Date Palms in Pine Forests and Water in Dry Rivers--So I decided to take a flight in the UltraLight over Northern Arizona -- Specifically Flagstaff-- during a snow storm-- Flagstaff, Arizona is a beautiful area at 7000 Ft in elevation-- gets several feet of snow a year--summer it gets into the 70's (f) for the high and is in the middle of the Largest Ponderosa Pine forest in the world... EXCEPT in FSX-- Apparently there are a lot of "date palm trees" in Flagstaff!!! :-)Another thing I noticed was on final approach into KPHX, there was a river with WATER running by the airport!!!! Yes, it is the Salt River, but the Salt River at KPHX is dry--- well, ok I did see water in that part of the Salt River in 1978 during the great flood that washed out a good chuck of runway 25L (that was before there was a 26 at KPHX)... but seriously the Salt River at KPHX is generally dry 365 days a year....And yes that is 30.1 FPS in the screen shot (screen is NOT paused) with no tweaks except for the "ground texture" tweak from Matt Fox (http://www.fox-fam.com/wordpress/?page_id=41)... Graphics set to HIGH (with frame rates pushed to 30), Aircraft Medium High, Scenery- Ultra High (with water turned down to Low 2.x), Weather at Medium High, and Traffic at Medium High. Autogen is on, and all settings are default...PC is a 3.3 Intel, 2 gigs ram and a 256 NVIDIA AGP card...http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159155.jpg

You paid $70+ for this....looks like FS2002 on bad day!

>You paid $70+ for this....looks like FS2002 on bad day!Actually I paid $49.95--BUT-I showed this screen shot to one of my kids. She immediately said, "Hey, that's Flagstaff and the San Franscisco Peaks-- Dad, why are there palm trees?" She has only been to Flagstaff a few times as we live in the midwest.Palm tree question aside, the Screen shot is during a snow storm and the jpg that I uploaded lost quality in the upload (size restriction).But forget the jpg compression... Flagstaff, Arizona is NOT on the "highly detailed" list of cities. It is computer generated based on whatever textures and data that Microsoft provided. AND YET- my 16 yo was IMMEDIATELY able to identify the location based on the image, the terrain, and the HIGHLY ACCURATE rendering of the San Francisco Peaks (the mountains in the background).I can not speak to FS2002 on a bad day, but I CAN speak to FS2004 WITH custom high res terrain, gigabytes of downloads, and hours upon hours of trying to make things look "as real as it gets." FS2004 NEVER did this area this well STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX. And I would bet that 2002 never did either.When I can have a person look at a screen shot and immediately recognize the area, that says something. Microsoft did alright in my book

Believe you me, that looks like FS2002 on a bad day, and certainly nothing like the pretty screenshots that M$ came up with. Even $49.95 is too much as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who can get enthusiastic about that is well a a really excited user!

>Believe you me, that looks like FS2002 on a bad day, and>certainly nothing like the pretty screenshots that M$ came up>with. Even $49.95 is too much as far as I'm concerned. >Anyone who can get enthusiastic about that is well a a really excited user!Youve obviously got an agenda; anyone who uses M$ is a joke, dim witted and not to be taken seriosuly. When you can post something without drivel agains "M$" then do so. No Im not real fond of FSX right now however there are things about it that blow FS9 away. You call people who have something positive to say about FSX a a really excited user well sir youre nothing but a "M$" bashing a really excited user. Pot calling the kettle what?

>Believe you me, that looks like FS2002 on a bad day, and>certainly nothing like the pretty screenshots that M$ came up>with. Even $49.95 is too much as far as I'm concerned. >Anyone who can get enthusiastic about that is well a a really excited user!If you can't be helpful be informative, if not that at least be nice. Still no can do? Then we would all be better of without you.

LOL, same thins happens to me.....come on, FS9 had the correct trees....in my town of Grand Forks, ND the only trees that show up are pine trees lol....we don't have many of those....they are mostly deciduous....

>Believe you me, that looks like FS2002 on a bad day, and>certainly nothing like the pretty screenshots that M$ came up>with. Even $49.95 is too much as far as I'm concerned. >Anyone who can get enthusiastic about that is well a a really excited user!You're right... FSX looks NOTHING like the real world...NOTHING at all... what was I thinking...I must have really missed out on something--- not flying MS FS2002 on a bad day... Maybe Microsoft will release a patch so we can get FSX to be as good as FS98!!!I still stand by my previous statement-- The AUTOGEN image of default textures looks pretty accurate when compared to the real world...unfortunately the FSX screen shot was with hazy weather and not clear skies... and the FSX shot is mid day as opposed to late afternoon...Sorry, just getting tired of the 90% negativity here in the forum... http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159206.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159207.jpg

Looks pretty good to me. Plus your having fun with FSX thats the point don't let the we hate FSX gang bother you. The will thin out sooner or later and go on to we hate something else.:)

I'm just astounded how you FSX appeasers are so easily pleased. You play into the hands of the developers. Demand more. If they had competition you can bet that they would have come up with something better. You're far too easily pleased!

>Believe you me, that looks like FS2002 on a bad day, and>certainly nothing like the pretty screenshots that M$ came up>with. Even $49.95 is too much as far as I'm concerned. >Anyone who can get enthusiastic about that is well a a really excited user!Better than a repressed troll, though.

ismet,I think you have to be the most negative poster I have seen.

am i missing something? i thought the LC codes are backwards compatible in this release. if you had the "right" trees in fs9 just use that landclass, no?hmmm...

Hi Vilk,yes and no. The basic land class system hasn't changed (though eight or so new classes have been added as well as a bunch more regions) but the ground textures and their autogen definitions are all new. Some of the "thematic content" of these textures is different in FSX and some class-to-texture designations have been switched around.Hence the "desertification" and some class mix-ups visible in the default FSX as well as, probably, in most add-on land class files.In other words, definitely give existing FS9 land class files a try but keep an eye out for updated versions or new projects, optimized for FSX.Cheers, Holger

Does the LCLookup.bgl need to be edited to fix the switcharoos? Were the mix-ups intentional or mistakes?Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180