Paul J

Yes. Also, with even more interesting detail:- https://github.com/microsoft/GlobalMLBuildingFootprints Extract " Introduction Bing Maps is releasing open building footprints around the world. We have detected 1.2B buildings from Bing Maps imagery between 2014 and 2023 including Maxar, Airbus, and IGN France imagery. The data is freely available for download and use under ODbL. This dataset includes our other releases. Updates 2023-06-05 - Combining all building footprint releases into one distribution. Total footprints: 1.2B. Footprints with height: 174M. Updated coverage map and associated features. Other data sources will remain unchanged. 2023-05-31 - added 49M updated footprints and 10M height attributes from Vexcel and Maxar imagery. Biggest contributions are Nigeria (18M), United States (9M), and Burkina Faso (7M). 2023-05-18 - added 77M buildings heights to the US and Western Europe. See Coverage map. .......contd... "

Hmmmm... Microsoft has a very long and complicated web of map and mapping applications, with many links with other companies who provide them with the 'data' that simHeaven is alluding to. MSFS is just one of those applications that uses some of that data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Maps . One quote was "On June 1, 2020 it was announced the base map data of the Bing Maps Platform would now be sourced from TomTom.", so I Googled "What mapping data does TomTom provide?" One can read for a week on this subject. . . . ATB pj

Yes: Roman is good to talk with, and he has fixed the links over the last five minutes, so Bert's and Dave's should be good to go as well. This is the most excitement I've had since Kitty was pup!!

Yes. It looks like I perhaps began the actual purchase while still in the "Guest" account 'mode', and then added in the rest of the account details during the purchase - and perhaps this is what happened with Dave too: It went through ok because the PayPal info is good as far as his site is concerned. I did think that the whole site - the visibility of site components - data entry boxes, e.g. all seemed very ultra-modern but also very 'vague'. Anyway - PayPay confirmed my purchase - "Guest" - and that's what happened in my case: PP advised me to await a return email or 'phone call from him over the next couple of days or three. Update from Roman:- Hi, I'm sorry - there was a glitch on the website and the download link didn't save for some reason... I added it again and regenerated the download permissions, so it should work now. Please go to your account and you should see the link there. Let me know if it worked. Thanks. Roman.

Same here, Dave. Looking for a 'phone number right now, but will call their head office if I can't find one, or a d/l link. Seems strange. It's a brand-new site, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for a couple of hours. Update - found his number but could only leave a message.

https://flightsimulation.romandesign.ca/msfs-scenery-store/ If you take out the "flightsimulation" word from the URL, you will see just why this company is good at producing an MSFS airport of serious quality, and I reckon (as an avid PNW flyer) it's a 'must have' - right up there with the Drzewiecki Designs products, like KRNT. Impressive! The site says $23.99, and I presume that's $Can.

I have to echo Mr Bits and Franz: I did have a bit of a time understanding the overall setup - three or four days of 'why this' or 'why that': larnin' how to manipulate the scenery_packs.ini: got mixed in with the fix for X-Roads (no roads!); finding the right YT vids! - SimHeaven is a must! - but I did get it all together and just packed up for the night after a good flight (Skyhawk) from KTTD - KHIO - 7S3, after which I took a couple of shots at 7S3 and took roughly the same shots with MSFS, for a quick comparison. AutoOrtho performed flawlessly, the terrain looks great, X-Roads was good, and the graphics were exceptionally smooth - 3820x2160, with a 2nd monitor at 1920x1080. Once it's all setup, I reckon the load time is not much different to that of MSFS - just that there're just no pretty pics to help pass the time. The only beefs I really have are 1). mostly the city buildings - often repetitive, or inappropriate, and, after using MSFS over Portland, and comparing with Google Earth also - they appear to be somewhat out of scale, often too far apart, or located in various spaces without access, road, or pathway of any kind. FSX had this issue too, and it was fixed in good measure - by the folks at Orbx. They brought in realism. #2 is similar to that of FSX, inasmuch as the vegetation - trees - could use some Orbix or Bijan work as well. With AutoOrtho added to XP - a major Achilles Heel has been removed. A couple of months ago, downloading mega-giga-tera bytes of Ortho4XP - and storing it - had just about stopped me from any further exploration of XP, but this is a game-changer. XP certainly has the right sounds: the 'feel' in the cockpit, and on the flight deck is authentic. and I'm quite confident that there are sufficient geniuses around who - however slowly - can fix the 'realism' and the 'look' of this sim: I'm very satisfied with the move I've made in embracing XP12, and I'm really glad to see the number of inspirational people here whom I've known, respected, flown with, or talked with since the Bruce Artwick days has confirmed this. Thanks guys! ATB pj

@captain420 https://flightsimfirstofficer.com/ Google is your friend.

