I'm right now flying a float-plane around Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Running AS6.5 driving REX2004---it is a warm 83F with cloudscape beginning to build to what looks like some T-Cells. I can't get over how good and up-to-date, FS9.75 looks! The shallow water and reefs are outstanding! They look exactly like what you see in the region. Since having purchased REX2004, I'm having a ball flying around the Caribbean. Now..back to flying over the coast, heading to the mountains. I enjoy the Dominican Republic in real life...and so this is truly quite fun. Again, I can't believe how just two programs could change the entire look and feel of the the sim. I also have commercial and general A.I. at full 100 percent. The traffic is amazingly dense at every airport, rural and regional. Even at my custom CYYZ (Toronto Pearson) purchased, I am running around with full ...and I mean practically EVERY gate has movement with traffic arriving and departing...at 45-60 FPS. As soon as I start taxiing away from this very detailed and busy-with-traffic CYYZ, I climb right back up to 60 FPS (locked at that) and stay there. This is with REX2004 pumping out beautiful sky and cloudscape (via AS 6.5). Any other operation of the sim keeps me at 60 FPS. Life is good....Post Edit: To myself, FS9.1 was ALWAYS a heavy-metal, FL's simulation. NOT ANY MORE, it isn't! VFR at 3,500-5,500 is totally rock-'n-roll, and just as believable and visually enjoyable as FSX with UT and all the add-on's. I am paused over the west end of the island at 5,500 ASL and G.E. Pro II's forest and brush graphics are simply outstanding. Running under an i7-975/nVidia GTX 285 platform, using VISTA 64 bit...it is completely satisfying. I sure hope that FS2004 developers are catching these comments and KEEP ON DEVELOPING innovations up to the max that FS2004's code can realise. YOU DO THIS...you bring out new programs to squeeze out every drop from FS2004, and I will BUY YOUR PRODUCT. If it is good, if it works as advertised, I WILL BUY YOUR PRODUCT TO SUPPORT YOU!This ISa brand-new version! WOW!Lovin' it.Mitch

rivers running along the mountains should be improved by getting some good mesh for the area. UT places the water accurately so if the mesh isn't accurate you'll have rivers in odd spots...

Does add on mesh affect performance? I'm leery about anything that might affect FPS on my ancient AMD 1.8!Generally misplaced rivers-oops mesh errors- in BC where I fly, are not frequent enough to worry about.Alex Reid

Does add on mesh affect performance? I'm leery about anything that might affect FPS on my ancient AMD 1.8!Generally misplaced rivers-oops mesh errors- in BC where I fly, are not frequent enough to worry about.Alex Reid

well, it can affect performance, although I've never really found it to do so. Holger Sandmans BC sceneries include some nice mesh. Afaic, good mesh is one of the things that can have the most dramatic impact on the visuals in FS - particular if you like mountain flying.

Alex, there used to be some free FSGenesis add on mesh here in the AVSIM library -- whether it's still there after the crash, I don't know, but it may also be available at one of the other sim sites like FlightSim.com. In no uncertain terms, if you're running Ultimate Terrain, you have to have FSGenesis add on mesh! I know you, you'll love it.It shouldn't affect performance -- frankly, I can't believe you're flying low and slow with out it! Prepare yourself: your eyes are about to pop, especially in the Pacific Northwest!

RJ,I have UT-USA installed and I was suffering a CTD when flying into a rectangle WNW of Seattle. This had been bugging me for years but I just avoided the area. In all other respects UT-USA (and UT-Europe) add a lot of realism to flying.A couple of months ago I decided to try and get to the bottom of it. After much experimentation and delecting options in UT it transpired that enabling Streams was the cause of the CTD. Other than that one incident flying around the USA has been problem free for me.The thread is here http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtop...&hl=seattle and the solution is in message #32.

Ray thanks for sharing your CTD issue. I spent most of today researching UT (Ultimate Terrain) for FS9 and now have more questions and concerns.I read many posts over on the "Ultimate Terrain Series For Microsoft Flight Simulator" support forum and actually found your CTD issue.After reading their forums, it raised two more concerns and wonder if anyone could answer.. 1. It appears after installing UT, you can lose a lot of autogen (trees and buildings). How much do you lose?2. After installing UT, some roads now run through the airport. Flight1 says that's because the airport is in the wrong location which is fine... But, I have many custom add-on airports which I can't move. So here is the question which I couldn't find an answer too.... Have you ever seen any roads running through airports and if so, is there anyway of removing the roads using an exclude file? From what I understand, UT uses something called vector scenery which I don't know much about. ThanksRJ

