Daikan

Unless MSFS2020 delivers similar or better flight dynamics realism than X-Plane, add efficient VR support without the need for stupid touch controllers and provide a reasonable level of openness allowing users and third parties to create and tweak the most important aspects of the sim (including aircraft, scenery and terrain mesh) I will be rather hard-pressed in letting it waste any amount of storage on my local disk.

Orbx True Earth autogen/overlay is certainly not hand placed - at least not in 99.9% of cases. AFAIK it is placed according to available GIS datasets using an advanced, proprietary version of World2XPlane. The following topic explains why the (extracted) default autogen is not a good match for orthophoto meshes: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/124771-know-how-where-forests-do-come-from-in-x-plane/ PS: I realize the above applies only to X-Plane while this topic is about FSX/P3D - apologies for that. However, I suppose it might still be useful to know, so I'm leaving it in.

That won't work. All extracted overlays need to be in their own scenery folder (containing a subfolder "Earth nav data") prioritized right above the zOrtho_* folders.

Extracting overlays is a separate step that can be run in via tile collection window. No need to start again.

Did you extract overlays?

You don't have to compile anything - that's the whole point with Python scripts. To be able to run the .py you just need to install a Python runtime and a few modules as described in the official Ortho4XP installation manual.

https://github.com/oscarpilote/Ortho4XP/issues/85#issuecomment-513562309

The overpass API servers are frequently overloaded. Consider donating to the OpenStreetMap Foundation to help with covering operational costs and improving server capacity.

For the original (X-Plane) version I doubt this will ever happen as there are tools like World2XPlane or OSM2XP for that purpose. I have no idea what exists for FSX/P3D though.

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/175855-trouble-help-me-see-what-the-problem-is/&do=findComment&comment=1629053

Lines containing "I/SCN: DSF load time:" will be written to the log.txt after each DSF has finished loading.

Most are hidden in the UI because they are already part of combined providers like "EUR" and "NO". https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/162320-question-on-providers-in-130 https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/165736-missing-source-providers

That's because in X-Plane tiles are grouped into folders of 10x10 degrees and the folder uses the "bottom left" tile coordinate of the group as a convention. However, this can be configured in the .lay file of the provider i.e. for Bing (BI.lay) simply change line #3 to "imagery_dir=normal".

What happens when you run the "Build Overlays" step? Including X-Plane's log.txt might be helpful, too.

I couldn't find any public and machine-readable data source but IMO it's pretty straightforward to create it manually as there aren't that many data points really. As an example I'm attaching a navdata XML (FMC schema) which I made for the "whiskey" approach route for LSZH for the use with WorldTraffic (containing some additional, inofficial waypoints for the various circuit legs in this case) Given the lack of a comprehensive, global data source I'd propose a solution where the user would be given the option to import this kind of data for whichever airports he or she is able to either obtain or create it - assuming the program is capable of making sense of it.

Potential new customer here. I fly almost exclusively VFR in Europe and I wanted to ask if there have been any improvements made regarding support for VFR reporting points including official VFR departure/arrival routes? For me it is essential to be able to follow official VFR procedures for entering/transitioning/leaving controlled airspace via standard routes if they are published in the VAC (visual approach charts) like for example in case of LSZH these are the routes W, S, E (see http://www.vacc.ch/file/36). The typical phraseology for a direct handover by the area FIS/FSS providing VFR flight following in class G airspace onto tower for a visual approach using standard route S on LSZH rwy 28 would be something along these lines: Zurich Info: <Callsign>, Contact Zurich Tower on 118.10, have a good day Pilot: <Readback> Pilot: Zurich Tower, <Callsign>, Approaching S at 4000ft for landing Tower: <Callsign>, Zurich Tower, enter CTR via route S, expect landing rwy 28, QNH 1019 Pilot: <Readback> Pilot: <Callsign>, W1 3500ft Tower: Roger <Callsign> Pilot: <Callsign> W2 3000ft Tower: <Callsign>, join left hand downwind rwy 28, report final rwy 28 Pilot: <Readback> Pilot: <Callsign>, final rwy 28 Tower: <Callsign> wind 250 degrees 2 knots, cleared to land rwy 28 Pilot: <Readback> Is this currently possible? Thanks.

Just wondering: Is it possible to evaluate the product before actually purchasing a serial key? I downloaded 1.7 and it seems I'm not able to get past the registration screen...

A nice explanation regarding the INMARSAT Doppler calculations that ultimately led to the exclusion of the northern path: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-404.html#post8400078

Found the solution: In the Catalyst Control Center I had to go into Desktops and Displays -> My Digital Flat-Panels -> Properties -> "Enable GPU scaling" and select "Scale image to full panel size"

Hi there, I'm currently evaluating the latest XP10 demo and I'm having a problem/question regarding fullscreen mode. In order to gain some FPS I would like to run the simulation at a non-default resolution (e.g. slightly lower than the monitor's default) but still in fullscreen. In the Rendering Options I therefore select "run full-screen at this resolution" and "1600x900" (for example) instead of "Default Monitor Settings". My desktop is set to 1920x1080. However, all my attempts so far resulted in the game being rendered inside a centered sub-portion of the screen e.g. surrounded with an ugly frame. My expectation was that the rendering should automatically be stretched to fit the screen (resulting in slightly bigger pixels). Isn't that how it's supposed to work? If so, what am I doing wrong? My setup: Win7 64bit, 3.0GHz, 6GB RAM Sapphire ATI Radeon 6870 HD 1GB w/ latest drivers (Catalyst 12.8) Any input is greatly appreciated!