lsteere

I agree and that wasn't my intention. I have quite a few negative things to say about Flight myself, as well as some positive, and will when the time comes.

I don't recall putting you in any category but I'm sorry if my post offended you.

Flight haters is quite fitting IMO.

Fair enough...I guess. However you don't see me taking my opinion about this issue and using it like a sledgehammer in other threads which is what some of the Flight haters are doing.

Having every thread in this forum get poisoned and then dominated by a handful of vitriolic haters, most of whom have never seen Flight, has gotten old. You can go into the settings and hide posts by obnoxious members to protect yourself from the initial blast but there is no way to protect yourself from all the fallout.

Very nice job! Loaded it up in the demo and the buildings look great! You need to tone down the color on the cranes a bit I think :)

Wow! The Archer does an amazing job of capturing the weight and momentum of a real aircraft. That was the most realistic takeoff I've ever had in a flight simulator...realistic acceleration and a nice weighty nose...felt perfect! I also tested cruise performance...at 2000 feet and 2300 RPM the airspeed was dead on!I wasted money a couple days ago on a payware GA airplane for X-Plane that flies like a joke - thankfully it was on sale! I'd happily pay for this Archer if it had a 3D cockpit. A couple of planes that I've purchased so far that I like are the Carenado F33A (love it) and Carenado Cessna 172.

Purchased this one last night. I couldn't resist because most of my real world flying has been in small two seaters similar to this but without the glass cockpit. Overall it's very good. The interior and exterior are very nicely modeled, and the view through the large windows is excellent. The glass cockpit is also very nicely modeled but does cost you some FPS, though not as bad as some. I recovered quite a few of those frames by setting the moving map to "North Up". The Flight 1 documentation is also great!The only let down for me in this package is the flight dynamics. They seem pretty average for MSFS, which means not very impressive. Even though it probably gets the numbers correct (I haven't checked) the sense that you're flying a heavy object through a dynamic ocean of air is lacking IMO. Very few aircraft in FSX capture that feeling well.On another note, it's amazing to me that all this avionics technology has worked it's way down into the real Cessna 162. Information presentation, and situational awareness are fantastic.Edit: I have only discovered one annoying bug so far...if you hide the flight stick, the mouse will no longer work with any of the avionics.

I downloaded grass and gdal so I could follow the instructions you provided, so I really didn't understand the basic concepts before I started using them. :( Very interesting article! Thanks for the link.

Sounds great! I was wondering about that.Last night I was reading through the document you wrote that shows step by step how you generated the data. I'm really amazed that you were able to find and then figure out how to use the tools needed to get the job done! I downloaded gdal and grass (because I have a sick fascination for this kind of stuff) and they are definitely NOT intuitive nor even well documented. I can't imagine how you figured out how to make them do what you wanted. You must be really tenacious!! LR was wise to hire you.

Been spending time with XP9 since the Caranado Bonanza breathed some life into the sim. I recently installed the free forests update for the U.S. from http://www.alpilotx.net/ then flew around my home turf. Wow...all the 3D forests and clumps of trees sized, shaped and placed exactly where they are in the real world! Who'd have thought it was possible?The only flaw is that the default ground textures clash pretty badly with the 3d trees which undermines the effect to a large degree. What's needed now is a set of treeless ground textures.

I agree with you. I also fly radio controlled airplanes and even though I'm not in physical contact with the aircraft, nor even looking out the windshield as we do with sims, my brain still "feels" the weight and subtance of the aircraft based on what I'm seeing the aircraft do in correlation with the inputs I'm giving it on the radio.

How much better is it? I've dusted off XP9 and after flying it for a few days I'm reminded of one of the reasons I shelved it in the first place. The turbulance in XP9 is exaggerated to comical proportions. If I turn on real world weather and there's a few kts of breeze the plane starts bouncing around like it's caught in a hurricane - literally! If the weather gets much worse than a light wind the plane often becomes pretty much uncontrollable. I've flown real ultralights in a light wind with only mild buffeting as a result and none of the heavy pitching and yawing that's nearly always present in XP9 when flying a much heavier more stable aircraft. So if I want to enjoy the sim I have to turn real world weather off. I tried to compare the real world weather around KSEA last night in XP9 and XP10 and the difference seemed big? XP9 had rediculous buffeting, XP10 had none. So did they really address this issue or was last night an anomaly?? So far when using the demo and RWW I haven't had any bad experiences with turbulence.

It seems it was a large contributing factor. Even though the senior co-pilot took control of the aircraft a couple of times he apparently had no idea that he was fighting against the junior co-pilot who was holding full back on the stick even though we was supposed to have relinquished control. If the sticks were linked the senior would have realized he was fighting against the junior and could have reached over and smacked him on the head and told him to let go of the stick.

After re-reading my post I realize that it comes across a bit harder on XP10 than I intended. There's a lot in the sim that I like!*All the options are great*Control configuration is very logical and straightforward.*The weather seems well done.*Clouds, fog etc are very nice.*Once running and with the graphics adjusted the performance is pretty good on my computer considering the level of eye candy I still get.*The Carenado F33A in X-Plane is about the best flying airplane I've ever experienced in a flight sim. The flight dynamics beat the Carenado A36 in FSX IMO.*Water effects are great.*It's great seeing other aircraft active in the sim - adds a lot to the enjoyment.There's lots of other things I like as well. I would just like town and cities to look more like towns and cities at lower settings even if that means resorting to city textures to fill in the the areas that autogen leaves blank.

