I suggest everyone read this post by Mr. Martin of FlyTampa fame (link provided). It shows the frustration of a famous FS2004 scenery developer and several others regarding the techniques used by Microsoft to create ground scenery. I thought MS included developers in all facets of their beta testing resulting in or hoping for a smooth transition into the new simulator? :-hmmm Link (a must read)...http://www.flytampa.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1862I hope developers (this one especially) will not quit over this...Darryl :(

If any developer quits over this, then frankly they will be no great loss at all. I read the link and all it really says is that he's miffed at not being able to use the same method he's been used to, which smacks more of laziness than 'anger/frustration in FSX developer land'There is absolutely nothing in what he says that prevents anyone from developing replacement scenery for an airport, as will be apparent to anyone with any photo realistic scenery installed in FSX. It will simply require a new method to be adopted, and if any 'developer' is not prepared to develop his methodology too, then good riddance.

well I am sure there was anger when we converted from horses to to cars too-the blacksmiths had to be quite mad...I have several of flytampas sceneries-they are great and and a fabulous value.Now time to move on to the future..imho..http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

The responses of the previous posters in this thread leaves me appalled. The folks pointing out these scenery problems are not just 'developers'! These are the best in the business (FlightScenery and Fly Tampa). The FS community can't afford to lose them. If we do, we face the prospect of no airports like Portland. Ever.That would make a very depressing future for FSX...(no cheers this time)Noel.

They have made tremendous contributions in the past, and may have the potential to do so in the future, but people will begin enhancing FSX shortly, and you can bet that there is plenty of talent out there to step up to the plate.If they decide not to develop for FSX, it's they that will lose, because all they have to do is announce a new development and will instantly have plenty of satisfied customers pre-ordering and spreading the good word.If they only support FS9, they will start losing business, because like it or not, FSX is the future.That said, I would hate to see them go, they have done very many nice things for FS, and could bring alot to the next chapter.-Jeremy Burchhttp://home.earthlink.net/~dawgfighter/sit...es/swvasig1.gifSWVA4806 http://www.virtualswa.com/home.phpThe Ozark Dogfighter http://forums.avsim.net/images/wedge.gifCurrent system:Pentium 4 Cedar Mill 641 (3.40GHz), Abit AW8D, Gigabyte GeForce 7900GTX (512MB DDR3 PCI-Express x16),Corsair XMS2 Pro 2GB PC2 6400 (DDR2 800), 2 SeaGate Barracuda 250GB hard drives, Sound Blaster X-Fi PlatinumKlipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 speakers, NEC 20" CRT, Microsoft SideWinder Force Feedback 2Please note: System specs are for reference in tech forums only and are not to be taken as meaning anything else.Doing so will result in eye-rolling, possible teeth grinding and perhaps mild internal chuckling.Happy Flying!

Re-read the post if you must.It is not about lazy developers not wanting to read the new SDK and adapt. It has already been read and experimented with by many people.The post is to inform end users about what they can expect from large airport addons in FSX. I could care less about old FS2004 airports not working in FSX, the prospect of what we can achieve with the new SDK is what is really depressing.PS: Of course FSX is the future, just like noone is holding on Windows 98 anymore. FSX has great potential in many areas apart from large airport addons.

Poor diddums.FSX uses a more advanced texture rendering engine. If people are getting too old to accept the new then they should go live in a retirement home already.James

Good god! :-eek I also am appalled your attitude Chock and James!

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/eddd2.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSCH Products Yoke, Pedals and Throttle Quadrant[/font color

I can't believe anyone would personally attack Martin; he is one of the finest developers in our hobby! :-eek I was hoping in posting this message that tdragger or other Microsoft Personal would help these developers in some way.:-hmmm

I'm not personally attacking anyone, it was a general statement.Being a great contributor and fine developer in the FS world doesn't automatically mean that someone's gripes are well founded. It's only natural that a more advanced texture rendering engine and scenery engine is more difficult to develop for.I'm certain that many brilliant addons for aircraft and scenery will be developed for FSX, greatly surpassing what is possible with FS9.James

>Being a great contributor and fine developer in the FS world>doesn't automatically mean that someone's gripes are well>founded. It's only natural that a more advanced texture>rendering engine and scenery engine is more difficult to>develop for.OMG, this is so appalling!!1 :-eek I think I'll go sit in a corner and sob a little. ;)>I'm certain that many brilliant addons for aircraft and>scenery will be developed for FSX, greatly surpassing what is>possible with FS9.In all earnestness though, Martin's post clearly shows that this is doubtful right now. On the other hand the scenery devs being forced to always go with the stock run-/taxiways etc. could mean less performance drag with custom sceneries. Arguably not necessarily all bad.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

Geofa wrote:".... well I am sure there was anger when we converted from horses to to cars too-the blacksmiths had to be quite mad......."well if FSX was analagous to a change from horses to cars I might go along with you but it sure ain't. It's just an awkward little shift with eye candy galore and not much else. It's a tweaker's paradise, made to work smoothly in 3 years time when FSXI is due to be released. Enyoy your tweaking and flying on a dumbed down FSX!

Jimbofly says: ""More advance texture rendering engine and scenery engine""Do you know anything about computer graphics other than that you read on the Tom

>Poor diddums.>>FSX uses a more advanced texture rendering engine. If people>are getting too old to accept the new then they should go live>in a retirement home already.>>JamesWhat a crass thing to say!

He is entitled to have an opinion about a product he purchased! Woe betide anyone who criticizes FSX! Nobody can criticize FSX without being attacked.You've accused him of being lazy :-roll. Create an FSX airport that matches his FlyTampa work and then see how lazy he is.