Hi Garet,that's a good point about being careful with seeing land class add-ons as the cure-all. Sorry if I didn't quite get that point. As a potential customer I'd ask very specific questions about data sources as well as use of the new options for adjustments to regions and seasons. Also, not surprisingly, there usually is a trade-off in land class add-ons between area covered and local accuracy.As for the texture issue here's some speculation on my part: I believe that ACES got a bit blind-sided by the "collapse" of their own initiative to provide more accurate land class files. The texture artists are probably different people than the (land class) data "handlers". Of course, they should work together closely and thoroughly test the new textures with the new land class files. Since the new land class file didn't happen the team had to decide how to proceed. I suspect that the land class project is still on the shelf for the next version of FS and thus they didn't want to "mess around" with their brand-new textures to match them to the antiquated FS9 land class.Yup, kevlar may be required if you're proposing to trade off one feature for another ;-) Keep in mind, too, that jobs at ACES are highly specialised and most likely cannot just get shuffled around at will. I can imagine that there were lots of heated internal discussions about what aspects to increase or decrease focus.I've started on converting some of my projects to FSX as well as planning new stuff. However, I'm still mostly working on completing FS9 projects in the works, like Glacier Bay v2 and an update to the Victoria project with Jon Patch. We're "stuck" with FSX for the next couple of years so there's no big rush to push out files, IMO. Besides, who knows what other updates ACES will include with the scheduled VISTA/DX10 upgrade?Cheers, Holger

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/2126/azf3.jpghttp://img293.imageshack.us/img293/6089/bpd0.jpghttp://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9563/cpl7.jpghttp://img242.imageshack.us/img242/5469/dgw6.jpghttp://img384.imageshack.us/img384/9837/ezx4.jpghttp://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6740/fij2.jpghttp://img293.imageshack.us/img293/6474/gzt6.jpghttp://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9486/hgg3.jpghttp://img293.imageshack.us/img293/6320/ifc4.jpghttp://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3559/jlj6.jpghttp://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9986/kxl4.jpghttp://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8199/lig7.jpghttp://img384.imageshack.us/img384/8117/mbw5.jpghttp://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9185/nqm8.jpghttp://img384.imageshack.us/img384/4176/oui4.jpghttp://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2801/ptv7.jpghttp://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3120/qoo3.jpghttp://img384.imageshack.us/img384/4449/rac3.jpghttp://img384.imageshack.us/img384/8366/smf4.jpgHope this will shed some light as to how accurate the Myworld X landclass is...Would be interesting to see what google earth will come up with....

Right or wrong, I think it looks good anyway.Ron

I lived in Ft. Lauderdale for 5 years (worked in Miami) and Orlando for 9 years (1985 - 1998) during which time I rode motorcycles all over the state on most weekends. I don't think these pictures are that far off. They look pretty decent to me. Not great, just decent.I have FSX in the box and won't load it till the DX10 patch has been thoroughly digested so I can't go up and look for myself.Scott

Why your fps is limited to 18? Most of those shots are showing 17+ fps. 24 should be the minimum target.

Achmmm - not asking or anything,But it would sure be great to have both GlacierICE and SnowICE FSX textures (instead of being the same)... you know when/if you ever got around to it ....:)Glacier Bay, was there in 2001. Loved Skagway so much, I want to retire there. Both great projects, look forward to seeing the updates!Others, there is no doubt good add-on land class's will add the missing town/cities etc, as well as better represent the residencial area types within the cities and surrounding. FSX has made a huge improvement IMHO with the textures in these areas. I was mainly talking about the areas in between. It's all about where you fly, so try and pick one's that gives you the best representation of the principle areas you fly. Ask the developer questions if you are not sure. As for me, I pretty well only fly into town/cities for nessesities - like beer and video cards;)Regards'Garett

I'm running on a notebook, just chose 18 for no particular reason...i hardly get more than 20 anyway...

"I'm still mostly working on completing FS9 projects in the works, like Glacier Bay v2"...now THAT's one I'm really looking forward to seeing :)Cheers, Holger!Mike :-beerchug

:-) Actually I set it to 24 just for the sake of it, and I now get 22/23/23.9 in most rural areas with Autogen set to Dense...Dunno about cities though ! :-(I thought the higher you set your max FPS the lower the LOD will become and vice versa, but I could not detect a noticable difference.

Pieter:I think you might be missing the point...the landclass may be spot on but that STILL doesn't look like Miami. As I said above, your landclass means nothing without proper textures.Miami doesn't have a desert, it doesn't have farmlands stretching out as far as the eye can see, and since the Miami area is hot and humid moss grows on everything and turns it green. I think the shots of the "swampy" areas are closer to what you might see, but it is far too sparse. You'll have to wait until the powers that be deliver proper textures in addition to the landclass. Right now, its like a bull with teets...totally useless.

I see what you mean !Well, luckely Myworld for FSX was only about

With the exception of some shoreline strangeness, I have found the UTUSA for FS9 ported over to FSX does a great job on the Oregon Coast - all of Oregon and Washington too!. This is just an interim fix until UT for FSX is done, but it is 90% there already. You need to use the installation (porting) utility created by the author and you need UTUSA installed in FS9 to do the porting. All the towns are well represented and the landclass is just as it (UTUSA) is in FS9 which is right on. I can't speak to the desert areas as I don't know where to look. Can someone give me an area to check out and I'll report back.

try the mountain flying lesson

Hi Mike,"Right now, its like a bull with teets...totally useless."Cute analogy but you're the one missing the point, I'm afraid.This thread is about the accuracy (or not) of a global land class add-on, not about moss growing on Florida's houses ;-)The primary purpose of an add-on land class file is to improve on the accuracy of the *spatial distribution* of land cover types - city, forests, argriculture, etc. - and to choose the most appropriate class (texture plus autogen) from the *available* classes (small city vs. big city, etc.)The default land class file is inaccurate in both regards, hence the need for add-on land class files. To me, and I'd suspect most other users, I DOES make a big difference if a section that should be city is farmland or vice versa. That is the criteria for measuring the usefulness of an add-on land class file, nothing else!True, in the ideal situation a developer would combine his land class file with custom ground textures and autogen types more appropriate for the region covered. However, this was done for FS9 for very few areas - VOZ, Austria Professional, my own Tongass and Misty Fjords - and I doubt that we'll see many more of these projects for FSX simply because they are very time-consuming to make.In short, it is not helpful to dismiss add-on land class files as useless because we need more land class files for FSX not less. Having accurate custom textures is a nice bonus but even in their absence a well-made land class file will greatly improve on the default situation in FSX.Cheers, Holger

why this landclass/texture thing doesn't go by states like topo maps do. I'd be a buyer for my state, that's for sure! Dead reckoning, VFR are always good.