YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!NOTHING you do to FS9 could possibly make it look even close to how good FSX looks. You can't defend FS9 forever!How the naysayers can possibly continue to say that FS9 with all addons looks as good as FSX is beyond me. The difference in the quality of the autogen, the quality of the textures, the lighting, the aircraft, the buildings, basically EVERYTHING in FSX is FAR FAR better than FS9.I didn't realise how much better until I saw those shots. I seriously challenge any naysayer to come up with pics of their FS9 setup that come close to the FSX shots posted in the link above!I'm awed at the amount of work ACES have put into this one.James

Hey James, I'll resist the temptation to argue with you again about FSX v FS9 and say that I agree that those shots of FSX are undoubtedly very nice, but you gotta admit that Peter Wilding's shots on his site with Ground Env pro did look great. I just hope that it will be possible to fly at reasonable frame rates over a high autogen scenery in FSX some time soon. Unfortunately it won't be me as I can't afford to upgrade my pc.

> basically EVERYTHING in FSX is FAR FAR better than FS9.Well, not *everything*.. If you look at the Mooney, King Air 350 and DC-3 (just to name a few that readily come to mind) from a pilot's perspective (that being the virtual cockpit) they *look* to me like straight ports from FS9 to FSX. Actually, I just did a comparison shot of the FS9 / FSX King Air 350 and Mooney and noticed that the FSX's version of the former is actually a teeny-weeny bit WORSE. Can you spot the reason why? *http://www.puonti.net/stuff/fs9_fsx_01.jpgThese VCs are very low-quality COMPARED TO, say, the Beaver, Maule and the Goose which - surprise surprise - are completely new planes made specifically for FSX. See the difference in texture resolution of the Maule compared to the Mooney and the King Air? The fact that the panel division on the Maule is made with polygons giving it a nice and sharp edge instead of a blurry texture like on the King Air?http://www.puonti.net/stuff/fs9_fsx_02.jpgAm I disappointed by this? A little bit. Would I rather have paid the same price for a product that contained ONLY the new aircraft and none of the old ones "touched up" on the (outside) surface? No. I'll rather have Aces do what they can to spruce up some of the old planes and bring them over than try to do it myself.I'm very excited by FSX myself and there's no doubt that FSX is ultimately the better one of the two simply because of the new features and possibilities it brings onto the table (even if some things, like designing large and detailed airports, are currently a big question mark), but at this time FS9 CAN outshine or at the very least stay toe-to-toe with it content-wise. What it CAN'T do is match the tech, like higher resolution ground textures.* If you couldn't see why the FSX version of the KA350 is worse than the FS9 version, here's the answer: in FS9 the orange "Alt Alert" button is a 3D object, while in FSX it's just a texture.

>If you want to make FS look like a kiddies gamethat's the way to do it.Thanks for your nice comments. I can assure you, that it wasn't the goal to let FS9 look like a 'kiddies game'. It's a comparison right out of the box without any addons or texture upgrades. Just fair ? I was surprised as well when i saw the post of Jigsaw. Like most of us i run FS9 only with the latest and greatest addons. And i like to add that my first FS9 installation was by far a bigger performance catastrophe than my first FSX installation ;-).

Water's a funny thing. The color really depends on the angle of viewing, time of day, cloud cover, depth, clarity, pollution, so many things. And then after that, photography can have very unrealistic coloring, so trying to capture what you see becomes very hard.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

I'm in agreement about the VCs.James