Or Norway for that matter. I think the world has to heat up alot before we get deserts up here. :(

Ah, this is a deal breaker for me. After seeing the extent of the problem not just in North America but throughout Europe and Eurasia also, I just can't muster the enthusiasm to fire up FSX and go exploring this new world that ACES have created. Some FS9 landclasses do improve the look of the terrain somewhat but the fundamental texture problem persists; instead of vast expanses of featureless desert there are now vast expanses of slightly less featureless desert. So, FSX is going on the shelf until the terrain texture and landclass problems have been fixed. FSX has lots of potential, it just needs to be cooked a little longer.

Me again,just wanted to show how the textures in FS9 compare to FSX. I double-checked and the global land class file for the area in sjdickson's movie are identical. Specifically, the yellow-tinged class that fills the screen from about halfway into the movie is class 52, "Semi Desert Sage".Here's a snapshot of one of the corresponding fall texture tiles in FSX:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158852.jpgand here's a corresponding FS9 texture:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158853.jpgThe obvious difference is in the pattern. The FSX texture is much more realistic in the size and coloring of the sage brushes but that means that there's much less contrast in the texture, which translates into less visible patterns, especially if your sim doesn't load the highest mipmaps. So the issue is with the repetitiveness of the default land class file but also with the high resolution and realism of the FSX textures: what looks great in overhead view or in a texture viewing tool won't neccessarily look great in the sim. The FS9 texture may have had very little to do with sage brushes but it does give the landscape more structure, breaking up the uniformity noticeable in the FSX footage.More accurate landclass will definitely help but the basic issue of some of these textures lacking structure and contrast when viewed from higher up will remain. Cheers, Holger

Unreal, that ACES screwed this glaring bug up. I wonder what the heck the beta testers were seeing???? I imagine nobody from ACES will be here to comment on this massive screw up although I wish they would acknowledge it at least and state something to the effect that a fix is on the way.

Holger, I was one of those that raised the question about the desert like textures when the FP first came out. Would it be correct to say that, whilst the situation is not good at the moment, the opportunities for texture and landclass enhancement are better with FSX than they are with FS9?

Hi Eric,thanks for the flowers!Sometimes I wonder why I even bother posting when huffed exasperation and calling others incompetent appears to be the preferred way of communicating.Cheers, Holger

We didn't see it because all we could see was our boots in your behind...ROFL.How did you know we didn't see? How do you know that ACES didn't see it?More so.....How do you know this issue addressed publicly here recently? Something about an abrubt personel change at MS and some stuff with this issue that couldn't get resolved easily?If you're going to make comments like that, at least have some facts before blaiming the beta testers.

>We were told that ACES tried to generate a much more accurate>land classification system but had to abandon the effort due>to technical issues and staff reassignments.Staff reassignments?Ya mean like working on elephants? :-(

Keep posting Holger!! Most of us appreciate your efforts :-)

Hi there,sorry, wrong choice of words: not "staff reassignment" but rather the main person working on the new landclass file "got an opportunity to go to another group within Microsoft".Victor, I'd definitely agree that accurate land class files will make FSX look much better than FS9 with a similar land class file. Cheers, Holger

Perhaps someone with more experience could explain something to me here. Taking North America as an example. With the texture so "desert like" is there a reason that MS chose to ignore that fact and publish FSX regardless? Is it a case of a texture not looking as it should, ie MS shipped out a product with a bad texture or is the texture OK but something is wrong with the Landclass. Would/Should the texture simply be replaced with another? If the texture is so widespread wouldn't it be simpler to replace it?Andrew Brown

Thank you for that clear and concise explanation, Holger. Your post has convinced me to spend the evening trying to swap out the problematic series of textures (the 050b, 051b and 052b series to start with) with the aim of making an interim workaround on my own system which will allow me to continue exploring FSX until a proper fix is released either by MS/ACES or, more likely, by one of the usual third-party scenery developers.

Hi Andrew,well, I believe I answered most of your questions in my posts above.The main issue here is with the source data that ACES had to work with. In other words, anyone who needs to blame someone go ahead and blame the US Geological Survey, not MS or ACES. The FSX textures I have looked at in detail accurately portray the theme of that class. Unfortunately, the land cover source data are often wrong, too general, and also biased towards natural ecosystems (as opposed to human-transformed landscapes), thus repeating the same incorrect class across thousands of square miles. What should ACES have done? Ditch the new high-res textures because the FS9 low-res textures better mask the issues with the land cover data? Or, perhaps, add "fantasy" classes here and there to break up the visual monotony? Keep in mind that we're dealing with the entire globe here: manual or local fixes aren't an option for ACES.Don't get me wrong: I share the disappointment about the way FSX looks in many areas across the globe. However, I prefer to believe that the team at ACES is neither incompetent nor our enemies. Also, they have provided us with full documentation about the way the landclass, region, and season files work so that anyone can go ahead and fix up what looks wrong in the part of the world he/she is familiar with.Cheers, Holger

You can have at it then:http://edc.usgs.gov/products/landcover/lulc.htmlConverting USGS to BGL is beyond my abilities, but I know that there is a lot less desert than that in the US, but it IS Autumn in the Northern Hemisphere.:)

Your attitude is refreshing here Holger. We spend 45-70 dollars for an amazing simulation engine that we can then go to work on and improve. Although not perfect (and what on earth is?) FSX is a terrific leap forward in simulation technology and will be a blast to mold and shape in the days/months/years to come!Thanks a million for your contributions!DougDell XPS Gen3 (3.6GHz/540FSB) | 2GB DDR SDRAM | 74GB SATA, 10k RPM (C: ) | 120GB SATA (D: ) | 512MB ATI Radeon X1900XTX (Catalyst 6.9) | Audigy 2 ZS Sound | MS Force Feedback 2 | WindowsXP Pro (SP2) | DirectX 9.0c