I know it may sound like a dumb question but I was just curious if any good scenery add-ons like "ground environment pro 2006" and "UT-USA" help with the graphics?? My problem right now is the blurry flat ground seen when close to the ground "take-off and landing".

Yes, if the addon replaces default FSX textures with refined versions that reduce size, etc it will help improve FSX performance. You'll need to wait for those packages to be updated specifically for FSX to reap the greatest benefit IMHO.Also, there's a post or two here in the FSX forum where someone has already reduced FSX ground textures from 1024x1024 to 512x512 and are reporting performance gains. Not sure where the post is right now but you can search for it.DougDell XPS Gen3 (3.6GHz/800FSB) | 2GB DDR SDRAM | 74GB SATA, 10k RPM (C: ) | 120GB SATA (D: ) | 512MB ATI Radeon X1900XTX (Catalyst 6.8) | Audigy 2 ZS Sound | MS Force Feedback 2 | WindowsXP Pro (SP2) | DirectX 9.0c

Have you added this line to your FSX.cfg MAIN. FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.40You can start with 0.33 and see how that works out, it will remove the blurries, but you will have to turn some setting off like bloom, and water settings maybe at 2.0 low, autogen at sparse, thers no way you can have sliders at full and get no blurries.

Why start reducing the look of FSX by reducing the quality of the textures? If that is the case just go back to FS9 with graphics on full with UT and Flight Environment and FSG. With the exception of the water FS9 will look and fly better.In fact today I flew both FS9 and FSX Deluxe. Flew planes out of PACD (Alaska). Shorelines looked much better in FS9 because of UT. Sky and water looked much better in FS9 than FSX with the exception of the new wave and reflective actions of FSX. This is with totally maxed settings on FS9 and with FSX Scenery settings: Level of Detail, Mesh complexity and resolution, texture resolution and water effects all maxed right. Autogen mid level of complexity and scenery complexity dense.Only thing not maxed in FS9 is the cloud draw distance and I'm using the fps economy clouds of Flight Environment. On FSX I replaced the default FSX clouds with friendly fps clouds (just like FS9).1600x1200 FS9 - 25 frame limit - almost always stays at 25 solid. Smooth as butter.1600x1200 FSX - 12-15 fps when the nose is pointed to water. When flying over ground 8-10fps with 25 limit set.Shorelines, water textures, sky textures, flyability all are better in FS9 - except the water effects. I'll give that to FSX.The use of lighting (for cities, airports, etc.) is also better using UT in FS9 than FSX default.Basically indicates to me if I import those programs, which I haven't yet, into FSX, I should achieve the look of FS9 (again leaving aside the water effects) with a resultant significant frame loss. Can't wait.

>Yes, if the addon replaces default FSX textures with refined>versions that reduce size, etc it will help improve FSX>performance. You'll need to wait for those packages to be>updated specifically for FSX to reap the greatest benefit>IMHO.>>Also, there's a post or two here in the FSX forum where>someone has already reduced FSX ground textures from 1024x1024>to 512x512 and are reporting performance gains. Not sure>where the post is right now but you can search for it.>>Doug>>Dell XPS Gen3 (3.6GHz/800FSB) | 2GB DDR SDRAM | 74GB SATA, 10k>RPM (C: ) | 120GB SATA (D: ) | 512MB ATI Radeon X1900XTX>(Catalyst 6.8) | Audigy 2 ZS Sound | MS Force Feedback 2 |>WindowsXP Pro (SP2) | DirectX 9.0cI'm not to concerned with performance gains. I am more concerned with poor ground textures when low to the ground (taking off/landing). These textures are satellite images and look great when viewed from 5000+ but I want to be able to really appreciate high resolution ground textures that look great when landing and taking off. So far the only thing that has impressed me is the 2 products from flightscenery. Flightzone 01 and Flightzone 02 (portland). I might get FS9 and get some addons and just have fun flying until Vista/DX10 comes out and see what the improvement is for FSX then. As for now I am not having any fun at all with FSX. It's going to be a great sim but I just think we are going to have to wait for future hardware to really see what FSX is meant to do.

>Why start reducing the look of FSX by reducing the quality of>the textures? If that is the case just go back to FS9 with>graphics on full with UT and Flight Environment and FSG. With>the exception of the water FS9 will look and fly better.>>In fact today I flew both FS9 and FSX Deluxe. Flew planes out>of PACD (Alaska). Shorelines looked much better in FS9 because>of UT. Sky and water looked much better in FS9 than FSX with>the exception of the new wave and reflective actions of FSX.>This is with totally maxed settings on FS9 and with FSX>Scenery settings: Level of Detail, Mesh complexity and>resolution, texture resolution and water effects all maxed>right. Autogen mid level of complexity and scenery complexity>dense.>>Only thing not maxed in FS9 is the cloud draw distance and I'm>using the fps economy clouds of Flight Environment. On FSX I>replaced the default FSX clouds with friendly fps clouds (just>like FS9).>>1600x1200 FS9 - 25 frame limit - almost always stays at 25>solid. Smooth as butter.>>1600x1200 FSX - 12-15 fps when the nose is pointed to water.>When flying over ground 8-10fps with 25 limit set.>>Shorelines, water textures, sky textures, flyability all are>better in FS9 - except the water effects. I'll give that to>FSX.>>The use of lighting (for cities, airports, etc.) is also>better using UT in FS9 than FSX default.>>Basically indicates to me if I import those programs, which I>haven't yet, into FSX, I should achieve the look of FS9 (again>leaving aside the water effects) with a resultant significant>frame loss. Can't wait.>>Thanx for the post Len. I am going to get FS9 and get some add-ons. The thing is I'm not sure with add-ons to get as I am new to all this. Can you suggest some add-ons?? I know that I will be getting flightscenery stuff. Flightzone 01 and 02 and I know I will be getting UT-USA. I am just unsure of other add-ons like megascenery, flight environment, and flightgenesis to name a few.I am going to do this and enjoy flying until Vista/DX10 are released and the patch is sent out. Then I will re-install FSX and come back and check out what these DX10 cards are doing with FSX. I am very optimistic about the future for FSX. I think DX10 is going to really make this game perform how we want it to while also improving graphics. Time will go by much faster if I can have fun flying fs9 with addons then if I just flew FSX default with poor performance until January or later.....Thanx again for the post Len.>