J.P.

Well, actually, in real life, VFR flying is done mostly by roads, railways, rivers, urban shapes (especially at night, which X-Plane 10 does much better than anything before) and antennas. What you want, I think, is sightseeing. X-Plane 10 does a really good job for VFR. As for the devs adding more custom scenery, I hate to disappoint you again, but that is highly unlikely. In the past Laminar has always focused on improving the base product while leaving most of the artwork to 3rd parties (private and commercial). Don't worry, you're not cheating. Any real life pilot does the same thing. Improving VFR accuracy with available Navaids (even GPS) is common practice in aviation.

To the OP:To be completely honest, I'll have to tell you it doesn't get any better than the demo area unless you are willing to enhance the Software with 3rd party scenery.I like to fly in weird locations (Africa, India, Nepal) and often see urban road grids with no buildings. Autogen Density set to maximum (whatever that setting is called since 10.04b6). X-Plane scenery is generated from OSM data. That means plausibility but no landmarks. I'd still highly recommend the sim, just don't want anybody to have a disappointment when they buy it.My advice is to go out and look for some custom scenery. There is tons of really good free stuff available...Okay, here it goes: ...especially at the .org :(

The almighty Lord works in mysterious ways... :(

Aw... man! Silly me! Looks like I forgot my wallet at home this Sunday...

Well, I am not a pro, but I would think that the game-engine as a whole (not just graphics engine) including the way it is setup (favoring a certain play style) would need to be changed heavily to accommodate serious simming. I agree, the graphics-engine in terms of performance and looks is marvelous. No, I fear not (as in I agree). I was merely giving personal advice as to what one could do. Obviously, FSX and previous versions down to FS'95 remain an option. I thought it was quite "arcade-gaming" like. Maybe just my impression...

After checking out MS Flight today I decided to get in touch with my religious self - here on the forum! :Praying:We should all realize how lucky we truly are. We have a wonderful simulator which is designed from the ground up to cater to the needs of the serious flight simming enthusiast. It has:- Worldwide scenery down to the roads.- Effectively every Airport and Navaid available in real life.- Beautiful visuals.- Great flight physics modeling giving the dynamic, lively and almost realistic impression of controlling an aircraft.- An honest, fair and straight up business model.- Ongoing and very dedicated support with significant improvements almost weekly.So, I want to publicly praise the Lord for X-Plane and thank Laminar for providing such an outstanding piece of software!If you feel so good about X-Plane that you want to get religious (especially in the face of MS Flight), join my thread. :(

Well, after checking it out today I will say that, apart from Flight displeasing me overall as a concept, I can put my finger on the following issues.- Flight dynamics. I'm not usually one to complain about flight models and get into the nitty gritty, but Flights aerodynamic behavior is ridiculously simplified.- Flight is built from the ground up to be handled as a game with silly missions. It is not a simulator with the option of doing missions, it is a platform for them.- Microsoft said it would please both casual users and simmers. They lied! Flight will not please serious simmers without major modifications to its engine.However, there are some things I like about the game:- Performance. It looks real nice while running silky smooth on my Core2Duo 2.7 GHz and 460GTX with highest settings.- Really, there only is this one thing I like about Flight...Overall, I think it is safe to say that Microsoft is going "softcore" with Flight. To me, this resembles the general trend in entertainment software. I have seen many excellent series go down the drain because Corporate Commander wanted to make more dollars by expanding a franchises target audience, effectively gutting the poor game from everything that gave it character and made it popular to start with. Here are just a few examples, perhaps some of you will recognize them:- Operation Flashpoint - Silent Hunter Series- Comanche Series- many more...This is why I fear that Microsoft is not seriously planning on satisfying the core audience which has been following the Flight Simulator franchise for over 15 years. I think they will keep saying: "Sure, our product pleases even true flight simmers", gladly taking their money but causing nothing but disappointment.So, don't get your hopes up. My advice: Try X-Plane! Its here to stay and to evolve while Flight in all likelihood won't change.

Hi,I have ported Jaques Braults nice DC-6 from version 8.64 to v.10 by first letting v.9 Planemaker convert the file from 8 to 9 and then letting v.10 Planemaker do the rest. Had to do some minor stuff manually to make it work but its good now... for the most part. I still have one problem:The landing lights won't show up. The switch is present and there is a slot assigned to the landing light in the appropriate menu in planemaker, but it won't light up. Strobes, Beacon and NAVs do work, although they won't light up the fuselage (should they not do that automatically with version 10's global lighting?).Any ideas. Appreciate any help :-)Thanks

Hi, while I do agree that the UI is perhaps not the *most* pressing issue X-Plane 10 should be improved on, I would like to give my 2c's.Here are a few items which I have been missing from the UI.- An out of sim flight setup screen. I would like to be able to choose Aircraft and Airport prior to firing X-Plane up. That way one would avoid load screens which appear every time you change something in sim.- An auto-generated moving map which plausibly mimiks VFR and IFR charts and can be viewed without pausing the sim. Perhaps even on a separate monitor. It should be optional to not have any indication on aircraft position on the map, so one could use it to practice navigation. The map could be auto generated from the X-Plane terrain and nav database.- A flight planning tool!!! It should be able to spit out the usual stuff (ETE, Fuel, etc.) for each leg and could easily compute these things by looking at the X-Plane nav database and the .acf selected.While this is really more an addition of features rather than a streamlining of the UI for the most part, I do think those things would make sense to have. Agree?

Sure man, no need to beat a dead horse. :(

deleted

Here you go:http://www.x-plane.com/downloads/dvd-installation/

Interesting! From reading around the Linux forums I did get the impression that there is a general consensus amongst the Linux crowd to stay away from ATI cards. My understanding is that, while ATI cards are catching up, they still have a lot to improve on as some problems continue to persist. I can't personally comment on it, but the issue does seem to pop up into discussion rather often.

From my experience, the difference in V.10 is much more noticeable than it was in V.9. I didn't touch the driver settings. I just had Ubuntu grab what it said was the most current NVidia driver it had access to on its software server. Perhaps choosing drivers in a more intelligent manner will give better performance?Which alternatives are there to choose from, how do I get them and which are you using?Also, would you give us more detailed information on your settings and your system specs?Thanks

No, both OS'es in default konfiguration. Windows Aero and whatever Ubuntu does by default were active during the test. Overall, nothing fancy was done here. No tuning of either of the OS'es, no customization. Everything "out of the box".