Hi Holger:How can you tell if the landclass is correct or not? In the screenshots there is abundant 'breat basket' type farmland. That is not indicative of Miami or most areas of Flordia. To say the landclass it incorrect would be to say that the default textures that are being referenced ARE correct. To say the textures are correct imputes that the landclass is incorrect.The original question was in regards to the look for the area being reflective of Miami. Having extensive ground and airborne experience of the area in question I can say unquivocably it does not.The moss comment was the fact that the screenshots are decidedly brown. Flordia is decidedly green. So lets start there as the textures are incorrect...or the landclass is calling for rural farm areas, in either respect, wrong.SO, at the end of the day, I stand by my comment, right now it is usless. If the landclass calls for a swamp texture and a farm is displayed it's useless. If the landclass calls for urban textures, but surburban textures are displayed, its useless. If the landclass calls for grass, but arid textures are displayed, its useless. Having inaccurate textures with accurate landclass is like looking at an impressionist self portrait to pick someone out of a criminal lineup. It may look pretty and it may even resemble a human being, but if one were trying to identify the painter, one cannot use the distorted painting no matter how pretty it looks, because it lacks any semblance of accuracy. Therefore, useless.Accurate landclass AND textures must go hand-in-hand. What sense it it if you have photoreal textures and entire towns are missing and similarly what sense is it if you have hyperaccurate landclass and displaying NYC as a forest? Even WITH correct landclass much of the USA (and the world) is still a post-apocolyptic wasteland of desolation, destruction and death in FSX...until proper textures appear (or the global thermonuclear war within FSX is over and vegetation can begin to grow back) :-lol

Hi Mike,interesting points and more cute analogies ;-)I agree that in cases where there is no appropriate texture for a specific land class type then an add-on land class file would be an exercise in futility for those specific areas (though there are still differences between "completely wrong" and "not quite right"). For example, neither FS9 nor FSX include classes for industrial areas or forestry clearcuts, both of which are pretty common in the U.S.Sorry, I don't understand this paragraph:"SO, at the end of the day, I stand by my comment, right now it is usless. If the landclass calls for a swamp texture and a farm is displayed it's useless. If the landclass calls for urban textures, but surburban textures are displayed, its useless. If the landclass calls for grass, but arid textures are displayed, its useless."If a land class file calls for a swamp then a swamp will be displayed. If a farm is displayed then the land class file is inaccurate. In the case of the MyWorld add-on the question would be whether it shows swamps or farm land. If it uses the wrong class in many areas then it does not offer its promised general improvement over the default. What I generally disagree with is your black and white view of the issue, stated as absolutes (i.e., "useless"). Most add-ons for FS provide incremental improvements not something revolutionary. Cheers, Holger

>>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 Hey there Holger. I agree with you on this one; there' no quick fix and long term the answer is a combination of custom LC and textures. We have started development on VOZ PRO for FSX, but as you say, it's going to be a long, long road ahead before the product sees the light of day. The amount of work required is unimaginably huge and right now we have too many unfinished FS9 commercial projects that will pay the bills for us before the FSX market is stable enough to warrant full-scale development.The only way developers are going to produce the most accurate product for FSX is to begin with a completely clean state. That is, delete 100% of the FSX default textures off their drives and start from scratch. We are licensing aerial photography for VOZ PRO, sourced at 0.15m/pixel, and will be working area by area with a new, more accurate landclass to synthetically reproduce local landscapes. For a country the size of Australia, it's safe to say you can keep your credit cards in your wallets for a long while yet ;)Personally I am glad MS botched up the landclass and textures, because it gives us something to do. If FSX was perfect, how boring would that be? :)

Hi Mike,sneaky, you added another paragraph while I wrote my response ;-)"Accurate landclass AND textures must go hand-in-hand. What sense it it if you have photoreal textures and entire towns are missing and similarly what sense is it if you have hyperaccurate landclass and displaying NYC as a forest? Even WITH correct landclass much of the USA (and the world) is still a post-apocolyptic wasteland of desolation, destruction and death in FSX.."Yes to the first statement, in the ideal world. I already stated that it ain't going to happen for most areas though."Huh?" on the rest of the paragraph. Again, if entire towns are missing then the land class file is inaccurate. Also, if NYC is displayed as a forest then the land class file is wrong. We have a pretty good selection of default textures to choose from. What we DON'T have is accurate land class files for the US. Even the FSG payware file is only complete for a few states in the NE corner of the US.Having said that there are default textures that are not useful for what they are supposed to show. Those are the ones primarily responsible for the "desert" look of FSX (in combination with the crude default land class file) and that's where generic replacement textures will be very useful.Cheers, Holger

What is interesting to me is how a small handful of talented people can produce separate add-on scenery products that make FS shine, in their spare time (ok, a few may do it full time).Why is it that a large integrated project team can't, even when given three years?Someone please explain that to me.Tim

Hi Tim,that's simple: 57,393,000 sq mi (land mass of the world) vs. add-ons that cover 50,000 sq miles or less.Also, I bet there's only a couple of people at ACES who actually work on these aspects of the terrain display "engine".Even if VOZ Pro ends up fully replacing Australia (3,132,000 sq mi) it'll be years, according to John, before that project is complete.Cheers, Holger

Hi John,looks like you and your team will be busy ;-) All the best with that monster of a project!OT: While I have your attention, could you look at this thread and tell us whether you have tested this in FSX yet? http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3299Cheers, Holger

A couple people working terrain! What a pity. The credits page of "Insider Information", booklet in the DVD box, lists 165 people providing some type of FSX product support.Then again, as mentioned, it does give you talented guys something to do!Regards,Tim

>Hi John,>>looks like you and your team will be busy ;-) All the best>with that monster of a project!>>OT: While I have your attention, could you look at this thread>and tell us whether you have tested this in FSX yet?>http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3299>>Cheers, HolgerI have yet to begin serious testing of LC and custom textures in FSX, but I have found that custom LC appears to produce very different results in FSX vs. FS9.

I'm just happy knowing a whole lot of people are working on doing the same "scenery magic" to FSX as was done to FS9 and earlier - while we all sit here and discuss what we need, or what isn't right ... or like me with half baked ideas of how to fix.Patience - never been my best virtue. I patiently sat for three years while ACES made FSX. (I think we all new it wouldn't be perfect - right) FSX comes out and were in a frenzy trying or bugging developers to port/fix/add/modify/update everything static or moving, trying to make it the best sim ever - in under two weeks..;) I need to remind myself how long I waited for most of the quality add-ons, and how long it took me to get my FS9 where it is now.I think texture & land class packages are going to be a very hot item for FSX. And we all have different preferences, making it very hard to get a "one size fits all" package. My only advise to myself this go around, is to ask qestions (especially scenery) BEFORE I buy.Regards'Garett