what in FSX is in 3d and what is not?? It seems to me that autogen is a very weak way of showing 3d when flying low (landing/taking off). I just don't want that feeling of landing on a photograph with very ugly 3d autogen buildings popping out of it. Can someone help?? Is FZ the only answer??

These days, almost everything except the 2d panel (unsurprisingly) is 3d rendering. It's where all the graphic cards earn their money, as any old onboard piece of c.a.r.p could display 2d, back in the day when computers were steam driven and the technological innovator of the day wwas called Brunel, not Bill. ;)We have the problem that autogen is currently the only way of displaying randomly-generated objects to create the illusion of height and substance on what is otherwise a 2d `map` of the landscape, albeit one wrapped over a 3-dimensional mesh. You can also create single objects and place them in the landscape, but I know of no other way of creating objects other than creating them either manually or through some program or other.But the popping of the textures may well down to your settings. I belive FZ get round the problem by actually hand placing the autogen onjects on the map, and controlling the distance at which they appear. If and when that trick is applied to FSX, you'll get what you're after.Allcott

Cool. Thanx for clearing that up Allcott. I always enjoy reading your posts. Very informative. So FZ got around the problem by actually hand placing the autogen objects on the map and also modeling them off of an aerial photograph. This is what FSX needs to do. Instead of the same old bland autogen houses and buildings they need to model it more accurately and detailed. I just don't know what they would do about the actual ground. I don't like the feeling of flying onto a 2d flat blurred zoomed in satellite image. There is no sense of depth and it's just plain ugly.

I would not consider the 1m ground textures ugly, nor without depth. To me they look very "3D" once you're about 1000ft or so in the air.

>I would not consider the 1m ground textures ugly, nor without>depth. To me they look very "3D" once you're about 1000ft or>so in the air.They are 1m???? I was unaware of that. I am talking about less then 1000ft. 1000 is fine and 1m is excellent. Are you sure that FSX default texture is 1m?? I just don't want the feeling of flying over a flat picture. This is where autogen needs to come in and be more accurate and pretty.

HI, it's have been said from the FS developper blogs and you can see the resolution in fs they are 1m.ThanksChris Willishttp://www.hifisim.comhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6...development.jpg