Adam,I believe I was the user that you were talking to when the texture memory went kaput flying around the strip and KLAS. Glad you were able to discover the problem.Brian S.

Thanks for the explanation Adam. I'm very much looking forward to FSX; thanks to you and all of the ACES team for your hard work on the next installment of FS, and I especially give thanks to the team for following and contributing to the forums with news, info and updates on FSX's progress. I do hope that the ACES team considers this new policy mostly a success, and despite the negative feelings and comments from some posters will continue to do so in the future.Thanks!

If you truly thought that the DX10 representations were what you were actually going to get from FSX then I'll have to question your intelligence.We weren't "hoodwinked". No game is or ever will be perfect. Deal with it.As far as what I've seen and heard I'm extremely excited about FSX, and I know for a fact that it'll be better than FS9 by a wide margin.Also, the blurries in FS9 weren't that bad imho. Just don't go crazy with moving the sliders to the right, and if you have to, simply limit the frames to 15 or 20.James

#### THAT!Bring on FSX. I'm more than looking forward to it in it's present state.James

OK, it's perfectly clear people on these forums don't really have any clue whatsoever about how graphics work.Let me assure you, with the amount of textures FSX has to process on a standard desktop, it's IMPOSSIBLE to remove all instances of texture blurring, unless you want the sim to run at 1 frame per hour.Also, I hear people complaining about the frame rate, but then the next thing you hear is people complaining about blurries. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Play FS98, then tell me FSX isn't a quantum leap over that.I guess some people are simply never satisfied. It's so stupid it's funny.James

Good call :DJames

There you go Marten. Now you know that your original post was a bit hasty and unfounded.I'm sure you'll find something else about FSX that's bad and evil and that'll have to be posted, though.James

Oh no! FS-X has problems with anti aliasing on NVidia hardware!!! Something like that? ;-)

Frankly I am a bit taken aback by some of the (dumb) comments in this thread. I had no intention to attack Microsoft or the FS, I merely stated my observations. I do understand quite a lot about the technical aspects of graphic processing, and in my opinion, Microsoft has failed to address a serious technical problem. To clarify my observations: I am referring to the simulator not loading high-res textures in the entire field of vision, especially close to the horizon. If some people don't seem to call that a "blurry", so be it. It is nonsense to say that it is impossible to make textures load properly on a PC (without sacrificing performance in other areas). It is simply a matter of good ressource management. The demonstration was given on a machine with plenty of juice to spare, with no AI traffic, no additional sceneries, no weather loaded. Frame rates were in the 50ies - and still textures didn't load properly. Thats badly coded software, period. The demonstration I was given clearly showed that Microsoft has spent a lot of time to make FSX more attractive to new users, adding lots of bells and whistles, while failing to address even basic technical problems. (Well, what else is new?) I have a list of other shortcomings of FSX discussed during them meeting, all of them referring to the technical aspects of the flight simulator, like flight models, taxiing behaviour, etc., non of which have been resolved. It is therefore my conclusion that FSX does not offer a significant technical improvement over FS9 -- where it counts. At least, and many of you seem to differ -- where it counts for me. On a positive note, it seems that Vista once released will make a big difference to the performance of FSX, allowing for much more effective resource management.

>I'm not exactly sure how NVIDIA implements anti-aliasing, but>I'm pretty certain they do it by rendering to a very large>off-screen buffer and downsampling to the screen resolution. That would be supersampling, wouldn't it? AFAIK (at least it's what multiple sources on the web state, like http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/vide...3211_1376851__8 and yes I know it's a bit dated) nvidia has always used multisampling. Supersampling is what's been used by ATI. Which would kinda shatter your explanation I'm afraid... :)EDIT: well, maybe not completely. ATI doesn't use supersampling anymore. And nvidia cards actually could use supersampling if you tell them to, albeit only for transparancy AA.Still, I somehow doubt this is all there is to explain the described phenomenon.Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

Hi Adam, Good to hear from you. I have been able to replicate the non-loading textures on PCs with 4 different cards now. The best one seems to be an ASUS 1900XT. All of the nVidia cards are slower to load. The problem is not solved. But thank you very much for your professional response in this forum (otherwise so full of trolls). :)Can you comment on the Vista issue -- will Vista really have an influence on these graphics issues or is this just speculation. I admit I know very little about Vista's revolutionary inner workings :)

Blurries ?? What blurries?? I have been flying FS9 ever since it came out and using a moderate machine -- lowish FPS, I understand - micro stutters when turning, I understand - very low FPS when at some airports , I understand -- but BLURRIES ?? What are they??Barry

That first pic is Mission Bay isn't it? I'm sure I can see the hotel we stayed at this Easter :-)EDIT: OK, I should read threads fully before posting!Nice pic..........and of course, shame about the bluries :-(

Well said! Best regards, Chris

The problem with dynamic blurred textures is that the textures immediately surrounding you are badly blurred. It has little to do with distant textures.As regards distant textures: in the real world distant terrain naturally shows less detail but it still looks realistic (and nice) as your shots illustrate. In contrast, distant terrain in FS that is unduly blurred looks nasty and is certainly unrealistic. Best regards, Chris