I used to switch between Yahoo and Microsoft according to the location: USA was always better with Yahoo, Europe with Microsoft and everywhere else you had to check with FlashEarth to choose the best imagery. Now, most if not all the times Microsoft has better imagery regardless of the location. I believe they are improving constantly the quality, whereas Yahoo is kind of lagging behind. Google has still the best images in certain places, however it can't be used...Do you experience the same?Paolo

I've come to the same conclusion some time ago, yes.

Well, stangely enough, I was thinking just the opposite a few days before... like both services had 'outsourced' their map support to a low bidder in Outer Elbonia that used out of date film salvaged from an underwater wreck... that muddy, gray-green sludgy-looking stuff that has been appearing in more locations recently. But some places are indeed better. It just seems to be hit or miss....But looking at Rudder's issues this evening at KOKV, observe the differences between the two services at that location!Still and all, worldwide, I'd have to give first place kudos to MS.If I could have a wish come true, I'd like to see someone with 'oil money' get really hooked on this product combination( FSX + photo scenery ) and make something happen that we have the technology for but lack any justification for the financing that it would take...Well, maybe by mid-century we'll have 1m for the whole planet and equipment that can display it at reasonable FPS. I'm not holding my breath, of course - I won't be here anymore by then.Loyd

To have a consistent 1m coverage would be simply wonderful... There are places on Earth where the coverage is still extremely poor and that's very sad.Google has still the best images... I wish there was a way to slowly build a giant cache based on google data, to be used locally.Paolo