Thanks for the shot Tom! I think I can probably get the answer I'm looking for if I just take a screen shot at each various Mesh setting, and then compare them to see at which setting the improvements stop. I suppose that would be the only way to tell what mesh level it uses.

still kinda round but textures make it better.

>still kinda round but textures make it better.A couple of airborne pics of the area.http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171047.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171048.jpg

Larry-Try out tileproxy-like terrascene on steriods....Much closer to your pictures than anything yet.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Thanks for the Arial shots, I was looking for something like that. Here's another of the area. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...anding_view.jpg

Thanks for the explanation Larry; I did not see the bottom of the photo and the info there, which would have answered my question. We've had the pleasure of hiking in many of our nation's western parks, with still quite a few to go, and I can confirm that Zion is without question one of our most beautiful and spectacular. I will venture that the hike to Observation Point is strenuous (we did not have time to do it), but I hope not as "scary" as the last push up that very narrow trail to the top of Angels Landing was!

I just got the chance to test and Zion park does in fact appear to have a 10m mesh. Going from 76m to 38m was drastic, but the difference from 38 to 19 and then on to 10m was very small, and only affects the area right around the aircraft. Seems to me 38 is pretty darn good, becuase going to 10 really only sharpened up the edges a bit, and didn't change the landscape in any major way.

After testing a bit more I don't think a mesh pack would help me too much. 38m seems to be the sweet spot, because going up to 10m makes very little difference. The first image is at 38m, and the second at 10. The difference between 38 and 10 at Zion Park is about the same difference you see here. I had the frame rate capped at 18 in the shot to aid texture loads but that scene runs at 26fps on my system.http://sio.midco.net/FTP5/mesh38m.jpghttp://sio.midco.net/FTP5/mesh10m.jpg

This is the difference between 38m and 10m at Zion. 38m is the first one. http://sio.midco.net/FTP5/mesh38m2.jpghttp://sio.midco.net/FTP5/mesh10m2.jpg

>Larry->Try out tileproxy-like terrascene on steriods....>Much closer to your pictures than anything yet.>I'll have to try it...Wonder how this area would turn out, with tileproxy. I pulled this pic off the internet from our RV "experimental" forums. Monument Valley on the Utah/Arizona border. Lot's of "skinny" vertical rising terrain!Pic:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/171076.jpg

If I had a latitude/longitude for this pic, I would do a flight at the same spot and post a screenshot. But finding that particular view by doing an aerial search is probably impossible.

Hi there,interesting comparison but what you really want to compare are a mesh file compiled at 38m (preferably from 30-m data) and a mesh file compiled at 10-m based on 10-m data. Just changing the mesh resolution slider won't show you much because it merely changes the display grid spacing (in the foreground) while still loading the same terrain mesh, which in default FSX is a 38-m mesh for those areas of the US (most likely based on the USGS 1 arcsec data). The FSG 10-m mesh files are based on the USGS 1/3 arcsec dataI'm not saying that the 10-m mesh will make much of a visibile difference, particularly in flight. I'm suggesting to make the right type of comparison to come to a useful conclusion.Cheers, Holger

>>If I had a latitude/longitude for this pic, I would do a>flight at the same spot and post a screenshot. But finding>that particular view by doing an aerial search is probably>impossible.>Found it!36deg 55'15'' N, 110deg 02' 23'' W, looking North West.Marco

I just went to google earth to take a loot. Part of that area is very detail, and other parts are very low res. Some mountains have half detail texture and the other half very pixelated (turns me off.) The vertical spikes are not sharp at all. I guess that has to do with the terrain mesh res. However, the color of the desert texture is almost perfect. Very different from the desert color on the default textures from FSX. I guess most deserts are not while sand like FSX presents.

It's always disappointing. The stretching of textures and the roundish edges make it look like an underwater landscape. On the other hand Tileproxy saves the day with bluffs, other slopes and remote view of mountains though.