I received my copy of FS Global 2005 this morning. Installed it very quickly, despite the warnings that it could take some hours to copy the 12 gigs of info!I am very impressed, having already 'jumped' around some of my favorite VFR areas, the world over.Many thanks for a superb product! In closing I will say one thing...ROLL ON the Tristar!Regards,Al.

Holger,We have done some more research and have found some "proof" ...---------------------------------------------------------------MAJOR ERRORS IN JEPPESSEN/MICROSOFT FS2004 AIRPORT DATADiscussing compatibility with low quality scenery add-ons we examined a problem concerning Mendoza, Argentina. Two aerodromes of Mendoza are of interest in this case: * SAME - Mendoza El Plumerillo Intl Airport, Elevation 2311ft * SAMQ - Mendoza Aeroparque, Elevation 2648ftSITUATION IN MICROSOFT FS2004 DEFAULT SCENERYIn the default terrain the commercial airport SAME lies in a hole and is surrounded by rising terrain in all directions directly outside the area flattend by the aerodrome. While departure and landing is safe for a light piston engine, a realistic 3 degrees glidepath approach would be impossible to this aerodrome. As well, runway 36 offers a 3 degree ILS. Very nearby is the aerodrome SAME wich seems to fit well into the default terrain.SITUATION AFTER INSTALLATION OF FSGLOBAL2005Now the airport SAME fits perfectly into the SRTM terrain, but to the southwest the nearby SAMQ airfield rises steeply out of the terrain like an aircraft carrier. On one side, we trust the airport data gained from Jeppessen data very much, on the other hand this view looks very unrealistic. Is there a major error in SRTM data or our processing?INVESTIGATIONAfter a call to Argentina and research in official aerodrome information the cause was quickly found in the airport data. While the airport elevations of 2311ft resp. 2648ft are correct there is an error in the positioning of the SAMQ airfield: Microsoft FS2004 / Jeppessen position: S 32

hi there,i think that FSG2005 whorth every cent i paid for; try a short hop around dolomiti in northern Italy and believe it :-hah Stefan, can you please check if you can reproduce a crash to desktop near LIPB (not so far from where you live)?I encountered several CTD yesterday and also today flying around that small airport using system time.Thank youLuigi ;-)

Ciao Luigi!>i think that FSG2005 whorth every cent i paid for; try a short>hop around dolomiti in northern Italy and believe it :-hah These are the lines which justify long nightly hours in front of a PC and starring at the screen with red eyes trying to get a good product out ... :D THX!>Stefan, can you please check if you can reproduce a crash to>desktop near LIPB (not so far from where you live)?>I encountered several CTD yesterday and also today flying>around that small airport using system time.Well, the CDT topic is also a neverending story ... My knowledge is, that most CDT can be traced to texture/time of day- texture blending/etc. Since FSGlobal 2005 is mesh only, it is highly unlikely that it is responsible for that. However, it might (as any other newly installed add-on) be responsible for a shifting/moving of a sleeping CDT due to moving of memory addresses. So in other words: you may experience a CDT in an area you often fly where you never experienced one, but on the other hand a CDT in an area you never flew (and thus you never experienced one) would be gone.Since this is a common problem and known to MS as well, we will see, if they address it in the (maybe) near future. X-Mas is coming and so the surprises. :-haloUnfortunately I am not able to reproduce a CDT in the area you describe and therefore can't even suggest a workaround.Stefan Schaefer

It's just mesh scenery (elevation data). Mesh is more than mountains however. Even relatively flat areas are significantly improved when using more detailed mesh. This package looks like great value if you want to improve the quality of the whole world in FS. However, if you only fly in one area or continent, there are other, better options like even more detailed elevation data, landclass, roads, photographic sceneries etc.

Hi Stefan,thanks again for the detailed feedback. That bit about the LOD5 mesh being loaded regardless of the active default LOD5 mesh is particularly interesting; I'll have to look into that further.As for the SAME/SAMQ "investigation" and "proof" I'd say it's old news that many of the default airfields, particularly the smaller ones are not in their true position and/or altitude. While checking my own mesh files I've come across a few that MS placed as far off as the next valley over! No one can expect of mesh designers to fix these issues; it's the realm of airport and landscape (re-)design."On the other hand, compatibility with objects at false position or fantasy scenery can not be guaranteed unless the author provides own elevation mesh data. But that is obvious. We encourage serious bush flying, that's what FSGlobal 2005 was made for, but look for the true airfield data!"You might want to add this qualifier to your website's guarantee statement because the majority (!) of the bush-flying add-ons are indeed fictitious sceneries placed in suitable places for (in most cases) the default terrain. It is NOT obvious to me that those would be excluded from your guarantee. Interestingly, now that we agree on this qualified "guarantee" it is in fact a guarantee which can be made for ANY add-on mesh (well, excluding the few that make the terrain *less* accurate). In other words, nothing new ;-)However, I don't want to be misunderstood as being overly critical of your product. It does sound very much like you've spent a lot of time and effort to make the best out of the SRTM data and - I've said this before - the price tag appears fair. Let's just say I'm not a big fan of marketing "hype" that includes unqualified guarantees and largely untestable claims ;-)Good luck with your projects!Cheers, Holger P.S.: Here's the link for the two options for the "seasonal CTD" fix: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...g_id=315&page=2 . It is indeed often the add-on mesh that triggers the chain of events that leads to the crashes. We don't know exactly what the actual cause is but the mismatch of default airport elevations with the surrounding terrain of the add-on mesh, which leads to "cliffs" around the airport flatten, is one of the factors. However, always keep in mind that there are many potential causes for a CTD and that the "seasonal CTD" can easily tested for by switching to the middle of summer or winter; it should not occur then).

