>>2. Ability for addon vendors to provide for detailed>customized runway/taxi way texture>If that was the photoscenery issue, and I think that it is, then it is already fixed. That was fixed right away, in Oct or Nov.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

I'm pretty sure the photo scenery thing has nothing to do with the airport taxiway and runway issues which prevents devs from making photo real airport addons like flightscenery portland.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 @ 893Mhz | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 575/900 | Seagate 2x 320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

I just made a brief clarification on the XP/DX10 timeline on my blog. DX10 wasnt ready in the XP timeframe and some people were reading too much into my terse comments. XP RTM'ed in Aug 2001 with DX8.1.DX9.0 RTW'ed in Dec 2002. Thats 15-16 months worth of progress towards Longhorn before real DX10 pogress was made. And like I said there were negotiations through a good part of 2003 and it was WinHEC 2004 before a widespread public demo was ready. So DX10 was well after XP. What the engineers were working on, at that point, really couldnt be called XP.

Hm well I think you should ask people like holger, dick L. (rhumbaflappy) et al that question. I am fairly sure that the photoscenery fix solved the problem you are talking about. Unless I have REALLY missed something (which is entirely possible), there is zero mention of this being a problem at FSDeveloper these days. Now, back in the first days of FSX, there was some discussion of it. I assume the problem was fixed with the photoscenery fix.I'd go over to FSDeveloper and ask them. I am over there from time to time, but the type of design I do, is not with photoscenery, so I am not the person to ask. RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

Hi all.I think Manny is refering to the "rounded-earth" problem. It still exists, and hopefully will be addressed by the patch.Basically, FSX now has a flatten that conforms to the curvature of the earth, and this prevents flat MDLs displaying on the runways correctly. The 7cm/pixel resolution of photoreal doesn't satisfy this need for developers or end-users.It never bothered me that much, as I like the way the default XML code creates runways and their lines. I actually think there can be too much detail in that it doesn't help with feeling of flight... probably only useful for screenshots and the like. But, my opinion is of no greater weight than someone that loves high detail. I just think if that level of detail is required, then 5-7 FPS shouldn't be unexpected. Particularily if all you want is a screenshot. I recall discussions concerning combat simulation. Some simmers want to see every rivet on the plane... but that is of little use in realtime combat manuvers. I have viewed terrain BGLs as a type of visual shorthand that allows us some "immersion" in the sim. But, I can see that some simmers require visual clues that are more detailed. I can easily see how the Aces team is having a hard time balancing performance with detail. Right now, we really can't have both with the average hardware setup. The patch is to address both concerns ( performance and realistic details ), and that is going to be some trick. And legacy scenery addons further complicate this.Dick

"...the 'rounded-earth' problem. it still exists, and hopefully will be addressed by the patch."ah, history, the great merry-go-round--round earth is a problem again:-roll