Ray thanks for sharing your CTD issue. I spent most of today researching UT (Ultimate Terrain) for FS9 and now have more questions and concerns.I read many posts over on the "Ultimate Terrain Series For Microsoft Flight Simulator" support forum and actually found your CTD issue.After reading their forums, it raised two more concerns and wonder if anyone could answer.. 1. It appears after installing UT, you can lose a lot of autogen (trees and buildings). How much do you lose?2. After installing UT, some roads now run through the airport. Flight1 says that's because the airport is in the wrong location which is fine... But, I have many custom add-on airports which I can't move. So here is the question which I couldn't find an answer too.... Have you ever seen any roads running through airports and if so, is there anyway of removing the roads using an exclude file? From what I understand, UT uses something called vector scenery which I don't know much about. ThanksRJ

As far as the autogen goes, if I recall correctly, its got to do with the 3d nightlighting which overides the autogen even during the daytime. You can limit the amount of nightlighting in the UT config program so that the effect is minimized. Or, you could turn the nightlighting off entirely for daytime flying and then manually turn it back on if you will be flying in the night. Roads through airports? Havn't seen that. However, I only enable the major roads, not residential (another of the UT config options) so perhaps that helps minimize that issue. Really, UT is a great product. I'm pretty sure you'd find the benefits far outweigh the negatives...

Ray thanks for sharing your CTD issue. I spent most of today researching UT (Ultimate Terrain) for FS9 and now have more questions and concerns.I read many posts over on the "Ultimate Terrain Series For Microsoft Flight Simulator" support forum and actually found your CTD issue.After reading their forums, it raised two more concerns and wonder if anyone could answer.. 1. It appears after installing UT, you can lose a lot of autogen (trees and buildings). How much do you lose?2. After installing UT, some roads now run through the airport. Flight1 says that's because the airport is in the wrong location which is fine... But, I have many custom add-on airports which I can't move. So here is the question which I couldn't find an answer too.... Have you ever seen any roads running through airports and if so, is there anyway of removing the roads using an exclude file? From what I understand, UT uses something called vector scenery which I don't know much about. ThanksRJ

Hi RJ,I see you've already had a reply about losing trees and buildings. As someone who flies IFR I'm not aware that UT made any significant difference but I did buy it around 4-5 years ago so my memory is a little rusty. The advantages far outweigh any disadvantages which are minimal or nil. There are no FR hits that I can see.Regarding roads running across airports you should remember UT is a well established product with several bug fixes. The only time I saw this problem was at Manchester, England in FSX where (in the real world) the road goes underneath the two runways in a tunnel but FSX showed the traffic on the surface. UT provided a process that allowed users to report these anomalies and they were fixed in later releases. No doubt other such anomalies will have been reported and fixed. I haven't seen this problem with any of the 3rd party airprots I've bought and I have quite a few.These type of problems are few and far between now and should not be considered a reason not to buy it. UT enhances FS quite considerably and should be considered mandatory for serious flyers. I'd give it an unqualifed recommendation. :(

Hi RJ,I see you've already had a reply about losing trees and buildings. As someone who flies IFR I'm not aware that UT made any significant difference but I did buy it around 4-5 years ago so my memory is a little rusty. The advantages far outweigh any disadvantages which are minimal or nil. There are no FR hits that I can see.Regarding roads running across airports you should remember UT is a well established product with several bug fixes. The only time I saw this problem was at Manchester, England in FSX where (in the real world) the road goes underneath the two runways in a tunnel but FSX showed the traffic on the surface. UT provided a process that allowed users to report these anomalies and they were fixed in later releases. No doubt other such anomalies will have been reported and fixed. I haven't seen this problem with any of the 3rd party airprots I've bought and I have quite a few.These type of problems are few and far between now and should not be considered a reason not to buy it. UT enhances FS quite considerably and should be considered mandatory for serious flyers. I'd give it an unqualifed recommendation. :(

Ok thanks again Zevious Zoquis and Ray...I've read all the reivews and guess it's time to buy...As for the road issue at airports, it might just be related to FSX and not the FS9 version.http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=31568Would be kinda funny seeing moving cars crossing the runway. :( Thanks again...RJ

Alex, there used to be some free FSGenesis add on mesh here in the AVSIM library -- whether it's still there after the crash, I don't know, but it may also be available at one of the other sim sites like FlightSim.com. In no uncertain terms, if you're running Ultimate Terrain, you have to have FSGenesis add on mesh! I know you, you'll love it.It shouldn't affect performance -- frankly, I can't believe you're flying low and slow with out it! Prepare yourself: your eyes are about to pop, especially in the Pacific Northwest!

