Hi,I agree with others here that MS did a good job with scenery, keeping limitations in mind. MS is really good(cetainly not perfect) and getting a lot of landmarks, roads, lakes, ect. where they should be. Sure, they have left some stuff out that would be nice to have. Such as the Indianapolis Speedway for example, a river here or there that is unfinished as was pointed out, missing bridges in places. Here's to hoping it'll be even better in the next version. But overall I think they did a really good job. Have a look at FS5! Hehe. I think Bear(Steve Cartwright), or someone on Avsim anyway, has done a screenshot and commentary comparison of the improvements to scenery in the various iterations of MSFS. I read it quite some time ago and found it and the screenshots to be pretty interesting.To re-iterate what has already been said:1) There is an impact to system performance with scenery that must be kept to an acceptable level. You can only have so much detail on todays systems before performance will go to pot.2) Hard Drive space. I also feel I gotta have the whole world man! Hard drives will have to get really big to hold the whole world in high detail.3) Cost of scenery for a $50 product.Rock on,Jim

There is no doubt that SimCity 4 has much more detail on the buildings than any building in FS.BUT... Sim City is not proper 3D. It just an isometric projection. You can't go down into the streets and walk or drive or fly around it. You can view the city from exactly 4 headings 000, 090, 180 and 270. :-)The Sim City 4 team did intend to render the game in true 3D when they started, so the user could view their city from any position and walk around it. They soon found out that the frame rate was too bad because they like to use very hi-res textures on the buildings. The only way they could get it to run in true 3D was to reduce the detail on the textures so a level they concidered to be unaceptable. So they stuck with the isometric projection.This was all documented on their web site during the development of SC4. Paul

The reasons why the scenery in FS9 is "so poor" as stated in the foregoing posts are perfectly reasonable, but let us not forget the basic underlying fact: The scenery is unrealistic because it is not real, only a virtuality reality. The $50 dollars I spent on the "game" and yes it is a Game, is probably the best 50 bucks I EVER spent. Rather than worry about whether this mountain or hill is not in the exact spot or shape, or whether the autogen scenery is too generic, or whatever the specific "bug" is that bothers you, I find myself with more pressing issues:1. is my daughter going to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan after she completes her training?2. is my declining health related to my service in the Gulf War? and will the Veterans Adminstration do anything about it?3. Will my freedoms be reduced even more by my government?4. The list can go on and on...........Let's keep it in perspective.Joe