I just purchased and downloaded FSGeneis' USA LandClass.It was a self extracting and installing file.I'll be very honest, I can't tell that much difference. I also have FSGenesis Mesh Terrain installed. If this sounds like heresy, I do not intend for it to be.Where; in the FS2004 directories did the USA landclass install itself? I want to go there and see if it really is in FS2004. I'm sure it said where it was installing it to during installation but I am unable to remember _exactly_ where it said.Thanks,DonaldS

Don, Look in Scenery/Base there should be a folder FSGDocs Also, in Scenery/Base/Scenery there should be a file fsglc_us.bgl The changes in some areas are rather subtle but do make a difference. Hope this helps. BTW, how do you like the FSGenesis Mesh?Fred

I have Landclass as well as the 38m terrain installed for the whole of the U.S. In what I've seen so far, the differences range from so subtle you question your purchase to very unmistakable changes; but all for the better I think. And the uninstall runs right from the start menu under FSGenesis. My only concern was the initial download. All in all, I like the product, personally.Rick

>BTW, how do you like the FSGenesis Mesh?I like the FSGenesis Mesh terrain a lot. Everyone urged me to go ahead and get the LandClass to make it even better. My "jury" is still out on the Landclass, though. (hahahahaahahahahahahahahahaha) Maybe I need to do some mountain flying and see if the changes are dramatic and noticable.DonaldS

Landclass won't show much difference in the mountains. It's function is to tell FS where to put the myriad types of textures available like: cities, towns, suburbs, farms, deserts, woods, etc.One of the most obvious improvements is in the additions of small towns scattered about the country.Check at FSGenesis' site -- in the gallerys -- and you'll find some very descriptive pics showing before and after.Also, Justin is continually upgrading the Landclass product to reflect specific areas users have suggested. This makes it look even more real.Racartronit means something, but I just can't remember what

Hi Rarcartron:"Landclass won't show much difference in the mountains."... which is, IMHO, a darned shame. I can see the average user's desire to see the developed areas in more accurate 'arrangements' but I find that some of the default mountain areas, particularly the more rolling hills (i.e., fewer cliffs), are unbearably boring when compared to the diversity (say, umm, clearcuts and meadows) of the real world. I realize that readily available landuse data don't usually differentiate different forest types (closed, open, patchy, etc.) but it would be nice to find a method for generating those data and put them into FS.That's not meant as a criticism, just my personal opinion.Cheers, Holger

Holger - isn't that more a textures issue than landclass? LC is just telling the FS engine where on the ground to paint which texture, not what the textures themselves look like...Ryan

Hi Ryan:yes, and no. More variety in the basic forest textures (with their six variants each and the associated autogen) would help but because of the way the blending of adjacent textures is set up, directional structures and straight edges (say avalanche tracks and cutblocks) would be very difficult if not impossible to implement.What I was thinking of was along the lines of the landclass updates I just uploaded for the Canadian Rockies. I used a satellite image as a base map in Ground2K and had about 8 different landclass types, one of which I assigned to each landclass (LOD13) tile, depending on the dominant feature in each tile area. Most of it was either closed-coniferous or closed-mixed forest but I also had open wetlands, subalpine meadows, grasslands, and bare or rocky areas. In contrast to the default landclass of the area, my manual adjustments do look much closer to the real thing, aided by the nice blending feature of the FS display engine.Cheers, Holger