Have a look here!http://www.fsgateway.net/Probably 100 new screen shots of FS2004.The water, clouds, sunsets and aircraft reflections look amazing :)Matthew.

Just love these shot (copy/paste and remove trailing underscore)1) Look at the green taxi way lights, color of the sky and mountains in the background, just great! :)http://www.fsgateway.net/espremier/images/premier05.jpg_ 2) Nice water!!! :)http://www.fsgateway.net/aerocommander/images/ac07.jpg_Matthew

Man Oh Man! I have never seen default FS Scenery that good! I love FS2004! FS2002 run great with mid sliders on my system, hopefully mid sliders on FS2004 will run just as great!Regards,Bill

I like the water color and texture. One water shot has 4 or 5 torpedo shaped thingies in it. Any guess what they are? Just upgraded my poor old 800mhz to a 2.53 so I can crank up the scenery and see those torpedo shaped thingies, should would like to know what I spent all this money to look at:-hmmm

Photograph???_http://www.fsgateway.net/espremier/images/premier11.jpg_July can't come soon enough. Even IF it means new hardware. :)-Greg

>Man Oh Man! I have never seen default FS Scenery that good! With default scenery that good I can save my money on TP mesh etc.Bill

FYI site has been updated, mega review just posted on the MelJet 777.---Banners? We don't need no stinkin' banners!---Visualize FSGateway/ProjectAI sig banner here

The airport scenery and clouds look great...but the frame rates are awful. I hope that it gets improved before final. :(

I would also point out (on the first pic) absolutely perfect sky with its color properly modulating while moving closer to the horizon.On the other hand I think that those taxiway/runway lights still look like blurry blobs. I am afraid FLY! had those lights done best.Michael J.

>The airport scenery and clouds look great...but the frame>rates are awful. I hope that it gets improved before final. >:(I'm sure they will be as the Press copy is not the gold release. I might add the frames (personally I don't look at them any more) although "average" were sliky smoooth with no stutters nor blurries.If it's fluid, who cares what the frames are IMOHO.---Banners? We don't need no stinkin' banners!---Visualize FSGateway/ProjectAI sig banner here

I've been reading so much about people's concerns with fluidity and framerates on FS2004, just want to weigh in here on this. I suppose at the end of the day its just my informed opinion that I offer in a friendly way, so please no flames back...Fluidity is great, no question about it. But if you don't have a sufficiently frequent updating of what you see on the screen in relation to the movement of your aircraft you simply can't fly realistically. A fast, fluid slideshow may move smoothly, but if there's significant motion going on between each image you see on screen than it simply isn't a realistic, controlled flying experience that approximates the subtleties of real flight and the interaction of control motions to aircraft response. There's more than visual fluidity to be considered- what your eye sees is certainly part of it, but the motion it can't see is another very big factor.Many studies have shown (and various articles in the two big flight sim magazines have concurred) that anything less than 25-30 FPS may be smooth, but it isn't real. I too hope that FS2004 permits us to enjoy all these great graphics at framrate that simulates flying, rather than game play. The chance that any great improvement will take place between what they are sending to the press now and final release is slim- mostly bug fixes as the underlying code is at this time pretty fixed and probably optimized as much as its gonna get...Best,Joel

Right on the money!

I think the point it this...The FS2004 developers are not stupid and realise that FS2004 is CPU & GPU intensive and will try to optimize as much as possible.I think take fact should give us comfort!Basically, FS2004 is complex and the gold release will work maybe 95% efficiently as it can.If we want faster frame rates than either we upgrade to a faster computer or scale down the display (and other) options.In other words we shouldn't expect something (ie better graphics) for nothing.Just my opinion of course :)Matthew.

Those shots look awesome, but I hope they fix the problem with extreme mip mapping on distant clouds. If you look at some of the most distant clouds in these shots they are rendered with very low resolution and in some cases it spoils the effect. Perhaps this will be adjustable.

Great pictures, but as I much as I don't want to do to this to such a good looking product, I must.I sure hope they include a "switch" to turn that damned "lens flare" off on outside views.While I admit it adds reality to a picture/photograph, when I zoom around outside that plane I want to feel like I have a bird's view, not a camera's view.Further, photograph artists today universally place synthetic lens flares of just the right size and intensity, and at just the right place to enhance their pictures. They are almost never used just from what you get from the camera lens any more. They are covered up, reproduced and modified as desired in programs like Photoshop.Bob (Lecanto, Fl)AMD, Athlon XP, 1800+MSI, K7T266 XP ProPC 2100 DDR, 1024 MBXP, Home Edition Elsa GLadiac 920, GF3/64Mb andPNY, Verto nVidia TNT 2-M64/32WD, 100 MB, 7200, Ultra 100Sound Blaster, Audigy MP3+CH Prod, VPP Yoke - Sound CardCH Prod, Pedals - Sound Card