>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 >Holger,You are a well known and respected member of the community that does good work. I know I have enjoyed your work! :)However I feel compelled that I must state my opinion, which is, I do not think that MS/ACES should be relieved of responsibilty. I did not hand over my money to the US Geological Survey for the product. I agree that the textures are a big step foward compared to the 4m textures from FS9, but if they are incorrect then they should be corrected. The issue of vast swaths of dessert areas where they don't belong is a pretty glaring issue and a big step backwards from FS9 imo(or in the wrong direction at the very least), on a large enough of a scale that I feel that the manufacturer of the product should not be relieved of responsibilty and the fix should not be placed on the shoulders of third parties.I hope you can understand how and why I would feel this way. I respect if you don't agree with me.Regards,Jim

Well the uk is mostly light brown scrubland as well so you could be right.Also dont forget the new land bridges across uk rivers.

The first thing I did after having seen the surroundings of Ansterdam Schiphol was copy the LC file from UT Europe over to FSX.It is looking wonderfull now here.Ofcoarse you can do the same with other 3th party landclass from Fs9.In time FSX will look the best FS it can be....

Hi Jim,your point is valid (except that every US citizen pays for the USGS with their tax dollars) but you didn't suggest an answer to my questions either: what should ACES have done? The textures *are* correct, it's the land class file that is inaccurate in several areas. Moreover, if ACES was to alter the textures then you'd only shift the mismatching issue to those areas where the current land class file is accurate.The only solution is to match the given textures with an accurate land class file. It was ACES's decision to release FSX without a new version of that file. For that they have to accept responsibility but we do know that they at least tried to provide a better global land class file.Cheers, Holger

>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.jpg>>>>and here's a corresponding FS9 texture:>http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/158853.jpg>>>>The 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 Hi Holger love your work. If that texture was tinted more green what effect do you think it would have on FSX desert look?Never mind took a look at the whole set of Fa textures all sand summer is has just a hint of green and spring is also mostly sandish color.

Hi there,the file names in those two screenshots - 050b2fa0.bmp vs. 050b2su0.bmp - indicate that the FSX texture is used in summer (su) and the other during fall (fa). Actually, the FS9 version doesn't have a fall season so the summer texture gets displayed at this time of the year, which is another reason why the FS9 texture looks less desert-like. FSX does have a custom summer texture for this class and if you set FSX back to summer you should see somewhat greener textures in those areas.So, yes, changing the hue of a texture might help (though the issue of the general low contrast would remain) but it's probably easier for add-on developers to simply pick a more appropriate class for these regions when they code their land class files. After all, FSX has about 125 different classes to choose from.Cheers, Holger

Wow... that is REALLY bad. :(Runways and taxiways on weird elevated platforms... pixelated roads running at a 45 degree angle on a hill... flat green texture laid directly on top of non-matching farms.Ugh.

So the only hope is to fly in summer or winter time frame for the US unless it is the southwest. Since fall and spring will just give you the sand or sage color textures.

I tried it in Summer, the only thing that changed was the trees turned green, still desert everywhere else.

>>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. Instead, they>>decided to focus on enhancing the number of regions, making>>changes to the slope-determined switching of ground>textures,>>and developing a brand new set of high-res seasonal textures>>based on satellite or aerial imagery.>>>How did it happen then that landclass is significantly WORSE>than in FS9?>>See screens:>>EPWA Real:>http://www.evolveai.com/forums/attachment....=1&d=1161111295>>EPWA in FS9:>http://www.evolveai.com/forums/attachment....=1&d=1161111196>>EPWA in FSX:>http://www.evolveai.com/forums/attachment....=1&d=1161111196>>#####?>>Those links does not work. You have to log in in order to see the pics...

Yep the autumn textures are way of regarding colors it looks like the dessert in the Netherlands lolAndr

The more I look around in FSX the more this glaring issues ticks me off. :-fume It just about has me thinking about dropping FSX for now and sticking with nothing but FS9. It needs fixing :-8, regardless of whether it's a landclass problem or a texture problem.---------------------------------Beta Testers: Hey MS, 3/8th's of the world is covered by desert, including the slopes of mountain peaks.MS Management and Bean Counters: O RLY?!? Well it doesn't matter, we're on a budget and a time schedule that cannot be ignored even if something's wrong. Besides, the big cheese doesn't fly the sim anymore, so he'll never know which means we'll never need to fix it.---------------------------------Yeah, I know, I can be a real jerk sometimes. :-hah