Hi all, I hope I can get this all to work. I got Cloud9 US LC this morning and have been playing around with it most of the day. I am most familier with the west coast and my observation is Cloud9's LC is better than anything else out there so far (and yes I did notice the wrong type of trees), that's easily fixed and it looks like the Cloud9 folks were quick to update the European version so I anticipate the same with the US version. Their urban texture choice however looks (to me) to be too big building, few trees (ie: downtown/big city) at least for the west coast, and their still missing some of the smaller cities.I have come up however with a good "combo". Remember the UT City/FSG landclass "sandwitch". I suggest a UT City/Cloud9 version. For those who have it as part of their FS9 LC just take the UT City LC folder and add it into the FSX "addon" folder, then add it via the normal process and make it a higher priority (ie: lower number) than Cloud9 US LC. This works well for me.

Hi there,Victor, there's no FSX landclass by FS Genesis yet. The FS9 land class works in FSX but is not optimized for it (several class designations will have to be changed). I'm sure that Justin will do this soon and then fair comparisons can be made.Vilk, I assume you're talking about the FSX default land class file? I just checked and none of the classes that include tropical tree autogen appear to be used in Europe or North America (you can check this with my land class table in conjunction with TMFViewer). Can you provide specific locations and/or screenshots (in a new thread, please)? The only thing I can think of is a strange class assignment in FSX in that all "wet" urban and suburban classes automatically switch to forest Class 6 at specific slope gradients. That's the same class that Cloud 9 currently uses for western forests, the one with tropical hardwood trees. However, these textures and trees should show up only on medium-steep slopes in some settlements.Arnaud Clere has started working on an updated lclookup.bgl file (the central file that guides class assignments) that is meant to deal with this and other oddities: http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3404Cheers, Holger

>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.Hi, For Autogen impact on frame rate, try to reduce the setting on FSX. For trees and snow, the update is on developing now.Regards.Alessandro Cucinotta.www.fscloud9.com

I picked this up when I got home from work today and I've been checking out my local area (upstate NY) all evening. This is very, very good. It's WAY better than the default FSX landclass. I've been running FSGenesis landclass (for FS9) since I've had FSX. There are some differences between the two, but they're both pretty good.With the Cloud 9 landclass I get more small vllages and hamlets and they, as well as small cities, are generally done better. However, as someone said above, there are too many multi-story buildings that shouldn't exist in these small villages. There should be more trees. Upstate NY has a lot of forest but I'm getting a lot of open area in Cloud 9. The open areas that are here in upstate NY are generally cultivated fields or pastures and for that I prefer FSGenesis' "patchwork" of well-defined fields, tree lines, etc.Urban areas, like the Capital region of NY (Albany-Schenectday) look very good. No complaints.I have a lot fewer of the obnoxious looking "swamps" with CLoud 9 than I had with FSG. I still get some, but they are in locations where swamps actually exist so that's cool.For the price, this is an excellent product. If someone comes along with a better landclass I won't feel that I've wasted a lot of money on this one. Now I have Cloud 9 and FSGenesis landclasses both installed and can switch between the two with a quick click in the Scenery Library.So far I've only flown Summer and Fall. It's interesting to note that with the FSG landclass I already have snow in my area, but with Cloud 9 I don't. For the moment, Cloud 9 is more accurate as there is no snow here yet.I didn't notice any performance issues at all with the Cloud 9 landclass.Jim

UH OH! One big problem...no winter! I flew up over the Adirondacks to Saranac Lake in winter. Looked exactly like fall. Not a trace of snow anywhere. I tried December, January, and February. Zilch!Trust me, there is snow in the Adirondacks in winter. Hope this gets fixed. Other than that, it was a very pleasing flight.Jim

Jim, So I take it that you're using FSGenesis Landclass for FS9? How exactly did you do that if you are using it? Install it to FSX ? Didn't think their installer would allow you to point it to a different directory. Or drag and drop a bgl? Craig

Vilk, I assume you're talking about the FSX default land class file? I just checked and none of the classes that include tropical tree autogen appear to be used in Europe or North America (you can check this with my land class table in conjunction with TMFViewer). Can you provide specific locations and/or screenshots (in a new thread, please)?Holger, if I remember correctly, I believe Adam had the same problem on the West Coast with UTUSA when it first was released. He later fixed it, I believe alot of it manually if I'm not mistaken! It sounds like it's probably a problem with the source data!

I thought I saw in this thread that they are working on fix for the snow textures.

Hey guys, flying over KPHX (Phoenix) and took some shots for you guys. More later if I have time.Take care :)Timhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162333.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162334.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162335.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/162336.jpgI am happy so far with this, but much more exploring to do. I also landed in Deer Valley, and there was plenty of desert landscaping, which was pretty realistic.

Craig,Since I had already been using the Utimate Terrain "sandwich" in FS9 (to use the UT urban landclass with the FSG landclass everywhere else) I had a folder in the scenery library called FSGLC. Inside that folder was a sub-folder named Scenery, and in that folder the fsglc_us.bgl file. By putting it in Addon Scenery it can be activated or de-activated easily in the Scenery Library.Jim

Thanks Jim, Gonna give it a try. Nice to see the forum getting back to normal instead of rants about FSX. Craig

> Gonna give it a try. Nice to see the forum getting back to> normal instead of rants about FSX.You hit the nail on the head, we trying to do our best to make FSX better, and this will ultimately be good for the community, because it's not use being so divided about how good/bad is. I really hope all the rants and flames were done because we all care about Flight Simulator...BTW, has anyone noticed we included an easier way of configuring FSX tweaks without editing any files, in the FSX Addon Manager ?To get it, just download the Trial version of Cloud9 Orlando for FSX. You DON'T NEED to buy the scenery (although we'll be happy if you do...), that function will always be active and will never disappear and it will still work globally, regardless if the KMCO Trial time expires or not, so it's basically a freeware feature of the Addon Manager.I found that these settings:TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_TREES_PER_CELL=1200TERRAIN_MAX_AUTOGEN_BUILDINGS_PER_CELL=1200FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.15Gave me very nice and flyable fps, and I don't see much textures blurring.

Thanks for the KPHX shots Tim! It looks a bit too green to me (esp the texture behind the airport itself, but that's definitely better than default...To whoever asked, no, the desert in southern AZ is not barren, the overall color is more of a rusty brown with patches of green thrown it. We have a lot of mesquite trees and brush and the cities like Tucson and Phoenix actually have quite a bit of regular trees and palm trees etc...Here's a good example of what I'm talking about in general.http://www.nptao.arizona.edu/tucson/p_tucson_mountains2.jpgDefinitely not that tan "sand dune" type look at all...

No problem Ryan :D but I do agree with you, BUT it IS better than default and after exploring different areas I am familiar with I am really liking this :)Tim

Hello to all,The first update is already coming (it should be out tomorrow).It uses a much improved way of representing snow and dry/wet areas based on several databases of real world precipitation and climatic data. It also fixes all the things reported so far, like some mappings of forest and fields areas.Here's a shot of a nice area in the Appalachians, Mifflin County airport:In FSX:Comparison with Google Earth!Umberto Colapicchioni - VIRTUALI