Have just had a good read through all the other posts in this thread. Am somewhat surprised by the reaction to my original post - my intention was to find out more about GE and I was confused as to why something so (apparently) similar was being offered as a freeware download on this website.I didn't receive any useful response with regards as to how the two products differ until Peter (one of the UK based developers of GE) kindly emailed me with the information. Since then we have had a long chat on Skype and I will be downloading and purchasing the product tomorrow as it sounds like an excellent addon for FS2004.Thanks to Peter for taking the time to explain and apologies to anyone who had their "feathers ruffled" by my original post;)RegardsAdam

I would also like to stress that Peter has done a fantastic job with GE, and it can only be said that people like him are a credit to the FS community. You may have noticed that I had my doubts about GE from another thread, and a certain other member simply assumed that I was solely out to criticise Peter's efforts, which just was not the case at all. So for Peter, and his team, I simply wish to make it clear that developers like you are what makes FS the fantastic hobby that it is today. Full marks to you.

Thanks Adam for taking the time to explain and for the follow-up. Hope you share some screenies of the product in the screenshots forum once it's installed!-John

AdamMaybe you could start another thread and compare the two? That freeware looks good, I'd like to hear a comparison if you have time.

would somebody with a fast system and good weather engine dare to make a video of some GE 2006 flight ? id like to see how the textures blend in at high speeds because ive read that they dont blend in as smooth as the default ones.TIA, regards, tom.

>would somebody with a fast system and good weather engine>dare to make a video of some GE 2006 flight ? id like to see>how the textures blend in at high speeds because ive read that>they dont blend in as smooth as the default ones.>>TIA, regards, tom.Not true.. Today I was flying the F-18Hornet at over 550kts and it wasn't too bad. at 250kts I had no issues.. no blurries.I ran in on a Dell XPS 2, 3.1Ghz processor with 1Gig RAM, 250GB HD Geforce FX 5900 Ultra with 256MB Video cardBut I think.. a video is a good idea.Manny

We are getting a video done which we hope can be downloaded soon.Thanks for eveyone's positive support and feedback.Have a good night. I'm off to bed now. Past 4:25am here now......

For anyone who's interested I have posted some GE 2006 vs Reality Pack comparison pix over in the Screenshot forumRegardsAdamFS9.1Win XPPrescott 3.20 GHz - 2GB RAMAsus ATi Radeon X800 Pro TD 256MBOmega Radeon ATI Drivers19" CRT 1600x1200 @ 100hzAudiophile 24/96 Audio

Here are my first 2 screenshot threads with ground environment textures. mainly winter textures because its around salt lake city but it looks awesome!http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...27045&mode=fullhttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...27000&mode=full

>For anyone who's interested I have posted some GE 2006 vs>Reality Pack comparison pix over in the Screenshot forumAnd in your continuing attempts to discount GE, you went about it the wrong way, as Peter pointed out.

"And in your continuing attempts to discount GE, you went about it the wrong way, as Peter pointed out."I don't know--his pictures helped GE I think--not to discount Reality Pack, but of the two sets I found GE more faithful to actual ground cover. The Reality Pack textures appeared too bright with colors looking a bit too vibrant. I'm sure the R.P. set represented a huge investment of time by its author(s) and such observations wouldn't otherwise be noticed were it not for being side by side with GE. That's one reason why I don't like putting freeware and payware head to head. -John

HiI have GE and so far I'm not immpressed.It may be possible that I have an incomplete install.I have been flying around Florida and the buildings in towns make the towns look like shipping container depots.I have very few trees and textures load at short distance and the overall ground looks sparse.Any suggestions to possible problems would be welcome.I have all slides maxed. and set on 24 FPSBob WrightP4 3.2Asus Radeon 9800XT1.5 Gig 3200 RAM

Below are my current FS9 config settings that apply to viewing FS9 terrain.[DISPLAY.Device.RADEON X600 Series.0]Mode=1280x1024x32[DISPLAY]UPPER_FRAMERATE_LIMIT=25TEXTURE_BANDWIDTH_MULT=120[TERRAIN]TERRAIN_ERROR_FACTOR=85.000000TERRAIN_MIN_DEM_AREA=10.000000TERRAIN_MAX_DEM_AREA=200.000000TERRAIN_MAX_VERTEX_LEVEL=21TERRAIN_TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=8TERRAIN_AUTOGEN_DENSITY=4TERRAIN_USE_GRADIENT_MAP=1TERRAIN_EXTENDED_TEXTURES=1TERRAIN_DEFAULT_RADIUS=9.900000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_RADIUS=8.000000TERRAIN_EXTENDED_LEVELS=1307992[sCENERY]IMAGE_COMPLEXITY=4DYNAMIC_SCENERY=1DYN_SCN_DENSITY=4DAWN_DUSK_SMOOTHING=1SUNGLARE=0LENSFLARE=0I hanvn't downloaded this product yet, just havn't had time. Will purchase install/test in about 2 hours. Until then, would like to get some config file suggestions before I install(would like to hit the ground running :) I have Flight Environment, UT-both AK/Canada and US, and Ultimate Traffic. FS9.1, 3.2 ghz, XP SP2, ATI Radeon X600 with latest Drivers, 1GB RAM. Again, any suggestion on config file changes and especially would like to know what Terrain max vertex setting to use for Ground Environment once I have it going, thanks in advance. Also, would adding more RAM help with Buffer mesh?

Peter, thank you for your reply to my post. I appreciate your explanation on the design process and the balance of producing reality versus visual appeal tiles. I'll do as you suggest and try to search out airports that may have more forestry regions that give me that certain "look" I was speaking of. Looking forward to the updates you have planned.

Sorry you are having this problem.Anthony Vos is at this time fixing the large buildings and lack of trees.He made a mistake. We are sorry and we are fixing it now as we speak.An update will be on our website very soon.Peter