This message post is not to knock a product, it is to make a point.I just installed Ultimate Terrain with great expectations. It's coming right back off my machine tomorrow morning. While I am sure a great effort went into this product, I found out more is not necessarily better.I really appreciate the MS product as delivered much more now. Here's why.I could fly around Las Cruces, New Mexico (a city I am moving to shortly) and (with stock FS9 and USA roads alone) know exactly where I was at all times. I just bought a new lot in the elevated area of Picacho Hills, and I could slew down to the ground and get an exact view of the valley below from my back patio (probably within 200 feet of the exact location, and using Google "Earth" get the exact elevation). The night view lighting was so real it was scarry. Further, I could fly over the town, and in my mind exactly place the Super Walmart, or Golden Coral... or you name it.Now with Ultimate Terrain, I can't even find area of town known as Picacho Hills. All I find is an over-blown qauntity of inaccurate objects and landclass. There is so much garbage to be had, the main streets are totally obscured. And because that landclass is all the wrong type, the area is totally unreal Then tha quantity of info. to process is so great, everything is blurry until you are right on top of it. I tried every combination of texture modification and reduction in the program, but I can not get near the accuracy and range of clear view that I had before this program was installed.So what's the point ? With FS10 on the horizon, I just realized that unless very highly accurate data is used, more is definately not necessarily better.For those of us that want to do low level recreation flying, and enjoy seeing a town or area, the imagination does wonders with clearly defined and accurate streets running above a relatively clear terrain. But fill that terrain up with tons of inaccurate garbage, and a short clear view, and the illusion is totally ruined.It's a lesson I just learned, and I hope MS does not give us qauntity without quality in the next version. After this experience, I do believe they knew what they were doing in FS9 much more than I had thought before. Bob (Lecanto, Fl)

Can't say I agree with this at all - I find UT USA to be a far better representation of my personal home city of Tucson than the default, FSGenesis landclass or USA Roads...Have you mentioned the problems you're having to Allen at UT's forum? (www.simforums.com) He's very good at incorporating user requests (he fixed a bunch of stuff I reported in the Tucson and Phoenix area for instance etc)

Toys R Us,You're entitled to your opinion, but I have no idea what you mean. The default coasts, lakes, and rivers are grossly inaccurate, as is the default landclass. With Ultimate Terrain (and other add-ons like FSG landclass), I actually recognize where I am when I take a flight in the sim. The realism and accuracy factor go up hugely, and things look much closer to reality. Maybe you can't see Aunt Mable's house or the corner barber shop on Main Street, but the lake is where it should be, and there's a town where one is supposed to be, rather than an open field or a forest.

I personally use the FSGenesis American Landclass and their American Data: Roads, Rails, and Streams and find the immersian to be accurate. I was able to recreate my 250nm x-c solo in flight sim and use my checkpoints witch had descriptive names such as "bridge over steam near 3 lakes". :-lol----------------------------------------------------------------John MorganReal World: KGEG, UND Aerospace Spokane Satillite, Private ASEL 141.2 hrs, 314 landings, 46 inst. apprs.Virtual: MSFS 2004"There is a feeling about an airport that no other piece of ground can have. No matter what the name of the country on whose land it lies, an airport is a place you can see and touch that leads to a reality that can only be thought and felt." - The Bridge Across Forever: A Love Story by Richard Bach

I find Ultimate Terrain to be a vast improvement on FS9 and makes it look much more real than the default scenery. I have UT USA and Alaska Canada and I think it is a remarkable product.

I repeat, I am not knocking this product. 2.6 gigs for this price is quite a deal. It's just not for me. To clearify....Using Las Cruces as an example, it's a valley town with sparcely populated foothills and mountains to the east and west that are just beautiful.In scene one, though not the best, you have the clearly defined roads (of USA roads) above the sparse underlayment of standard FS9, and a long view outward without blur. You can see the main streets clearly all the way across the entire city from the outlying areas. Now in this scenario you can and must use your imagination to fill in the details. The streets of Picacho Hills CC are clearly defined, but you must put the golf course in for yourself in your mind. Not good, but acceptable.In scene two, the terrain is just cluttered with landclass. There is unrealistic urban sprawl all over the foothills and mountains where it could not even exist. The beauty of unspoiled foothills is cluttered with city. It is so strong it overpowers the major "back" roads and they can not be followed, and it just filled the golf course and all open areas with houses, small businesses, etc. The huge national forest is now a major city. Five miles of open country out the the airport is now city. The quantity of data is so great that all this does not come into focus until you get much closer. You can not see the the roads across town until you fly over them. You just sort of see a blur to where they are going. But most importantly, it removes ones ability to imagine. You can not even come close to finding the location to apply your imagination, and when you do take a guess, you have to then additionally "block-out" in your mind all this innaccurate sprawl and clutter that is provided.Now I am sure that for high level and jet flying this program is a plus. And yes, certain lakes, etc. are more accurate.But speaking for myself who enjoys low level exploring, I'll take a more exacting location recognition when I fly, and let my mind fill in the rest the way "I" want it, not the inaccurate (and in this case, totally unrealistic)way the program wants it.This is why I stated in my original post, I hope MS gives us the best of both worlds, quantity and quality (maybe that last word should be accuracy). Or maybe a way to turn landclass off, while retaining the roads.Also, I do intend to try the FS Genesis products which I to understand are quite good. Bob (Lecanto, Fl)