@RobF2 - Right: I have no idea what their hold-up is, and honestly - I've stopped even visiting the A2A website: but - back to the Bonanza, and Bert''s comment: "Some like to argue that MSFS only has better scenery.. but I actually like the in-cockpit experience better in these airplanes as well. Subtle things like the lighting in MSFS are just in an other league. " Exactly, Bert. Part of the "gotcha" for me with the Black Square Bonanza - was the info line across one of the MSFS loading screens that said "Try flying IFR with no GPS" etc., Well - yes - this is how it had to be back in (my r/w 'days') - the 50's and 60's. This could be repeated in FSX - it was a great challenge. A map, some charts, some met info, 2 x VORs, an ADF, and a plan - one could fly pretty reliably anywhere, and for me - that was the Pacific North West, ala' FSX and Orbx, in any IFR-equipped aircraft, with zero-zero weather, and 100' cloud base. Seeing those runway lights slowly appearing on an ILS approach as one breaks out of the thinning mist, is magic! It's taken Asobo/MS a l.o.n.g while to be able to achieve this, but it can now be re-created with even more - and better realism. This was also completely achievable 'back then' in the fabulous Maddog, and now - with airports now being released by designers like Drzewiecki et al, along with recent AI and ATC improvements from the likes of FSHud/FSLTL/AIG - that may be entirely possible once again. I don't know that this might be true, yet, because I've been very reticent to fork over the same money already spent on FSX, to say nothing of the additional money which was (IMO) wasted on P3D and XP. What I do know, however - is that this Bonanza is worth every penny I paid for it, and better than most every other GA aircraft I have previously owned. It is a piece of "icing on the cake", so to speak, and is one of the needed pieces to put MSFS 2020 where it aught to be. pj

Gotta say I agree with all of the above: In my books it's right up there with the Maddog. Been still on the fence for a while, now . . . whether to get "back in" whole hog or simply watch the drama, but aircraft of this calibre, and the slow, but MSFS's ever-increasing quality, and growing authenticity and adherence to the real world of aviation is pulling pretty hard. Thanks for all your comments above - you guys persuaded me! pj

Well, I started up this morning, loaded FSLTL, MSFS, sat on the grass at Toronto Pearson in a 172 - and watched a large airport fully working, without issues: couldn't see a thing wrong, and yet had made no changes to any files. It's just about perfect - and now I'm one step closer to being locked away!

. . . . .and I've just spent almost all day, futzing around with this sim, trying to get FSLTL and/or FS Traffic to show up.. I had it working three weeks ago, when I last fired it up, (Drz's fantastic KRNT!) - and then a few days ago, Bert (Pieke) suggested a fine SamScene Vancouver addon scenery that also includes CYYJ.. Like him, I'm also a PNW flyer, so I thought I'd give it a go. I made a simple flight plan, followed the startup "this and that" routine, and sat, waiting for the big things to begin showing up. Nothing. Nothing landing; nothing at any gates; nothing taxying. I am so sick of this sim: its incredible scenery has ruined almost any chance of "going back" to - even the latest P3x, or XP - (which needs weeks to download enough Ortho to even come close to it). Update after update after update, and still a sim that is totally unpredictable from one day to the next. Sorry for the rant. I just don't know where to go next.

I use a 43" LG at 3840 x 2160 and use TrackIR - but mounted on a wall behind my seat, with the head-thingy screwed on top-center of the headset. Works just fine - just have to use the "Invert" ticked for a couple of the views. It does solve the problem completely for every big monitor. If one lacked a wall, one could possibly utilize a post; plastic drainpipe; 2 x 4; hatstand; china cabinet; even a grandfather clock, etc., - anything that would take sticky tape or a nail will support the IR piece. . . YMMV

Hi Sambo: One man's experience, FWIW - an easier way to achieve that 30 frames+, with much greater immersion and without the connectivity, cost and space issues would be to make use of Nvidia's "Surround" function, along with NaturalPoint's "TrackIR" viewing system. The TrackIR reflector can be attached to the band of a headset with a couple of screws, rivets, w.h.y, in a minute or two, and Surround can be setup within ten minutes. Your 980 is more than capable of running three monitors at a pretty high resolution. I ran 3840 x 1024 for several years (three 19" @1280 x 1024 Viewsonics), and a friend of mine is running 5760 x 1080 (three 27" @1920 x 1080) on a pair of GTX 580's. If you then want to lessen the load with a second PC - get one and run your secondary FSX software on it. pj