...anyways, it's possible, but not with "replacing default textures."

Yes, this is true. I got this very same idea long ago and actually tried to change some of the default textures to try it out. I changed a bunch of them to 512x512, but it didn't work. Default textures are limited in size, just like Feng wrote. Unfortunately. Regards,Jure

pictures say a 1000 words right?Here's a 1:1 image of a GEPRO texture. You can see that at 256x256, the details pretty much hit a wall. You can't get any more detailed than this. The only way is to remove the default tile and mesh, and replace them with a new mesh and new textures. Once you do this, you can by-pass the 256 limitation....and map the ground texture with whatever resolution you want. Default textures also allow you to tile; thus saving memory. Photo-scenery can't be tiled. Each is a crop of a 256 texture. Thus, they have high memory requirements and take forever to load. This image should clear it up. So yeah, possible...but LOTS of work...-feng

Good job, Feng! I was just going to write something like that myself.Les, the screenshot in this thread does not show global generic ground textures (like default, Lennart's, BEV or GE are).It shows a specific addon photoreal scenery. It is made of aerial photos of a particular small area. This is, like FengZ explained, in a much higher resolution, but also takes a lot of memory. Not only because of the resolution but also because each photo-tile is different and not autoreplicating (Feng has drawn it very nicely).Mr Razek is a master of such sceneries. I'm quite surprised he is offering his work for free (yes, there are still such great guys around!).You can watch and get many of his BlueSkyScenery addons here: http://www.blueskyscenery.com/If you like the one from the example, please get his Los Angeles Downtown and fly there with a slow GA plane. You will be shocked how good it looks:http://www.blueskyscenery.com/images/LAX_C...AX_Central1.jpgBut see the size of the packages: usually between 50 and 100 MB each. To cover much of the state of California with his photoscenery, you'd need a huuuuge amount of space (I'm using only the ones for the L.A. area).One of the (very few) things which I actually see as advantage of FSX over FS9 is much higher ground textures resolution.That's why generic tiles (also GE) look like this:http://www.flight1.com/images/gexeurope/gexeurope4.jpgI'm staying with FS9 of course, sharing the same love for it like all of you and enjoying the same great addons we discuss here in the forum.But I'm aware of some limitations (same for terrain mesh, or cloud shadows - hello, Tim!) FS9 has and no-one will be able to jump over them.All in all even the best (FSX) generic ground textures will never give such realistic feeling like you get in such top-notch photoscenery (BSS for instance).The reason is they are always generic. And here we have a complete set showing a city or any other area type exactly AS IT IS.A problem for photoscenery is its being FLAT. Great from a distance but not so great (at least for me) when you come closer.That's why some developers cover photoscenery with hand-placed autogen objects or even custom made buildings (look at Vienna from Austria Professional for example). http://www.aerosoft.de/shop-rd/bilder/scre...triaprox_17.jpgTo have the whole FS world like this would be a dream of every simmer. But it's impossible for one things it's over 500 million square kilometres to cover (forget the milliards of buildings). And even the fact that three quarters of our planet are covered with water, does not make it an easier task. :(

The more I look at this picture the more it's obvious that HD textures in city areas is very possible in FS9. What are your framerates and load times for this scenery? Load times won't be an issue with an add-on covering only city areas. This looks like a promising prospect...

Hi Les,It doesn't take any more time to load on my system. In fact, I'd say I get better performance out of it than with default scenery, since there isn't any autogen. From what I recall the maker of the scenery placed a new layer on top of the default and just put real high quality satellite imagery on it. I could be wrong on that however, since it was awhile ago. The best advice I can give is download it and try it out! http://www.blueskyscenery.com/It's definitely possible, in my opinion. It'd just be a pain with the autogen and airports I think, since they're on a seperate layer.

Good job, Feng! I was just going to write something like that myself.Les, the screenshot in this thread does not show global generic ground textures (like default, Lennart's, BEV or GE are).It shows a specific addon photoreal scenery. It is made of aerial photos of a particular small area. This is, like FengZ explained, in a much higher resolution, but also takes a lot of memory. Not only because of the resolution but also because each photo-tile is different and not autoreplicating (Feng has drawn it very nicely).Mr Razek is a master of such sceneries. I'm quite surprised he is offering his work for free (yes, there are still such great guys around!).You can watch and get many of his BlueSkyScenery addons here: http://www.blueskyscenery.com/If you like the one from the example, please get his Los Angeles Downtown and fly there with a slow GA plane. You will be shocked how good it looks:http://www.blueskyscenery.com/images/LAX_C...AX_Central1.jpgBut see the size of the packages: usually between 50 and 100 MB each. To cover much of the state of California with his photoscenery, you'd need a huuuuge amount of space (I'm using only the ones for the L.A. area).One of the (very few) things which I actually see as advantage of FSX over FS9 is much higher ground textures resolution.That's why generic tiles (also GE) look like this:http://www.flight1.com/images/gexeurope/gexeurope4.jpgI'm staying with FS9 of course, sharing the same love for it like all of you and enjoying the same great addons we discuss here in the forum.But I'm aware of some limitations (same for terrain mesh, or cloud shadows - hello, Tim!) FS9 has and no-one will be able to jump over them.All in all even the best (FSX) generic ground textures will never give such realistic feeling like you get in such top-notch photoscenery (BSS for instance).The reason is they are always generic. And here we have a complete set showing a city or any other area type exactly AS IT IS.A problem for photoscenery is its being FLAT. Great from a distance but not so great (at least for me) when you come closer.That's why some developers cover photoscenery with hand-placed autogen objects or even custom made buildings (look at Vienna from Austria Professional for example). http://www.aerosoft.de/shop-rd/bilder/scre...triaprox_17.jpgTo have the whole FS world like this would be a dream of every simmer. But it's impossible for one things it's over 500 million square kilometres to cover (forget the milliards of buildings). And even the fact that three quarters of our planet are covered with water, does not make it an easier task. :(

