I'm in the process of downloading Justin's FS Genesis Landclass for FSX. For those of you who have it, what do you think, and do you have any comparsion shots? How is it when it comes to the FRAMES department?I've always enjoyed Justin's work, and I look forward to getting it all downloaded.

Depends where you fly. In Canada, I didn't notice much difference and had some issues with sunken airports.With FS9 FSG mesh highly recommended, but not sure with FS-X. Ultimate terrain made a bigger difference for me.I have a few of compares here:http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/fsxIf you find any better compares or settings to bring out the detail please post...

It looks fantastic so far. The difference from the older 38m and the newer 19m is a bit more subtle than what we saw going from 150m to 38 of course, but the 19m looks even more natural, and looks just great in the Rockies.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/159339.jpg

EDIT: Let us know how it is once you get it installed!Cheers

Thanks everyone,Great shots and I'm looking forward to it.

Stan-I posted a compare of the Tetons with real shots in the screen shot forum-a dead ringer.Fsgensis mesh and active sky are my 1st two add ins with any version-must haves imho.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

>It looks fantastic so far. The difference from the older 38m>and the newer 19m is a bit more subtle than what we saw going>from 150m to 38 of course, but the 19m looks even more>natural, and looks just great in the Rockies.>In FSX the FSG mesh is 9.6m in the US and 19m in Canada.:-)

>>In FSX the FSG mesh is 9.6m in the US and 19m in Canada.:-) That sounds great but I just dont see that much more detail but I do see the sunken features?Maybe someone else can try this screenshot at Lake Louise,Alberta,Canada to check the settings...http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/image/68141955/original.jpg

>That sounds great but I just dont see that much more detail>but I do see the sunken features?I use FSG on FS9. The one thing I always hated about it was how some airports would be on a plateau. Something about the elevation not jiving because of an incline or something like that I dont remember. I had hoped that FSX would look good enough, and I wouldnt have to bother with too many add-ons. I was an add-on junkie with FS9. I would be interested in seeing some screens of airports on, or not on plateaus if its still a problem.http://www.lemosnet.com/misc/gpilotsig.jpg

It's going to be a problem with some airports as long as FS airports have to be perfectly-flat, while in real-life there are no perfectly-flat airports. I'd say there are very few airports in real life where the airport's published elevation is the same as all the runway threshold elevations. Yet, in FS, all must be the same elevation, by design. Hence, plateaus.-------Justinhttp://www.fsgenesis.netHigh Quality Scenery for FS200x