One other question. Does the FSX beta contain a full set of textures or are their any duplicates to make up the set which will be replaced with the correct texture upon release?

From what I've seen in beta... there MUST be more textures in Final.Eastern Europe looks terrible! Example... Italian and Slovenian Alps 2000-3000m (cca 5000ft (not shure)) are covered with forests. That looks funny. I'm hiking there it's all rocks.BUt textures are not the only problem... There are lots of mesh problems too. Some parts of Croatian coast looks like North Ireland (clifs). FS9 had it all ok. But this.....

The airport polygons look like apron textures to me - on flat solid texture with no shading or variation.I hope they are going to be replaced with texture sets like the ones in FS2004 - only better. If not, I'll move the FS2004 textures over.

Yes it seems that there is still some work to do on the textures, judging from the various beta screenshots. Maybe there are really some textures missing.While some of the textures look just awesome, there seems to be way too much brown sand/desert/scrub textures.Many airports look very strange with that brown textures underlying, someone suggested missing airport ground photos to be the problem. An example can be seen here:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...d=241400&page=3In addition there seems to be too much brown on the ground or in the mountains where cliff textures or green forest or farmland textures should be - like in Alaska:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/155620.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...d=241144&page=4Apart from this - which I believe to be a bug which will be fixed in the final release - the fsx textures look just great.GreetingsAlex

Hello ReggieI could not agree more, I have been comparing all the FSX screens posted in the screenshot forum to what i am seeing here in FS9 using GE pro and AS6 along with FSgenesis mesh and ulimate terain USA/Europe.FSX out of the box will probably look nicer than a FS9 default install but has a long way to go to match a fully loaded FS9 installation.Am i the only one who thinks FSX is cartoon like and that the water textures look way out of scale.

>In addition there seems to be too much brown on the ground or>in the mountains where cliff textures or green forest or>farmland textures should be - like in Alaska:Yes, there does appear to be a sandy coloured texture that pops up in numerous locations.

I agree with every word you say. From what I have seen so far, I am definitely not desperate to jump over to FSX yet. After a while things will look differently in FSX as well, no doubt about that. Until then, FS9 rules.Henri

Global warming? :(

Let's hope this is just incomplete textures in the Beta because I'll tell you there will be some LOUD ranting if it isn't. I've seen quite a bit of the desert on every continent.

Oh my....YESI've been very disturbed by all the BROWN and TAN textures I've been seeing in screenshots. I love FSX, so far, in the demo, but I won't be able to wait more than 48 hours after release to add BEV or GE PRO textures so that airports and scenery look more real to me.Please say that the final product will have better textures overall. Please! Stan

Hi guys,keep in mind that for the most part this is NOT an issue with the textures but rather with the land class file that detemines which type of texture is placed on which square kilometer of land. That's the way it is in FS9 and that's the way it'll be in FSX. In other words, exchanging the textures won't help much.What is needed is a more accurate classification of land use and ecological types but those are hard to come by, at least on the global scale that ACES requires. In fact, the FSX devs have indicated that the global land class file will be pretty much identical to the FS9 version, with the exception of a few local/regional adjustments.On the positive side it appears that the current basic system of making replacement land class files hasn't changed and it is likely that most of the existing third-party land class files will work with FSX. The only potential issue is that some of the default textures may have changed in what they are meant to depict (desert, forest, etc.), which would require of the authors to switch some class designations and re-compile their land class file.Most of the FSX textures I've looked at in detail are really nice in their 1-m resolution and I expect that a main focus for add-ons this time around will be on land class files to get those textures into their correct places.Cheers, Holger

Perhaps if someone gets a chance they can check a few FSX areas that show the sandy brown texture then go back to FS9 and fly the same areas, If the FS9 areas all look different from each other then there may be some missing textures in the beta. If each FS9 area looks the same then it's probably as Holger says.

Hello Victor,Holger is right and all textures are present.The only difference is that the mapping may have changed in some cases.That is, previously a land class value may have called one particular ground texture, and now it may call a different and presumably more accurate ground texture.The problem is the same as always - land class. And that is easy to change - anyone can do it. So, please if you don't like what you see, just change the land class.Best regards.Luis

I've had another look at this this evening using Kodiak Island as a test area as this seems to have a large amount of brown texture.TmfViewer in the FSX SDK shows that the majority of the island to be classified 17 Shrub Deciduous. The landclass file in FS9 also shows the same so it would seem the texture has changed between FS9 and FSX. Looking closely at the texture I can see a hint of green in the brown but, on my system, this green does not come out very well except at very close range. I've tried using Spring and Summer.The question is though, is the texture being used by FSX more accurate than that used by FS9? Edit: Ignore the above for the moment. I think I made a mistake with the landclass files. :-roll :-outta