Isn't the FSX included ground texture set already a 1024x1024 texture covering a 1kmx1km area at a resolution of 1 meter/pixel? Drawing from memory there. I would like to see a few pictures of individual texture files, as seen in TMFViewer, comparing an addon texture to the same FSX default texture. I understand this is an entirely subjective area.

GEX is *way* better than the defaults for the US. It's not just the resolution, it's the color and what's actually in the image itself.

GEX is *way* better than the defaults for the US. It's not just the resolution, it's the color and what's actually in the image itself.

Just to verify, the resolution and coverage per tile/file is the same as default?

Same resolution. It's in the details -- winter "desert-looking" fields, coloration, autogen, blending.scott s..

Just to verify, the resolution and coverage per tile/file is the same as default?

HelloCheck out some screenshots of GEX and then compare to the default, its about more than resolution.More the fact that default FSX has large parts of the world as desert.The only way to fix this is with new textures and landclass.

Same resolution. It's in the details -- winter "desert-looking" fields, coloration, autogen, blending.scott s..

Correct info. I believe the GEX and REX sites show both the default and then their textures which should show the major differences.Jim

HelloCheck out some screenshots of GEX and then compare to the default, its about more than resolution.More the fact that default FSX has large parts of the world as desert.The only way to fix this is with new textures and landclass.

This above is the focus of my problem. I have a set of textures from Adam Mills that have eliminated the infamous desert like appearance we see with pure default textures. I find them to be quite satisfactory. However, if there are markedly better"looking" textures available I would be interested. So with my desert problem overcome the clarity of the a $50 addon product is an interest. From what I am reading the clarity and size of addons are identical to the default stuff. That is why I was interested in seeing the textures compared in TMFViewer. From what I have seen on the vendor sites it looks like the actual "content" of the textures are somewhat better. As an example forested areas are not solid but allow for some less dense areas. Since deserts are fixed with freeware I need to re-look at the vendor's sites pictures. I think my decision will be based on how much closer to reality they come and, of course, the emergence from the recession.THANKS

Almost any payware scenery add-on (whether texture or landclass) is going to be vastly (note emphasis) better than the junk provided by FSX. Road placement, bridges, landclass are improved, to name only a few improvements.