Hi all,I'm just wondering... maybe I've set up FSX with some settings that are causing my issues but I was just looking at places in Canada where there should be lakes and streams and it seems like anything below 5 or 6 miles in size no longer exists in the game when it comes to lakes... I've got comparison shots... Yes I have FS Genesis mesh installed on FS9 and UT for Canada but I remember when FS9 came out that most of these lakes were here already at least to a certain extent... It's like most of the lakes dissappeared completely. I also tried FS Genesis mesh for FSX and it didn't add them either but I'll be posting on their forums to see if there's anything they can say to shed some light on this matter.FS9 pic first then FSX pichttp://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h311/drewhosick/fs91.jpghttp://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h311/drewhosick/fsx1.jpghttp://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h311/drewhosick/fs92.jpghttp://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h311/drewhosick/fsx2.jpg

wow...the difference between the FSX terrain textures and the FS9 ones are just amazing.Sorry, i know that doesnt answer your question! :)

There's a definite difference - FS2004 defaulthttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158061.jpg-John

Its the land and waterclass difference in both sims. I submit that If you go back to default in FS9 its going to look almost identical except FSX has more accurate shorline data and roads too.Your add-on from UT is adding all that nice water class detail (lakes and rivers) that are not in the default FS9 or FSX.Hornit

Even without the lakes, fsx default looks really good compared to FS9 default and even with UT and FSgenesis in these shots. Ian.

"Even without the lakes, fsx default looks really good compared to FS9 default and even with UT and FSgenesis in these shots."Most certainly does! I imagine FSX with UT would look really sharp.-John

Hi all,the water polygons in FSX are generated from different source data than FS9. FS9 used the 1:1 million scale Digital Chart of the World whereas, for many regions including North America and Europe, FSX uses Navteq data, a derivative of the same data used in GPS systems and online mapping systems like Windows Live: http://local.live.com/Given that those data were compiled primarily with commercial users in mind (e.g., car companies), they show a strong bias in detail and accuracy toward urban centers. That explains why in some areas, particularly in large chunks of Canada, the water data is actually worse than in FS9 default while in more populated areas there's a huge improvement over FS9. Looks like Ultimate Terrain and other landscape products still have a market in FSX: http://www.simforums.com/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=18424Cheers, HolgerP.S.: The water class files have nothing to do with the presence or shape of water bodies; they define the textures used to color the water and to show static wave patterns. It's the hydro polygons (in FSX now integrated in the cvx*.bgl files in the Scenery subfolder) that determine where water bodies are shown.

So Im using UTCanada, simply used as an addon scenery, and this makes a much nicer river display but FSX still has its angular mesh of shorelines showing up as beaches in the water of inacurate bays and inlets. Hidding the approprite cvx files from the appropriately numbered file in scenery works to eliminate these, BUT the files also contain the airport exclusion data, so when you land, you get trees everywqwhere, not too coolIm reading up on the SDK to see if I cannot remove everything except the exclusion data.allen

I lucked out and got two nearby lakes in the Rockies, that I've been missing for years, even with added mesh & landclass.L.Adamson

wow that FS9 Default made me more surprised then anything to see that it wasn't that great... But still. That one big lake should have been in FSX it stretches for quite a distance in real life. I've been there and it's a huge lake... That isn't the lake I always check out though. the one I take a look at in every version is about 40 miles south of there and I just slew to it to see and there was nothing. It's been in there since about FS2000 and then all of a sudden bubye... was a little dissappointed. Can't wait to see UT for Canada working for FSX now :-).

I knew I didnt have it quite right Holger ;) UT is really good stuff though.Hornit

Look at my post at the end.It looks like MS screwed up big time with all the areas outside of detailed coverage. This is a major setback as the data used in FSX is even worse than any other freely available. (DCW used in FS2K).Can someone from ACES team comment on it? Could it be that without significantly degrading these areas the whole game would take up more GBs which was not viable.For me, going back to FS98 scenery in terms of shoreline accuracy, be it outside of US and Western Europe, is a complete blamage.I wish someone could display the same area in "normal" and prove that something is wrong with my setup.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...d=355734&page=3

>... Can't wait to see UT for Canada>working for FSX now :-).UT does improve FSX now. Just use FSX to add scenery, point to the UTCanada dir in your FS2004 install.It's much better than the default FSX install in many areas, like Banff and Hope BC. Night and day. In fact with UT and default FSX mesh, Banff looks better than ever, see below. The golf course is spot on, no issues with sunken airports etc, the default FSX mesh is very nice now. Also, for some reason in the Mountains I get double or triple the framerates compared to flat areas. In the pic below Im getting 19 fps with autogen on.See more at: http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/fsxBanff from Sulphur Mnt with FSX and UT:http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/image/68291259/original.jpg

>>... Can't wait to see UT for Canada>>working for FSX now :-).>>>UT does improve FSX now. Just use FSX to add scenery, point to>the UTCanada dir in your FS2004 install.>>It's much better than the default FSX install in many areas,>like Banff and Hope BC. Night and day. >In fact with UT and default FSX mesh, Banff looks better than>ever, see below. >The golf course is spot on, no issues with sunken airports>etc, the default FSX mesh is very nice now. >>Also, for some reason in the Mountains I get double or triple>the framerates compared to flat areas. In the pic below Im>getting 19 fps with autogen on.>>See more at: http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/fsx>>Banff from Sulphur Mnt with FSX and UT:>>>Did UT change the landclass textures back to older style FS9 textures or does it leave those alone cause it looks different to me in your picture.(colors of textures I mean)... Maybe it's just me..

>Did UT change the landclass textures back to older style FS9>textures or does it leave those alone cause it looks different>to me in your picture.No changes. FS-X works great in the mountians, big cities like NY wipe it out, but still a lot of fun to be had:Landing in TRAFFIC:http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/image/68335241/large.jpg