You didn't give the coordinates in Las Crucas NM you are questioning, I assume judging from what I see in FS an Google Earth, your talking about the area just South and may South West of the Airport near I-10. Below are 2 screenshots before and after UT. Also I tok out my FSG Landclass for this comparson, but it wouldn't matter, since the FSG landclass was similar. As you can see the land class is identical. The reason for this is UT only adds it's own landclass in urban areas, all other areas it uses MS Default or other installed land class like FSGenesis. I can tell you that this area is defininitely not put down by UT. The first shot is FS default, then UT.FS Defaulthttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/127741.jpgUltimate Terrainhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/127742.jpg

I feel you on some level Bob. I own UT and the only feature I use is the night lighting. Its a great program but one does have to make compromises in order to use it like many other addon scenery files. I found that for now MS owns the earth and can live with that. Even thought I think the coastlines look amazing with UT I dont like how it just cuts off textures. Personal preferance. Kilstorm

KilstormYou are right ! Compromise is called for in this program. I am trying to make it work before sending it to the grave.I have made some headway as you descibe through compromise. By cutting off "Adjusted City/Town Landclass" and "Add Detailed Land Areas", the "back" roads are now coming thought and are visable. The blurries at distance are also reduced though now quite acceptable yet. I have also set my FS9 scenery settings much lower in order to get this (which is not good). I set the roads to as bright and clear as they will set, but they are still way below contrast to USA Roads which may explain why they do not show up with the landclass turned on (this is why you can not fix a position when flying_w/landclass turned on).There may be a combination of settings to get this program up to speed. If I could get all the side and back roads visible, I could live with the errors in landclass which we are just going to have by their very nature.This is a good program. Don't get me wrong. It just is not there yet. Added contrast options into the basic road system layer would do wonders and open up the flexibility of other settings.Bob

If you post a shot with the coordinates of the area you are questioning, we may be able to give you more help. Also UT has it's own support forum, where many other users of UT plus the developer can help you. You can get to it here!!http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_topics.asp?FID=19&PN=1

OK... I got it working ! Not sure why.I went in and installed update one and two. Fired it back up and had the same old thing. No distinction between the roads and the textures.So went in and maxed out all the display sliders. When I went back in to the program, the road layer was clearly above the textures and all locations could be distinguished just like in USA Roads. They appear to be based on the same data.Also the distant blurries cleared up dramatically.Then I went back and rebooted at the lower settings that I was first in, and everything stayed OK. It does appear that the road layer looks clearer sitting above a view based on the higher MSFS display settings, but both are OK.As I stated earlier. I can live with landclass that is not technically perfect. I just wanted to know where I was in the sky in relation to the road structure.I really feel something "kicked over" when I set those display settings high. Maybe updated 1 & 2 helped too.Now I am going to try and enjoy this program.Bob (Lecanto, Fl)

Glad to hear you got it working!!

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!What kind of a load does UT put on a computer? I have USA waters and USA Roads, and that worked out well, performance is UP with adjusted freeware (lower-load?) summer textures that look better IMHO. But I would like to improve the mesh, since Beltsville Lake in PA runs halfway up a nearby hill now that it's more accurate and the Lehigh River is much more obviously running up and down mountains. I guess I'd like to try a higher quality freeware mesh for PA first, to see if I can handle it with my specs.(If anyone wants to check it out, Beltsville default FS9 airport is next to Beltsville lake and an area of interest, Triboro Sportsman's club where I lease a campsite is at N 40 41.705 W 075 30.542. If you type "Triboro Sportsman's club PA" or "2110 Canal Street Northampton PA" in, Google.earth will get you there. The campground is between the bridge on the river and the end of the quarry, you can see the clubhouse, footbridges across the canal and a concrete pad put in in preparation for the paving of the driveway/parking lot. The pic was taken ~2002, and my camper must have been at the beach or on a propane run.)Any pointers?Thanx.:-wave

I haven't noticed any appreciable drop in performance, but then I have a high end system (3.8Ghz P4). Even so performance is not only dependant on what hardware you have, but what kind of addons you have, the size and percentage of your traffic, and whether alot of clouds are in the area. I keep mine locked at 25 FPS and in general stays there, except in heavy clouds, and scenery. Here is a couple of shots of UT for the area you asked about. First shot is looking North (There does apear to be a water problem on the hil ahead, either it's a source data error, or it's UT. I will notify Allen (UT Support) about this. The second shot is South down the canal!!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/127798.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/127799.jpg

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Thanx a LOT for posting that. The default Lehigh river seems more like the canal that runs along it. Now it is wider, but the canal, and an at least five acre quarry are missing for me too. Railroad tracks are on the east but not west side of the river, I think I see them in my setup and yours. The river does get wider with US waters, or whatever you have (Does UT do rivers?) For what it is worth, prolly not much, speaking as someone who lives in Walnutport PA near the pass in the 1st picture, it seems a bit too narrow, maybe that's why there is water up the hill. Slatington Airport 69N is actually the closest airport to my house. I am away from the 'puter I fly on, but the Lehigh does not go up that particular hill for me with default mesh/US Waters. The problem is more that the valley was cut by glaciers, and the river runs thru hills, but in the sim runs over them. This can best be seen in Google Earth. Beltsville Lake default is smaller, and does not run up the hill Beltsville Airport is on. Even at Triboro there are signifigant banks, and signifigant hills near the bridge.EDIT: Took another look at the first pic, and the rise in elevation from the river does look a lot more pronounced a bit upstram from you... But I don't see a big hill just past the bridge across from the campground that has a default road (second Street Cementon) going up it. Maybe the whole coordinates thing is off, if MS got that wrong I never corrected it.It was a lot of trouble to pin down in the sim where I thought the campground was, and finally a buddy used his handheld GPS in front of his camper and came up with these coordinates. They were close to where I thought the place was, but not exactly.Again, thanx for taking the trouble.Best Regards, Donny:-wave