Thank you for the info. Screenies look good ! Any impact in frames rates over default? Carlos

From my experience with landclass from FSGenesis in FS9 there were many "false" areas of large cities. The same problem may exist within Cloud-9. The land-cover databases have flaws - missing and wrong. I doubt that Cloud-9 can fix everything since discoveries will be made over the next few years. Many of the corrections will be done by customers who have the patience and the tools. However, it is a good idea to report your findings to Cloud-9. Even if they are not in an update hopefully they will make it into a database so we do not see a repeat of the flaws in the next release of FS? .I agree that the deserts have received rain from the 9th Cloud. Maybe too much since I found the trees to be in full foliage in November at 40.5N 70.7WDick near 5G8

I just checked out Baton Rouge which was green a few days ago when I flew there but brown (desert) in default FS. With the cloud 9 it now looks right. Further up the road in Arkansas and Missouri it appears more brown-but not desert brown-and again a very close match. If I get time I will post some reality compares-but I am very pleased so far.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Will this increase the load time for flights significantly? I was reading another post where someone said that the british terrain addon has substantially increased the load times. For $10 this looks like a steal as long as it doesn't cause 5 minute load times.

I notice no difference in load times.With all the 1/2 baked fsx "fixes" and "conversions" some are charging for fs9 planes, this is actually worth $10.

>Will this increase the load time for flights significantly? I>was reading another post where someone said that the british>terrain addon has substantially increased the load times. For>$10 this looks like a steal as long as it doesn't cause 5>minute load times.It surely doesn't, being a landclass. The photoreal terrains addons could in fact slow down initial loading (expecially if you put the scenery range at "large" ), because of the tens (or hundreds) of megabytes of new custom textures that need to be loaded.A landclass scenery will not impact the initial loading time, because it uses all stock FSX textures, just with a better matching and placement.

Here are some shots-look, colors match up much better than default which had much of the south completely desert. There do seem to be more buildings where they shouldn't be (example-muscle shoals airport)-maybe they could be toned down?Still-a huge improvement and very good price!Thanks again Cloud 9!http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=248019&page=http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

A newbee (on this matter) question: LandClass has nothing to do with the actual texture files right? It just dictates the placement of it?

Hi there,that's correct. The Cloud9 package doesn't contain any replacement textures, just a more accurate (presumably) file that determines the placement of the default ground textures and their associated autogen objects.I noticed that the first version uses an incorrect class for the western US forests. Thus, we end up with tropical trees all over. I've suggested an alternative land class in the Cloud9 forum and am sure that they will fix that in the next update.Cheers, Holger

Is there much difference between the Cloud9 US landclass and the FSGenesis US landclass?

holger, heeeeeelp! :-)(it's not really a hijack i hope, since it may help those affected)i see these single-tile patches of tropical/broadleaf/eucalyptus jungle scattered randomly all over the world--most annoyingly in france, northern ontario and alaskasuspecting 009 or 058 i tried turning off autogen on those two last night--no honey, jungle still there. do you know offhand what other tile i could try? i think we may be talking the same phenomenon herethanks in advanceps. if it's more complicated than bak-ing an agn, i promise to shut up and eat my porrige ;-)

Could someone post some shots of the KTUS and KPHX areas in Arizona? It looks way wrong in default (all tan sand like the Sahara or something) and I'd like to see what it looks like with this before I buy it...Thanks!

>Could someone post some shots of the KTUS and KPHX areas in>Arizona? It looks way wrong in default (all tan sand like the>Sahara or something) and I'd like to see what it looks like>with this before I buy it...>>Thanks!I am curious what does it look like normally around KTUS and KPHX? That is a drier region...I guess there are probably some irrigated fields though.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

Thanks. Cause I like FSX hi-res textures, but hate the placement of them.

Bought it and just tried it out. A few things that i was wondering about:1. I am noticing an extreme amount of autogen usage here compared to defaults which is really cutting my frames. Is there a way to control the autogen creation so that it uses the defaults like the fsx default?2. I am noticing that it is also using the wrong types of trees in places. I was flying near mount rushmore and there were palm trees all over the place.3. Everything looks green all the time and there are no more winter textures with snow etc. If i can fix these things then id say that it is a great addon. Thanks.