croatia above?

>Hi John,>>Scotland is a nice example of a big improvement of the>Navteq-based water polys over the FS9 DCW data. In the>screenshot below of the Scourie area yellow are the visible>shorelines and blue the FS9 equivalent: more lakes included>and much more detail. Slartibartfast would be proud ;-)>>Cheers, Holger>>P.S.: Something else to note in the image: FS9 is plagued by a>systematic offset of the DCW shoreline data to the real-world>position and thus the underlying terrain mesh data, leading to>cliffs and flat foreshores in all the wrong places. It appears>that the Navteq data are much more accurate in this regard,>meaning they fit better with the FSX (or add-on) mesh files.>>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158312.jpg>Hi Holger Boy what difference:) I'm sure there are big improvements that can and will be made for the areas with a more" daliesque":) portrayal of there local coastlines.Thanks againJohn

Well, the good news is this:If you've been an avid flight sim enthusiast for any length of time you know that in short order some dedicated hobbyists will produce new scenery files that will fix those problem areas; and most likely provide them for free for everyone who is interested in using them.Be thankful that the dev's are providing the SDK's with the Deluxe edition right off the bat for those interested and talented people to use. It won't be long and you'll see the fruits of their labors.FSX is a great product overall and will only get better. Enjoy!

>>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>Well, from my observations at least here in Norway the coastlines and mesh are MUCH improved in comparison to FS9. I could wish for less square coastlines.., but overall there is a noticeable improvement.

There were several conversations by the developers discussing the pros and cons of the various data sources.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

A fairly unorthodox idea popped into my head--as many of us know, Google Earth provides relatively high-detail imagery of the entire world. I'm not proposing the old idea of importing Google Earth imagery into FS, but would it be possible to somehow derive vector coastline data from the satellite imagery? This would immediately bypass the issue of coastline data being either unavailable or expensive for parts of the world.The only problem I could see is coming up with some sort of tool that could intelligently extract the coastlines from a satellite image..