Hello Great explanations from yourself and FengBut you are talking about Worldwide scenery, Les is only asking for the Citys to be in high res, would this not be possible?

Maddog,I think what Feng is saying is that every individual city texture tile would have to be plotted, and the mesh underlying it made more high density, and then a new higher density texture applied, so there is no way to AUTOMATE the process with a single program. Also as you know different textures are placed according to whatever landclass you have installed, so two users could end up with very different results.The best we could hope for is someone doing a single city and then we as end users gathering them together, much like we do with add-on airports etc...Also, thank you Feng for that explanation.

This makes a lot of sense, actually...NL2000, a massive project that maps the entire Netherlands in photoreal ground textures with all airports and custom buildings across all major Dutch cities, indeed is a bit of a frame hog. Flying over the NL2000 scenery, low and slow, the detail is good enough for me to see my own house amidst the flurry of orange roofs. Try this at night, with the extra "night scenery" layer enabled, and you'll see how the computer really struggles to keep up with the loading of new tiles. It sure is a beautiful scenery, without a doubt, but it can hurt the FPS in nasty ways. Of course, if you fly over more isolated terrain (not Schiphol airport), FPS rise again, but still. It's not the best.That said, NL2000 is not going off my hard drive.

For me personally, photo scenery isn't any kind of a solution. I've downloaded a few packages over the years and I just don't like the way it looks. I like autogen, and I can't stand the way the shadows that are part of the photo texture are (obviously) stuck at one orientation. Plus I just find it looks weird at low altitudes and I'm primarily a GA guy...High res ground textures isn't something that "has to happen" for me. Ftmp I don't mind the textures as they are with GE Pro...if higher res is possible in some way without resorting to photo textures then great but otherwise I"m not real worried about it.

I think there is a way developers can do but this process will require a lot of time and investment. Look at some of best Aerosoft Mega Airports series, the ground details just around the terminal areas are simply fantastic in my opinion. Now just think a moment if the whole fs2004 world was covered with the same kind of ground details, it would be just a revival for fs2004. Those ground textures are like a thousands times better than GEpro2.

I think there is a way developers can do but this process will require a lot of time and investment. Look at some of best Aerosoft Mega Airports series, the ground details just around the terminal areas are simply fantastic in my opinion. Now just think a moment if the whole fs2004 world was covered with the same kind of ground details, it would be just a revival for fs2004. Those ground textures are like a thousands times better than GEpro2.

I believe you should read the explanations posted above :(

I looked at the BlueSky LA City High Res, and what it looks like he is doing is to provide a mesh file for the area, then he tiles it into 612x676 meter tiles (dimensions is probably a function of latitude). He creates a flatten for each tile so that it is a plane. finally he places a textured polygon on the flatten. You could use something like GMAX with the FS2k2 gamepack for this. The textures are 512x512, so the actual resolution is about 1m/pixel (about the same as FSX). If you had higher resolution source data, I guess you could use 1024x1024 textures for example. The BlueSky is photo texture, so it's only day/summer. I guess you could do something like this but with a generic city texture, but it won't blend on the edges like landclass textures do so you would have to figure out how to match the edges so the seam isn't obvious. You would still need to develop the flattens so the polys sit flat on the ground. It might only be really accurate at one lat band, or you would get stretching/shrinking.At one time I think there was a tool created by some guy in France called texpoly or something like that. If you provided the source mesh data and a photo it could automate the flatten and poly creation process.scott s..

I know that this is for FSX, but maybe guys can do it for FS2004, with smaller resolution.http://fullterrain.com/

I know that this is for FSX, but maybe guys can do it for FS2004, with smaller resolution.http://fullterrain.com/

You read my mind.Unfortunately the fs 2004 has a limited platform. That's why I stick with FSX.Watch out for PNW. It's coming soon.

Or look at those guys, they make scenery's for FS9 and FSX. They look great!http://www.windowlight.co.nz/