Holger,>thanks again for the detailed feedback. That bit about the>LOD5 mesh being loaded regardless of the active default LOD5>mesh is particularly interesting; I'll have to look into that>further.I have set up a new section on our website http://fsglobal2005.com regarding the "Double-Render" technology. Check the NEWS section and follow the link. It has screenshots which clearly show the advantages. Some more proof ... :-)>As for the SAME/SAMQ "investigation" and "proof" I'd say it's>old news that many of the default airfields, particularly the>smaller ones are not in their true position and/or altitude.>While checking my own mesh files I've come across a few that>MS placed as far off as the next valley over! No one can>expect of mesh designers to fix these issues; it's the realm>of airport and landscape (re-)design.I am glad you see it that way ... However, it needs to be communicated to users. I am prepared for "FSG2005 bugs" of that sort ... And I think it can't be said too often for all users to read AND understand!>You might want to add this qualifier to your website's>guarantee statement because the majority (!) of the>bush-flying add-ons are indeed fictitious sceneries placed in>suitable places for (in most cases) the default terrain. We guarantee compatibility. Which means it won't crash FS. Point. And we uphold that. It is so in science, that the wrong data has to be corrected. I am not going to decrease FSGlobal 2005 reality to support fictitious scenery. Besides, his affects ALL mesh products. Fictitious scenery may look odd in ANY mesh. It is a very easy to overcome problem. Designers of such sceneries just need to add an own LOD 10 mesh, which either flattens or reshapes the area they need. In fact, any designer should have done that long ago since FSGlobal 2005 is not the first mesh out >It is NOT obvious to me that those would be excluded from your>guarantee. Come on. If you fly such a scenery, you know it is fictitious. Since it also is common knowledge, that the standard mesh is low resolution, especially in "bush-areas", you should be able to conclude, that installing another mesh scenery may affect this fictitious scenery by altering the 3D terrain around it. On the other hand:It is much more fun (especially bush flying!) to race through a mesh scenery which is HQ and resembles the planet. So we encourage designers of such scenery to switch to FSGlobal 2005 as a "default" mesh. So at least they can be sure it will additionally also work in FS2004 standard and any other SRTM mesh. >ANY add-on mesh (well, excluding the few that make the terrain>*less* accurate). In other words, nothing new ;-)That is a conclusion you draw. Others do not see that. So we have to say it.>However, I don't want to be misunderstood as being overly>critical of your product. It does sound very much like you've>spent a lot of time and effort to make the best out of the>SRTM data and - I've said this before - the price tag appears>fair. Let's just say I'm not a big fan of marketing "hype">that includes unqualified guarantees and largely untestable>claims ;-)We do not claim anything which is not true. It is a question of moral. You may have noticed, that I have offered "proof" to the statements you questioned. It is our companies philosophy to deliver few, but add-ons of exceptional quality to the FS community. In times of rip-off, flood of products and selling of sceneries "my gardentwarf in the backyard of my aunt Winnies terrace house" for 39,90 it is hard to overcome the fed-up customers reluctance to new products, which additionally are often released being unready to a "beta-test-customer".But the reactions of customers about FSGlobal 2005 (see http://fsglobal2005.com. Check the NEWS section and follow the link of September 13th) definitely pay off for all the hard work.>Good luck with your projects!Thank you very much!Stefan Schaefer

Let me keep my reaction simple.The difference in my home town of Cape Town is significantly better than the default scenery......for the first time I'm recognising familiar landmarks.I've tried other areas and have no hesitation is suggesting to you that your money will be well spent by installing this product.Cliff

OK Frame Rates, Frame Rates, Frame Rates! It is ALL ABOUT FRAME RATES.What is the impact of FSGlobal on Frame Rates?Barry

Hi!>Frame Rates, Frame Rates, Frame Rates! It is ALL ABOUT FRAME>RATES.>>What is the impact of FSGlobal on Frame Rates?Zero to very low ... Check out this message in the same thread. See last paragraph there.(http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=121&topic_id=207445#210411)It can also be read in various other reviews and forums (some in german languge though).Stefan Schaefer

I downloaded the FS Global Scenic Flights last night and every time I try to load one it crashes FS2004 to the desktop. This is a very unusual phenomenon and started with and only occurs when I try to load a FS Global Scenic Flight. I sent an email to their support address and we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. My system is patched to FS9.1 and the Active Camera patch, etc. etc.Regards,

I am using it since one month now, all I can say is that it really improved my scenery display.In my setup, I've installed FSGLOBAL2005 and as well Fscene 2004 textures. The mix of both is giving a very high quality terrain.I recommand it to you. Im in no way affiliated or endorsed by 'em =)-Jerome COVINIPS : The only problem I had was with "Switerland professional" add-on. Had to uninstall it, cause the swiss land looked really ugly.