I own XP9 but haven't flown it in a couple of years. I installed the XP10 demo and after a lot of initial frustration managed to get it running fairly smooth on my modest and aging AMD quad core 2.1 GHZ computer. At the default settings the start up times were an absolute horror - I'm talking like around 8 to 10 minutes on my computer! Then every time I made a change to a graphics settings to improve performance I had to wait all over again. Very frustrating, and I almost gave up on it! After several very frustrating hours adjusting the settings I'm now getting decent frames rates and the load times have improved considerably.My impressions:The stock Cessna 172 looks and flys pretty much exactly like it did in XP9 - like a paper airplane dangling on a rubber band caught in a hurricane. I purchased the Carenado F33A to give the sim a fair shot, and was pleasantly surprised! Flies like a dream! I've now loaded that aircraft up in XP9 and my impression of that sim has changed substantially as a result. XP9 will be getting used a lot more than it was.Seattle seems to show off the strengths and weaknesses of their new plausible world engine. At my lowered graphics settings Seattle looks pretty barren, and what is their often looks ridiculous - small clusters of buildings and houses sitting in grass fields, often with no roads leading up to them. If I jack up the number of objects and roads to their maximum settings it starts to look like a plausible world. With those settings maxed the area is filled with buildings and houses and they all line up perfectly with the roads. Very nice! Still when I look out across the landscape I'm hard pressed to get the impression that I'm flying around Seattle, and when I drop the settings down to a usable level on my PC I don't feel like I'm flying over a large city at all - it's pretty sparse with lots of fields. This is a big issue IMO. For people like myself with fairly average computers and lower settings, the city isn't even close to plausible - grass fields everywhere! In XP9 and FSX you are at least looking at proper city textures. Night lighting is great. Especially runway lighting where lights are only visible at the proper angle. Reminded me of the time on my first dual night cross country when my instructor and I had a hard time finding the runway at the destination airport because we were flying parallel to it.Haven't tried ATC because the demo is too short but am looking forward to what others have to say about it now that the full version is available. ATC is pretty important to me even though I only fly GA so I'm hoping XP10 delivers.Anyway the demo hasn't yet convinced me to upgrade, though I will be flying XP9 more, now that I have a really nice aircraft to fly.

Though technically it's mid-wing not low-wing, the plane I reach for most often is the Alphasim Rutan Long-EZ. It cruises at 160 knots and has tremendous range. It also has liquid smooth, crystal clear gauges, as well as a swing out GPS. The flight characteristics are interesting and the bubble canopy gives an amazing panoramic field of view. It's also very frame rate friendly. Long-EZ LinkIf I ever buy a real aircraft it will probably be a Long-EZ.Larry

I didn't see your image...looks like the moderator deleted it. For the Fall season the included ground textures have a dry look to them as they should. Most aftermarket Fall textures are almost as green as summer and don't look right IMO.If you prefer to use your existing textures just go to directory you installed Low 'n Slow then from there go to \Boyz Toyz\LS NY State Landclass. Rename the "Texture" directory to whatever you want. FSX won't find them and will instead use your existing textures. The end results probably won't look very good especially for all the small towns and cities - we created a custom texture set for those. Also tree to field ratios as well as overall style will be different which may result in a less accurate look. There are 4 flights included with the products but they are pretty long and you may want to make a few pit stops along the way. Thanks, glad you're enjoying it.I hope the Charity part is taken to heart by many who use Low 'n Slow, since supporting needy children is a cause we really believe in.Larry

There are quite a few additions. I spent quite a bit of time adding many of the marsh/swamp areas to the Adirondack park...very time consuming because to do it right means lots of complex polygons.I added some mud to the Mohawk river. I added some pollution to Onondaga Lake which is one of the most polluted lakes in the country. I removed the mud from some of the lakes that were improperly classed...most notably Lake George which, like most Adirondack lakes, is crystal clear in real life.Plus I made a lot of other tweaks and tunes.I could easily spend another year adding details but I decided to lock it down and release it. Larry

Boyz Toyz announces the release of Low 'n Slow - New York State. This scenery add-on recreates the entire state of New York to a degree never before seen in Flight Sim X.What it does: Dramatically improves land class assignments for the entire state - not including New York City and Long Island which are already well done in FSX. Revamps hundreds of towns and cites both large and small to more accurately reflect their actual size, shape and position. Fixes waterclass assignments for many lakes and rivers. Fixes many of the poor blend masks included with FSX. Includes a set of improved Autogen files. Includes four comprehensive flight plans that will tour you around the breathtaking scenery found in upstate New York. Designed to work seamlessly with most third party software for Flight Sim X. Download Low 'n Slow - New York StateIt's FREE!Thanks to all those who tested the Beta versions and provided valuable feedback.I hope everyone enjoys the results.Larry

That is the result of one of my Lake Placid experiments. I was trying to eliminate the standard rectangular grass runway skirt so I could create a more accurate border. It worked but it also seems to have caused part of the runway to get covered in grass - not sure why. I will fix it for the final release.Larry

Well, there's only one logical explanation left then...it's an Alien Marking. :( Larry

You are probably right. Whenever I wasn't sure what something was I went to Google Earth for answers, and they identify it as a Luge, but their info isn't necessarily accurate and in this case probably isn't.I looked at satellite photos from several sources and whatever it is, it stands out distinctly from the surroundings. Odd shape and also odd grayish coloring.Larry

If you're referring to the funny looking area in the upper left hand corner, that's the luge course used during the winter olympics. It sticks out like a sore thumb in real life as well.

The area around Lake Placid was a test bed for me. I did a LOT of experimenting in that area so it's possible there's a left over "experiment" that didn't get removed. Can you post a screen shot?Larry