While that looks great, let's see the Caribbean or South America. The big problem I've always had with FS (and probably always will) is that everything gets "US-ized" when it comes to looks. The brownish muddy shores may be fine for inland water, ####, maybe parts of the US coastline. But for a Caribbean island, having brown shores doesn't work, and having thick forests in dull colors with farms and pine trees in Puerto Rico, for example, is just painfully out of place. Flying into the Caribbean with FS you'd think we live in the woods and get around in canoes, half the urban areas in the islands aren't there, and don't even get me started on landmarks. :-lolAlso, to whomever thinks that the whole world will look this accurate, dream on. :-lol Daniel P.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/supporter.jpgMember of SJU Photography. [A HREF=http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=9004]Click Here[/A] to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!The official psychotic AA painter. :)

>I wonder how many versions of FSX there will be?>>There could be just one. Or... there could be different>versions for different regions. This way they could have>better resolutions and mesh for that particular region while>keeping the size of the software reduced. This is what I don't understand. Why keep the size reduced.... If they would make everything the super high detail, don't just include it stock for that area.... A freakin CD costs nothing. A DVD is only a bit more than nothing. And you know MS pays probably back to nothing for a DVD. So pack that baby with 10 DVD's. OR!!!!! Why not go back to how they used to do it if money is the issue for the end user... Pack a 3-4 dvd box set.. then sell the other world area sets as add-ons directly from MS. Just like the old days. This should make everyone happy, except for the add-on creators that created them in the past. Personally, I hope, and I am really sorry for the 3rd party companies that currently do this stuff, and I own every AI package you can get commercially, as well as USA Roads, USA Waters, UT (both), the MegaScenery's, 38 meter mesh for much of the world, and 76 for the rest, etc.... I buy most and get some to review... I hope that MS takes all their great work, pays them for that (yeah, that will happen) and incorporates it. So yes, if that happens, you won't see much difference if you already have all that installed. HOwever, what you will notice, is that you no longer have bridges sitting 1000 feet inland. You won't have a flat unclear, out of focus road crossing the water and a bridge sitting next to it 100's of yards away... For them to fix all that, and really get into the terrain detail everywhere, I have no problem waiting another year, or two. They have 1000's of employes and I am sure the number working on FS is quite large. While I am personally hoping beyond hope that they totally redo the multiplayer system so that you CAN if you wnat, have ATC as well as AI in your MP games, as well as much better ATC (emergencies, etc...) control. I also want to be able to fly with others IN my plane so that as I instruct them, I can actually be there with them. I know there is a 3rd party to do this now, but hey, make it built in.And I never would have thought of this, but I played trainz the other day for the first time. PUT TRAINS on the tracks in fs and have them run! I know you are getting into super mega system now, but hey, give us the option to turn it on or off!!!! How cool to be barnstorming out in the west and see the 3:15 running along side of you...!!!??? And hey, why not toss a few people in there waving... may as well really kill the system. HAHAHAAnyways, I could go on for pages.. My point overall is that allow the end user the absolute best MS can possibly offer. Allow US to decide what our systems can handle and install or turn on what we want/can. We want it all. Some of us saved up for it and can pay for it. Don't forget US! please......There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't!***************************************Gregory D. Swagler, PresidentFlight Simulator Design UniversityKHAO - Hamilton, Ohio USA (Cincinnati)

>They have 1000's of employes and I am>sure the number working on FS is quite large. Apparently you missed the part about the FS team being in one corner of a small, one story building, with about 40 team members... ;)

>Why not go back to how they used to do it if money is the>issue for the end user... Pack a 3-4 dvd box set.. then sell>the other world area sets as add-ons directly from MS. Just>like the old days. This should make everyone happy, except for>the add-on creators that created them in the past. Would not have a moments problem with this concept as long as the default scenery was for the country FS was being sold in and the add-on areas/regions were for outside that country and they were at a reasonable price. Just so as we don't go back to the old system of the default being the US of A and other countries/regions being the add ons.Cheers,Chris Porter:-outtaPerthWestern Australia