But I already have high resolution- as far as my eyes/brain are concerned- they are viewing a single scene @ 3072 x 768 !What would add on mesh accomplish here? Perhaps I misunderstand what mesh is all about. Old too soon I'm afraid.Alex Reid

But I already have high resolution- as far as my eyes/brain are concerned- they are viewing a single scene @ 3072 x 768 !What would add on mesh accomplish here? Perhaps I misunderstand what mesh is all about. Old too soon I'm afraid.Alex Reid

Hello Alex Good mesh will give you more accurate terrain elevation Loook at this screenshot at LOWI and then go there in your sim, notice the mountains?http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=268995See also here:http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk/eld.htm

But I already have high resolution- as far as my eyes/brain are concerned- they are viewing a single scene @ 3072 x 768 !What would add on mesh accomplish here? Perhaps I misunderstand what mesh is all about. Old too soon I'm afraid.Alex Reid

the monitor resolution has nothing to do with the resolution of the elements contained within FS. Higher resolution mesh will give you more accurate terrain elevation so that the valleys are in the right spots (thus resolving the rivers up the mountainside issue) and the mountains look less like rolling hills and more like craggy, rugged mountains.

the monitor resolution has nothing to do with the resolution of the elements contained within FS. Higher resolution mesh will give you more accurate terrain elevation so that the valleys are in the right spots (thus resolving the rivers up the mountainside issue) and the mountains look less like rolling hills and more like craggy, rugged mountains.

What he said! Alex, the Rockies don't look nearly as "rocky" with default FS9 mesh as they do with FSGenesis! It will blow you away!

the monitor resolution has nothing to do with the resolution of the elements contained within FS. Higher resolution mesh will give you more accurate terrain elevation so that the valleys are in the right spots (thus resolving the rivers up the mountainside issue) and the mountains look less like rolling hills and more like craggy, rugged mountains.

Thanks Zevious- Then if each monitor pixel remains same size, would I be correct that higher resolution mesh merely changes the colour of individual pixels to more accurately create the illusion of depth, height etc ? Does the CPU have a greater load in computing these new colour variations? Does a low monitor resolution work against the potential of the mesh to create this illusion?Afraid I'm in the category of "Old too soon, smart too late!"Alex Reid

Thanks Zevious- Then if each monitor pixel remains same size, would I be correct that higher resolution mesh merely changes the colour of individual pixels to more accurately create the illusion of depth, height etc ? Does the CPU have a greater load in computing these new colour variations? Does a low monitor resolution work against the potential of the mesh to create this illusion?Afraid I'm in the category of "Old too soon, smart too late!"Alex Reid

Hello JanuaryNo you are mistaken, higher resolution mesh creates higher resolution terrain (not colours)In the default mesh the data points are around 1200 mtrs apart, in most addon mesh the data points are 75mtrs apartImagine a sheet of wire mesh material wrapped around the world, now pull this mesh up into an accurate the shape of the worlds terrain.Now from this you will be able to visualize that a wire mesh with intersections at 1200 mtrs will give a more rounded less accurate terrainthan a wire mesh with intersections 75 meters apart.That put simply is meshSee here for a more graphic explanation:http://www.abacuspub.com/catalog/s544.htm

Hello JanuaryNo you are mistaken, higher resolution mesh creates higher resolution terrain (not colours)In the default mesh the data points are around 1200 mtrs apart, in most addon mesh the data points are 75mtrs apartImagine a sheet of wire mesh material wrapped around the world, now pull this mesh up into an accurate the shape of the worlds terrain.Now from this you will be able to visualize that a wire mesh with intersections at 1200 mtrs will give a more rounded less accurate terrainthan a wire mesh with intersections 75 meters apart.That put simply is meshSee here for a more graphic explanation:http://www.abacuspub.com/catalog/s544.htm

Yes I understand, mad dog: much like building model train scenery with either coarse hardware cloth vs fine fly screen. But presumably the mesh could be no finer than 1 pixel. I have all along assumed that 1 pixel WAS the size of the default scenery mesh.For fun, I flew out of Innsbruck to replicate the Abacus screen shots in the website you noted. I found considerably more detail than their default scenery but a fair bit less than their mesh enhanced scenery. As I would expect since I have GE adding detail in my views.A surprise was that my FS default mountains in British Columbia seem to be just as craggy and in similar detail to the mesh enhanced mountains at Innsbruck. Would GE make this difference? Is there a difference in FS default mesh between BC and Europe?Seeing the Innsbruck enhanced mesh mountains leaves me pretty happy to stay as is!--------------------One interesting sidelight is this experiment: Flying along between mountains near Squamish BC: the mountain scenery, with integrated triple views, is quite spectacular and detailed. After 3 or 4 minutes, suddenly turn off the power to the outer mons/views and revert instantly to single View Fwd. The quality of the scenery diminishes - not nearly as appealing and seems to have less detail. I assume this is because the eyes are now narrowly focused and are detecting the scenery mesh gaps. With triple views and pixels, the eyes and brain fail to see the coarseness of the default mesh. Something like staring at the wide, dark sky and not being able to spot Polaris! The effect is so pronounced that I'm inclined to not worry about enhanced mesh!Alex Reid