I am looking for FS to go 3d. If I am not mistakened everything (scenery-wise) in FS is 2d except autogen. Default FS scenery is taken with satellite imagery that is poor resolution. The best that we can do is get say 1m/pixel texture resolution of aerial photography but even that would be 2d. It would be gorgeous flying at altitude but when landing it still wouldn't look right (at least I don't think it would) because we would be "flying over a flat picture". We need 3d autogen that is more accurate. Autogen that is based on aerial photography. How about the term "photo-real autogen". If they can do something like this for airports and surrounding airports so when you are below 1000asl you can see a beautiful 3d rendered accurate approach to the airport you are flying in. You will see beautifully rendered palm trees, different types/colors buildings/houses, etc. There's a fine line between 2d and 3d and FS has to come up with something. Like I said 2d is absolutley fine for most of the world. I am not expecting the whole world to be 3d. 2d works beautifully when flying from location to location at cruising altitude (1500asl+). But when flying at low altitude at an angle of high incident (taking off/landing) you experience the feeling of flying over a flat picture which is blurry and zoomed in. I'm sure 1m/pixel texture resolution will definetley be better but I'm not sure it will still work with the poor autogen that just pops out of the flat picture. There has to be an area for autogen that is based on aerial photography. I'm sure this is basically what FZ01 and FZ02 do but I could be wrong.If FSX default terrain texture resolution is 38m/pixel like somebody previously said then I think this would work very well. I'm just not so sure that 38m/pixel really is the default texture. I would love to find out for sure what the actual texture resolution that FSX uses just to compare in my head what the difference will be with say 1m/pixel.

anybody??