Yummy!Imagine flying around in MSFS with scenery res like this! (Well we can dream right?) Hee hee. Check out these pictures friends :) Change the "xx" to "tt" - these pics are huge & hi-res , didnt want them to embed into this post!Salt Lake City, Utahhxxp://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA03342.jpgLos Angeles area, Californiahxxp://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA03376.jpgGo to "gallery" on the top right for morehttp://www.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/srtm/html/

Megascenery is pretty close actually. Should check that out if you haven't yet it's amazing for GA VFR flying. __Josh

Megascenery? Cool! I should have a look at that! :)

I was under the impression that SRTM data is only 90M, quite low compared to some FS scenery - e.g. lots of 30m mesh available and sceneries like VFR Terrain use source elevation data with 5m spacing. The textures look very sharp in those pics but then the pics are at a very high altitude.Basically the realism of FS sceneries is no longer limited by the hardware so much as the availability and cost of source data.

While the released SRTM data outside the US is 90m, the released SRTM data for the US is 30m. And I have no doubt that JPL has even higher resolution data to which we will probably never gain access.Bruce

The textures that are draped on the terrain model there are from one of the Landsat sensors (25-30 m pixels), which is rather coarse for commercial satellite imagery these days. It looks good from that range, but down low it would be pretty rough.G http://members.rogers.com/gmoffatt/images/ERJ_CRT.jpg

Hi all,"While the released SRTM data outside the US is 90m, the released SRTM data for the US is 30m. And I have no doubt that JPL has even higher resolution data to which we will probably never gain access."Anyone can download very high-resolution digital elevation data from the USGS site. One of the available formats (BIL) is in fact directly readable by the FS mesh compilation utilities, which makes the process rather easy.Just the other day I downloaded and processed new 1/9 arcsec data for Mount St. Helens, which provides a resolution (~3m) much higher than the maximum FS can display (~19m). Looks great and it's actually quite scary to see how much the central volcanic dome has grown since the release of the previous set of 10-m data several years ago.On the other hand, the problem with photoreal textures is that they require so much HD space, have long loading times, and lack of seasons. That's why I'm not a big fan of products like MegaScenery or the packages available for the UK and Switzerland.Cheers, Holger

<>Thats a good/interesting point. Didnt know that...

Holger,Thanks for reminding me about the USGS site, I have been dealing with areas outside the US (for CFS2) for so long I have only been going to the SRTM site.Bruce

Have to agree about the HD space, its a killer. Loading times really depend on setup. However, nothing has made my jaw drop more than flying the Cherokee 180 over southern california at 5000ft with Megascenery and a VFR sectional chart. It doesn't work well (IMO) with jets but with the small slower props, it is the closest thing I've ever seen to flying the real thing. Aside from that it does have its drawbacks, I need a separate FS9.CFG for megascenery flying with very low mesh settings in order to keep the blurries away. HUGE hard drive spaces needed. Loading times for me have been very acceptable. Also I tend to reduce the visibility to 30nm as well in an effort to avoid the blurries. Los Angeles tends to look the same no matter what season you are in. The New York version has winter season btw.__Josh

Hi Josh,sorry, I didn't want to come across as completely dismissing the potential of photoreal textures. I agree that with a well-tweaked system and in the right aircraft and flight situation the realism of these products can be absolutely astounding. Obviously, there are many users that are very happy with photoreal landscapes and that's all that counts, IMO. I just listed the main reasons why for me, personally, the negative aspects generally outweigh searching for those moments of sheer beauty ;-)Cheers, Holger

Didn't really think you were completely dismissing them, I just wanted to voice my thoughts on it I guess. (I'm stuck at work and bored lol) No doubt the photoreal is difficult to use and make work right. I don't even want to say how much time it took me to get an alternate FS9.CFG working properly for it. Days and days. Since it is probably used less than 20% of my sim-time, I'm still not 100% sure it was worth it. I turn the stuff off in the jets and turboprops -since at 250kts it all blurs out and looks like junk. I've had some wonderfully amazing and immersive sunday mornings putting around with it though. ___Josh