Do I need them, anyone? Are they really worth having?Before I do some BIG d/loads :-)David

I don't know, you decide http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=101562&page=I personally like the first set released, but have since gone back to the default, which I was happy with in the first place, just wanted to check them out (DSL). I think the FS9 defaults are a step up from the 2002 ones. I will say I like just the building textures from the first set.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://mysite.verizon.net/res052cd/mybannercva1.jpgCalVirAir International VAwww.calvirair.comCougar Mountain Helicopters & Aviationwww.cgrmtnhelos.com

I have to say that in my view these textures do not add realism...especially the second set....but you should try them as it's a very subjective thing. You should check out the following files. I've tried these and I think they really do add to the already excellent FS2004 default textures: 2004_wood_desert.zip...available on Avsim.Regards

I tried the "Relief for Autogen etc"set and tho the look was good ,some (a few ) of the Skyscraper type buildings produced a nasty "moire" effect at times so I returned to the defaults.To be fair I didn't try changing the screen resolution(1024x768) to see if that had any effect The other "seasonal" sets would ,I think ,perhaps appeal more to habitual low flyers/hedge hoppers,but the advantages when seen from 20 or 30000 feet are minimal IMHO.I'll stay with the defaults.Dave

I've gone back to the default. I really can't see these adding any realism. The effect looks just like that...an "effect" even at low altitudes. Somne things are better left alone. i happen to think that the default textures are good.