>planes like the Concord and Citation X will look so much>better in FSX... :-beerchug For Concorde it may be ok, never flew on one, but for Ciattion X (circa 45,000 ft) this sky is definitely too dark.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

>I see no one has answered my above question yet,>>"which bitmap is it by the way because it would be interesting>to finally see a darker sky in FS2k4 at higher altitudes???">>If what I'm seeing in this FSX photo is currently possible in>FS9, I'd like to know exactly how to do it. Hopefully it's>possible to get even more of a darker horizon as you climb to>the more extreme altitudes. There are a series (140)of textures with the prefix "sky_" like "sky_morning_1.bmp" and "sky_predawn2_4.bmp" There are 10 sets, the last number of the name denotes to which set it belongs.The system is different in FSX, but not so much that the same stuff won't work.Cheers,Jason

The wing shot is amazing..the deep colour come's much closer to the horizon, than I see in fs2004, create's a great feeling of alltitude.The water looks brilliant as well and the coastal detail is MUCH more intricate than fs2004.Thank's to all at MS for the new pics:), really stunning...John

Michael I recall you stating you have 300hrs in a 172. I don't believe that plane flies much past 10,000ft in normal operations. Normal airliner flights you may get to the upper 30,000ft area but not much past that (usually). I don't know how in the world you could know how the sky should look at 45,000ft at any given time of the year. To me Aces did a wonderful job here. I don't know if this is a sly attempt to start a fight as your 'credibility' in this area is seriously lacking... Microsoft, Aces, thanks for the wonderful effort. I feel it looks great and a wonderful improvement over FS9. :-beerchug

>should look at 45,000ft at any given time of the year.I have been on scheduled flights that got up to 41000 ft. The difference between 41000 and 45000 is less than 10%. Unless you can prove to me that there is sudden transition in sky color somewhere between 41000 and 45000 your comments about my credibility are loughable to say the least.Michael J.

Look at the screenshots, even better imagine them moving.We're getting a new flight sim, and from the STATIC screen shots I've seen this is a huge leap from FS 2004.New sound system , deep blue skies, ground textures that are so sharp and filled with detail they are going to convey a great sense of of speed at take off and landing, moving vehicles, town's and city's that look like someone planned them:).And best of all it's only Feburary:)I have always looked forward to the next version of FS since the Sublogic days, But from the limited info I have seen,FSX has got me posting instead of lurking, and for me thats the biggest accolade .We all win:)John

Great post Chris and John. I agree Microsoft is doing a wonderful job based on what I'm seeing in the various pics but most notibley the pic above. The sim is not going to be 100% of what you get in the real world but the effort I see in FSX is diffidently an improvement over FS9 in many areas...Chris it's not worth getting into a heated debate with simmers that claim to know more than the rest of us (even the FS developers). Aces know full well what their doing and I must admit I like what I'm seeing... :-)