Hello I hope that I am in the right forum for my question.I have FSX running in Windows Vista 64Bit built by the Folks at Jetliners.I am debating adding either FS Gobal 2008 or FScene4X total. The Reviews out there praise both products but there is a little confusion between scenery and terrain.My questions is "do you need either product or both to improve on FSX scenery for IFR as well VFR flights?".Can someone elaborate on the real differences between these products and similar products.I like to fly all over the globe.Thanks very much in advanceBill Hagag

FSGlobal upgrades mesh ie. countours of the Earth. An good alternative for it is FSGenesis. Either one of them is essential (IMO).I wouldn

Products of Ultimate Terrain -series are also great, especially for VFR flying.

Agreed, I highly recommend Ultimate Terrain. A 'must have' IMO.I use FS Genesis mesh as well.

Very simply:Can you live with rounded-off mountains, or massive deserts?If you don't mind vague-looking mountains, then you want a scenery package.If you are fine with lots of desert in remote areas, then you want a terrain package.If niether bothers you, then you want for nothing.Pound for pound, I would suggest that a good terrain mesh helps flight sim more than a good scenery texture package. The FSX scenery tiles are specifically designed to be as generic as possible. While most texture packages offer more realistic textures, sometimes you might run across a texture that offends your aesthetic sensibility. At least, that's been my experience. However, there are two big caveats to that:1) FSX already has a lot of decent terrain mesh. It's much better than FS9. A lot of updated terrain mesh is close to or identical to the FSX mesh, especially in North America. That being said, many terrain meshes may cause strange plateaus and valleys where FSX expects to use flat surfaces, i.e. water and airports.2) No matter how ugly a texture package looks, if it gets rid of the worldwide desert issue, then you might feel you gaining value with the add-on. If you find a texture add-on that you can live with, then you might be happier with that than a mesh.That probably makes your choice as clear as mud, but it can be a complicated issue.Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Very simply:Can you live with rounded-off mountains, or massive deserts?If you don't mind vague-looking mountains, then you want a scenery package.If you are fine with lots of desert in remote areas, then you want a terrain package.If niether bothers you, then you want for nothing.Pound for pound, I would suggest that a good terrain mesh helps flight sim more than a good scenery texture package. The FSX scenery tiles are specifically designed to be as generic as possible. While most texture packages offer more realistic textures, sometimes you might run across a texture that offends your aesthetic sensibility. At least, that's been my experience. However, there are two big caveats to that:1) FSX already has a lot of decent terrain mesh. It's much better than FS9. A lot of updated terrain mesh is close to or identical to the FSX mesh, especially in North America. That being said, many terrain meshes may cause strange plateaus and valleys where FSX expects to use flat surfaces, i.e. water and airports.2) No matter how ugly a texture package looks, if it gets rid of the worldwide desert issue, then you might feel you gaining value with the add-on. If you find a texture add-on that you can live with, then you might be happier with that than a mesh.That probably makes your choice as clear as mud, but it can be a complicated issue.Jeff ShylukSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

Thank you Guys for your inputs.I do Appreciate it. It is a lot clearer now.Jeff I hope to see you in Chicago in OctoberBill Hagag