Looks like toxic waste dump sites. I see them all over upstate NY. Haven't seen them so much in other areas. Looks like partly water, but they're in places where there aren't bodies of water. I'm thinking maybe they are swampy areas? Not very appealing.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/161375.jpgJim

Marshlands up north swamps down south.

Thanks, I thought that's what it was. I've seen them near the Everglades in Florida too.Jim

Are you using the FS Genesis landclass by any chance? I saw a lot of this when I put this into the sim. I fly around New England a good bit. Justin is going to need to tweak the landclass for which textures it uses i think. Overall it works pretty well but there are some anomalies.Hornit

Yes, I am using the FSG Landclass. I didn't fly FSX long enough without it to see if these existed before. This morning I was flying over the Daytona Beach, FL area and it looked pretty bad with all these green pools.Jim

I did not see these spots either until I added the LC.Hornit

Hi there,that's definitely one of the odd textures in FSX. It's supposed to be "Wooded Wet Swamp" but the green-blue water makes it look tropical or, well, toxic indeed. Also, the autogen trees are placed without consideration of the water bodies; maybe that's supposed to represent trees standing in water, like the Louisiana swamps?Too bad because it's one of the new classes that contains its own "real" water via an Alpha channel. I'd say it's a prime candidate for replacement and also a good example that just because FS9 land class files can be used in FSX it doesn't mean they match well. Just last night I finished a first draft of a made-for-FSX land class file and of its 40 different classes used for the FS9 original I ended up changing more than half to better fit the new FSX textures.Cheers, Holger

Hi Holger, I've got a general question for you..When your doing the new land class, do you "spec" it match the terrain or the texture? I know its sounds like an obvious question, I would think you match it to the actual terrain. The textures are supposed to represent the landclass, not vis-versa right.I see so many good textures in FSX, but "some" just seem that they would be better matched to other classes. But if you changed the landclass to "match up" with the default textures to make an area better, a new texture package that better represented the original landclass designate would end up looking, well we'll say not as intended.Just curious with the current state of affairs in the texture department (well some of them anyways) how you attack this.Regards,Garett

Thanks Holger. I will stick with the FS9 landclass for now because, overall, it represents my area much better than the default. I'll be anxiously awaiting a new FSX landclass.Jim

>Just last night I finished a first draft of a made-for-FSX land >class file and of its 40 different classes used for the FS9 >original I ended up changing more than half to better fit the new >FSX textures.>>Cheers, HolgerLooking forward to seeing that, Holger.

Hi Garett,good question! My approach is to pick textures according to their appearance in the region I'm working in; I don't care about their official (Olson) class designations.The tricky bit is to also consider the slope-dependent auto-switches of classes as well as the seasonal variations and how adjacent classes blend together. It takes a lot of trial and error to come up with a useful combination. Also, an accompanying local seasons file will help dealing with desert-like textures in fall and winter.We actually have a similar situation with land class files of mine in FS2004 where I used the same "pick anything" approach. Depending on which replacement set people are using their landscape may look quite different. However, the situation in FSX is probably a bit more extreme and may require different versions of land class files for different replacement sets. Re-coding existing land class files is relatively easy in EXCEL or Photoshop.Then again, I'd say that we're many months if not a couple of years away from complete replacement sets a la FScene or BEV or GE. Until then, land class developers are free from considerations of compatibility with replacement textures.Cheers, Holger

So to say that if someone was to finish up thier "global" texture replacement pack that goes through all the non-city textures and:a) makes an attempt to better match up texture groups to thier "olson" class by default. (with balancing different region dependencies as possible):( Does this with attention to the slope switching, again matching the "switched texture" to be more representative.:( reduces the seasonal texture "shock" by subtiting more appropriate (same pattern/but differnet colors) seasonal variance textures.c) Provides a "layout" and thumbnail of the "new" texture groups with seasons.That there might be a possiblility that this "alternate" texture package could :a) reduce the amount of local season files needed, and alow the seasonal textures to do thier part.:( possibly provide a better default texture base to start some of these landclass projects from. (meaning MAYBE easier as groups have better seasonal/slope switched textures already)c) or with relative ease, alow for a possible recode of the landclass packages to suit this "new" texture package.In other words, I am trying to finish my base of textures that eliminates/reduces (through substitution) the seasonal ones that probally will NEVER end up being used anyways as well as better matching the affected slope switch textures. Do you think that this would work for - or against landclass projects.I very much understand that textures are subjective to personal taste in regards to accuracy, but a very knowledgeable man once told me that if I thought I could do better I should try. I took this in context of the situation, and being a person who enjoys challenges, I have. I am about 70% complete the global package and I should be done and ready for final testing in just about another week. (providing my caffine dependency doesn't put me in the hospital.. or my dreams of texture filenames gets me in the loonie bin..)I just hate to do all this work and it makes everything look fubared when a quality landclass/scenery packages come out (as I run most all of them)- as it works against them. Or maybe this just ends up being a stand alone idea .. for those running default stuff. (which is not or will not be me.) Ideas, comments or suggestions are highly appreciated.RegardsGarett"Sorry guys - I'm not trying hijack the thread, but it is in the context of the OP sort of ..)"