I just flew around Half Moon Bay, California using Gottfried Razek's high resolution scenery/textures available on AVSIM. AMAZING. He has solved the problem of laying high resolution (better than 4.8m/pixel) on top of mesh and not seeing any underlying texture "pop thru". In FSX the only photo scenery in the Demo is St. Maarten. While nice, it does not compare well with Gottfried's work. The edges of the images seem plagued with a sawtooth element probably from the resample. There was a comment from a Microsoft person that this was recognized and may be improved. Also we do not know the resolution of the original textures for St.Maarten, and they are bundled in a special BGL. Regardless, I am sure that Gottfried's scenery will work in FSX when compiled with the new resampler. In the meantime you can get the Half Moon scenery and enjoy a taste of the future now!Oh, the comments about file size will be valid. This small area is over 52.2 mb unpacked! However, a 160gb disk can offer some beautiful slices of the world.Dick near airport 5G8

Yeah, thanks!That's a screenie of the project I'm currently working on: LA with 3D buildings on 0.3m/pix hi-res photoscenery. Landing on those helipads is real fun! Currently I'm adding some more buildings and doing performance tuning.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159664.jpg

Gottfried,I don't have FS-X yet - I hope to receive it on Friday - but if I can get that kind of scenery on my system in the R22 or B206 at 15fps or better, I will be a happy man.It's all about being able to land on the buildings 8^) .Dave Blevins

I see that the ground and buildings have an "afternoon shadow" on them which tends to bug me to no end personally, so I have a few questions related to that:How many megabytes worth of image source data do you have for the area you're working on? (the whole of LA?)What's the pixel count on that image data? (for example, "10000x10000 pixels" to cover the whole of LA)Where did you get the source image data?Just trying to figure out what kind of an effort it would take to manipulate that source data by hand to remove all shadows (or at the very least the ones on rooftops). Thanks!

Hi,sure his scenery is lovely. However the SFO scenery didn't line up with the default buildings, so you end up with the Port Authority/ Customs House Bldg in the water. Same with the Pier 39 buildings being all in the water. Granted his scenery is probably more accurate than the default but when the two don't coincide than neither is any use is it? Maybe these discrepancies can be worked out.Cheers,Tosh

>I see that the ground and buildings have an "afternoon>shadow" on them which tends to bug me to no end personally...I like the shadows, because the provide additional 3D-illusion.>However the SFO scenery didn't line up with the default buildings, >so you end up with the Port Authority/ Customs House Bldg in the >water. Same with the Pier 39 buildings being all in the water. >Granted his scenery is probably more accurate than the default but >when the two don't coincide than neither is any use is it? Maybe >these discrepancies can be worked out.Yes, that's a well known problem. I added it to my FAQ-list: http://www.blueskyscenery.com/faq.html (last entry)In my upcoming downtown Los Angeles scenery all buildings will be perfectly aligned with the ground scenery. But that's a whole lot of work and I will not be able to do it for the whole scenery-area. Maybe I will do downtown San Francisco. Will see...

Hi Gottfried,I see your point. I'm sorry: I didn't mean to sound ungrateful or rude. Apologies. I look forward to more of your work.Thanks,Tosh:)

>>I see that the ground and buildings have an "afternoon>>shadow" on them which tends to bug me to no end>personally...>>I like the shadows, because the provide additional>3D-illusion.Oh I didn't mean to say that no one likes them - I just personally don't, as they only work well at a certain time of the day :)Any thoughts on the questions I posed?