We've all heard about the upgrading of land textures, but what about VC and aircraft skin textures, will these follow the same trend?

I don't care, because I never fly the default planes anyway. Developers have not even pushed the limits of the aircraft and panel textures yet, so I am fine with what we have in FS9.

What YOUR opinion is regarding default aircraft doesn't answer the question, nor does it matter!I have the same question.

Whoa... I don't know what side of the bed you woke up on, nor do I care. That was a pretty hostile response, and one that in the future could get your posting privelages here removed. Get the message?

i agree with Tom that was uncalled for wasnt it, and i meant payware VC and aircraft textures not default....i see that the PMDG MD11 VC textures are more crisp than the PMDG 747 VC, anyone agree?

Tom - The original poster posed a simple question. One, I would guess, that many users are interested in. The first response was condescending and somewhat intimidating, even if unintended, and can only serve to deter further participation by folks that may not be as advanced as the majority of simmers on this forum.Did I get your message? Aye, aye sir! Loud and clear! I hope the other guy did too!ScottPS - I always get up on the left side----about 0500. Then I put on the coffee and check in at AVSIM---- a great start!

>We've all heard about the upgrading of land textures, but>what about VC and aircraft skin textures, will these follow>the same trend?The answer to your specific question would be yes. Close examination of the screenshots of FSX models already posted suggests that in addition to the current base texture maps (Diffuse Color) and reflection maps (Specular Color), there will be 3d mapping (Bump), self-shadow mapping, and possibly more available for the modeler/texture artist to use.

>The original poster posed a simple question. One, I would>guess, that many users are interested in. The first response>was condescending and somewhat intimidating, even if>unintended, and can only serve to deter further participation>by folks that may not be as advanced as the majority of>simmers on this forum.Good answer, totally agree.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

thanks for the replies guys, much appriciated....and yes i am an advanced simmer!! :)

Well, I guess we (I) proved, once again, that communication is the biggest problem in society. I actually thought I was going to bat for someone! As it turns out, however, it was ME that didn't understand the question! Hah!Well, guess what! I'm NOT an expert simmer and I AM interested in better default airplane textures inside an out (without FMS'). Had 'I' asked the question and gotten that answer I would have run for cover!I guess it's just better to learn from the sidelines sometimes, eh?Anyway, apologies if anyone was offended.Scott

More of an interesting question is: Bill, where is your Eaglesoft banner?Carmine http://forums.avsim.net/images/wave.gifhttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/7118/phoenixtp8mg.jpg

>More of an interesting question is: Bill, where is your>Eaglesoft banner?LOL! I've dropped the banner from my sig. for my own peace of mind. It seems that I can't post anything without someone attributing whatever I write as being a spokesperson for Eaglesoft... :-bang

I have to agree with Scott, the first response was a bit hostile and I disagree with it. Most all that can be done with texture work has been done IMO. The new bumpmapping will be a nice addition.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

Hopefully virtual cockpit meshes will support a higher vertex resolution.There appears to be a good chance of that going on one of Jason's posts at Sim-outhouse. http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/show...70&postcount=12This should enable much more detailed and sharper cockpits. Much more work for modellers though. :D

>I have to agree with Scott, the first response was a bit>hostile and I disagree with it. Most all that can be done with>texture work has been done IMO. The new bumpmapping will be a>nice addition.I'll disagree, and go with response #2, as being more hostile. :-hah But other than that, It's my opinion, that both FLY and X-Planes textures look better when it comes to the surface textures of panels. MSFS has always looked a bit rough in comparison. And then, it's the reverse for exterior textures, as FLY and X-Plane don't look as good. Never figured out why!L.Adamson