HughesMDflyer4

To expand on this as I'm the one who set up the cameras - they are in this category as I believe MSFS does not (or did not at the time, I'll need to re-check this at some point) allow Showcase cameras to be panned/moved, and I felt it might be fun to have non-static cameras in the cabin. 🙂

A screenshot of the switch: It is! This is actually how I found out it existed. Saw that package and peaked through the files.

@vbazillio Great work on the airport! Have you tried it with the SU10 beta? I'm not sure if the beta is to blame or something else, but the default buildings aren't getting excluded on my install. I also don't see a yellow star on the World Map with the airport installed (which usually indicates a custom airport). I don't have this problem with KRNM, interestingly enough. I've tried removing a couple other scenery add-ons in the area, ensured all official content is up to date, and cleared my content.xml.

Apologies for the lack of documentation on this! I had a rough draft written up for the Livery Manager, but it didn't quite make it into the release build. For now, an explanation: A symbolic link is essentially a shortcut. This can be used to keep the liveries in a folder other than the Community folder, such as one on an entirely different drive. A symbolic link is created in the real Community folder for each livery, linking them to the external location. To use it, you set the Microsoft Store folder to your actual Microsoft Flight Simulator content folder (this is usually detected by default and no action is needed). Then, set the Microsoft Store Symbolic Link to a folder where you want the liveries stored. Upon downloading liveries (you'll need to reinstall liveries for the symbolic link to take effect), they will be stored in that new location, with a symbolic link created in the Community folder. Hope this helps!

JetBlue does not operate A320s with CFM engines. When the IAE engine variant is available, you can expect to see appropriate liveries.

No, this is in FSX, too. It toggles the rain effect on 2D cockpit views.

Waltham is the other one.

A new OS is required for new hardware. I don't see what's scary about moving forward. For years, motherboards haven't been much different when it comes to CPU upgrades - and that's not a free upgrade.

How is it controlled by Steam? Thousands of games are sold on Steam that allow user created content and such. Steam is only a distributor. They have no control over what studios do with their games (FSX:SE being a prime example, as most standard FSX addons work with it).

Will the Orbx scenery be optional? I personally am not a fan of the overly green saturation in their products. Also, I noticed that the top section of this screenshot (http://285.dbd.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/05.jpg) has a sharp change of color. Was this a small editing mistake or is something else causing this?

More like the series "re-imagined," which is exactly what it should be and what we need after 10 years of very little advancement. Automation is great, but it's unlikely that this would work so well due to the nature of addon complexity. There is so much custom work done that it's nearly impossible to account for all potential situations. It will likely yield better results if us developers go through and manually update our products. Breaking backwards compatibility means better tools, better development methods, new technology, and a more efficient work-flow. As someone who has years of experience working with the development tools for FSX/P3D, those thousands of hours can be (somewhat) reduced if modern standards are followed and better tools created. Our hobby is so unique because because it is indeed stuck in the past. People don't like change as nothing much ever changes and when it does, it's usually not good and not enough. The gaming industry is booming around us with some seriously amazing innovations. We need a game company to give a fresh look at this hobby and bring it up to today's standards. Whether or not that will happen is yet to be seen, but it really needs to. The key to success will be providing developers the tools they need to make their products better than ever before. 3D models can have new materials applied, code can be linked to new libraries/APIs (assuming the code is well written and modular), and scenery object/texture references updated and recompiled. We don't need conversion tools to have great content. Sure, we'll have to redo some stuff, but that SHOULD be expected if we're heading in the right direction. In the end, we'll be able to product better content. That's what I (and hopefully other developers) want.

When your tools and development techniques, and rendering techniques (look at what Physically Based Rendering does for Unreal Engine 4) are over 10 years old, you can't move forward. The key to success moving forward is...to move forward - forget the past. Even Prepar3D is still holding developers back and has the same numerous, time consuming quirks that FSX has. Why? It has to support legacy addons. Not having to worry about legacy content will let the platform expand significantly further than ever before. The improvements we'll see from this alone, in theory, should be enough to persuade developers and users to at least give it a try.

A second comparison set is now live - his time, the San Fransisco Bay area. Check the first page of this topic for the full set of images.

I've got a comparison of the first screenshot (https://cdn.shoutlet.com/file/18677/5200637.jpg) in progress currently as we know that it is in the San Fransisco Bay area. I'll post it probably today or tomorrow. The other two from the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article are going to be a bit more difficult to do, as there are no real landmarks in them. Not to mention, they are rather small. I'll have to skip them unless someone recognizes the locations.

In case anyone wants to know where the Outerra screenshot came from, you can find it and a couple other variations here: http://forum.outerra.com/index.php?topic=2109.msg40136#msg40136