>While that looks great, let's see the Caribbean or South>America. The big problem I've always had with FS (and probably>always will) is that everything gets "US-ized" when it comes>to looks. The brownish muddy shores may be fine for inland>water, ####, maybe parts of the US coastline. But for a>Caribbean island, having brown shores doesn't work, and having>thick forests in dull colors with farms and pine trees in>Puerto Rico, for example, is just painfully out of place.>Flying into the Caribbean with FS you'd think we live in the>woods and get around in canoes, half the urban areas in the>islands aren't there, and don't even get me started on>landmarks. :-lolYou make great points....and I agree with you entirely. But this is where you should yell at the 3rd party people. Having seen quite a bit of free and pay scenery add-ons, I can tell you, people could do the islands and other areas in complete accurate detail. Yet, they don't. I have this issue with one of my local International airports. KCVG. It was done in perfect detail for 2002. Someone did a conversion for 2004 but if you add in any of the real road programs, usa waters, and then top it off with 38m mesh, you destroy it pretty well. Yet the original designer doesn't fix it. And no other people seem to wish to tackle it. Would be a great one to do as well.. Cincinnati area has all new sports complexes (New baseball and football stadiums) as well as riverboats, incredible landmarks and historical places, as well as the airport which just added a new runway, carparks, etc... Makes me so mad that I see all these incredible designers and some local to me, and they don't fix these things....But, I am trying to teach myself design to make some minor repairs. This is one of the reasons I started FSDU. Trying to bring these people with incredible talents to help teach those of us that wish to learn and do better with real people rather than just reading texts...I also wish the makers of (and I have contacted them several times about this) MegaScenery would do a midwest version. They could get 3-5 major international airports in 1 version...2 at the most. Just as you state, the 3rd party people seem to care (scenery people) about the coasts for the most part. While most of the people live and fly in the centeral part of the country here, we are ignored for the most part. KCVG is the 2nd largest hub of Delta airlines, home to Delta connection and a couple others... If they did Cincinnati, using the sizes of where they have done before, they could hit Indianapollis, Dayton, Lexington, Columbus, (add a bit more size) Louisville.... Head north and do one for Cleveland, you hit Pitsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, and many many others... 2 scenery releases and you cover millions of people, and 5 or 6 states.. Places that way more people fly than where they have already done. I think I have flown using my Cali sceneries 2 times, and my NY 3 or 4 times. Still have never made it to Denver, and I got that day it was released... Oh wow, I really didn't mean this to get this big.. My point: You are right, I hope they fix some of the more noticable scenery issues in the stock versions. If they use at least 38m mesh, sat imagery from all over the world (getting roads, and water right) that at least would allow 3rd party designers to have a place to start...we could make more reallistic add-ons since things would be where they really should be. My site is fairly new, still getting people to join, but if any designers wish to join, we are about to launch a new division where we will market both free and payware custom FS designs... We have already a list of over 200 projects both add-ons and programs to enhance fs that we need people to do... Looking for new projects to add to the list as well. Check us out and see the new changes in a couple weeks....http://www.fsduniverse.com- GregPresident, Flight Simulator Design University

Hi, Chris.Thanks for posting those pics. I don

Hi all.As I understand things, the design team is using MapPoint data. This means fairly good coastlines, lakes, rivers, streams and roads.... for areas covered by the MapPoint data. That should include Western Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and Brazil.There will also be some filtering... don't expect the snowmobile trail behind Grandma's house in Alberta to be displayed.I do not know if the current landclass-photoreal sceneries produced by the Resample tool will still be used. There is some hinting that groundtiles will have up to 1024x1024 resolution, which means 2 extra mip levels if the current system of landclass-photoreal is used.Dick

>Chris>>I thought you would be more concerned with the weather>:-)Historically MS until FS2004 Ignored the sky preferring to>concentrate on the ground.>>If frame rates were suffering then it was the Sky that had to>pay.>>They call FSX a "living world" well to me that includes the>most important BIT without which there would be no flight and>that Bit is the Sky.>>I am concerned that we dont just look at Candy but that MS>really go to town on giving us an invironment to fly in which>is real, unpredictable and dangerous.>>We need a dynamic sky and a living moving sky reading from>real world pressure systems and frontal systems.>>ASV6 is stunning and very beautiful. I cannot wait to see what>you will do with FSX if MS create the structure for you to>work on>>>Peter The truth is the "sky" looks much more realistic in FS9 that the "default" ground by far. I'd think working on both would be the goal, when you fly on clear day you certainly notice the ground in ga aircraft - even more so on a clear day. I would also like to see windshear and the like but I don't think one needs to neglect one or the other here.[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]AMD 64 4000+|ASUS K8V DELUXE|SAPPHIRE ATI X800XT PE|MUNCHKIN 3200|80 gig SATA|DELL 1905FP 19" LCD|TRACKir PRO|PFC JEPPESEN MOONEY YOKE|CH PRO PEDALS|