please get rid of the ugly texture masking in the distance, more obvious when flying at high atltitudes. the super blue water with horrible wave animations in FS9 is really bad looking. At least let us turn it on and off.Also being able to fly true polar routes would be nice too!Hopefully in the next updates there will be more information of what makes it a "flight" simulator, instead of talking about the eye candy which makes it just another game

"Hopefully in the next updates there will be more informationof what makes it a "flight" simulator, instead of talkingabout the eye candy which makes it just another game"Oh please, you are not on the ground, hence, flying, hence simulating flight on the PC. Last time I was flying in RL there was a whole world outside the cockpit that looked totally different than what I see in FS.Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/mcdcvabanner.jpgCalVirAir International

the point I was making, was that all this talk about eye candy means nothing if MS is going to call it a simulation. Eye candy just makes it more of a game.Obviously what you see in the real world isn't accurate on a monitor, but this talk about packs of animals and moving traffic is OK, but what about the real specifics?

If you simulate the world you should simulate those things too.I complained to NWA, the FAA, and God 2 years ago about the blurries I noticed flying back from Seattle to Amsterdam but I never got an answer.

Flying IS eye candy. Amongst other things, and some things which will never be able to simulate without lots of expensive hardware...talking about g affects here. Its funny. People have complained about Xplane not having enough eye candy. Since the screen shots have been released, and that is all that has been released, I have seen so many post downplaying the eye candy. Well Heck, what else is a screen shot gonna show you? As far as ugly texture masking goes...I dont know what you are talking about. Must have not come on my copy of FS. If you are talking about the blurries, there is a really good blog about it from one of the FS developers. Im too tired to find it right now or else I would make a link. But basically what is was saying is that it is a "time" thing. I bet if the image was crystal clear all the way to the horizon it would bring your computer to its knees.ScottEdit: I meant to ask you something. You have wave animations???

I don't understand all this "eye candy" bashing myself, since flight simming would be utterly boring (and not to mention unrealistic) if there was never anything to look at.But concerning what you said about the huge low-res texture squares in the distance (that mostly become evident when you install 3rd party ground textures) I agree that they definitely need to go. FS2002 didn't have them, but with FS2004 you need to reduce the visibility max to 50 miles or less just to avoid noticing them.I would have provided a link to a screenshot in the screenshots forum if avsim cached its pictures a little longer but oh well.

>As far as ugly texture masking goes...I dont know what you are>talking about. No, not the blurries, there is an ugly square around your airplane that has default generic textures displayed in the distance. the higher up you go, the more obvious this is. Especially when you start adding third party water and land textures. So flying in Africa, for example, you could be flying around forests but in the far distance the texture masking will show generic sand textures

IMO eye candy is great... to a point.But there are so many important things to be talked about, and details that should be explained, the stuff they released so far was pointless eye candy. What about flight dynamics? ground texture resolution? support for higher res mesh? better landclass, waterclass, coastlines and rivers maybe? How about performance? Going by what looked like an early alpha build, it was horribly choppy in the default helecopters VC. Sure it can come a long way, but that is NOT a good sign.When companies only talk about small features usually they are either A. hiding the real info for a later date to surprise everyone, or B. hiding the fact they haven't really done much else except a few visuals here and there and repackaged the basic same graphics engine like FS9 did