I'm hoping Phil or someone can explain the way the coastlines and shorelines are done in different parts of FSX. I have been flying around the world trips with a group, and some areas are absolutly beautifull, and others look like a kid with an 'Etch A Sketch' created them. A prime example of it being done right is New Zealand, an area done 'mickey mouse' is around the Med, why is there such a huge difference?

This is usually the source data.The source data is the property of the national government for the country in question, we have to negotiate for it each and every version, and the resolution and quality varies widely. Some places the national government pays for a higher resolution, some times not. Sometimes they "condition" the data to take obvious anomalies out, sometimes they dont. We try to implement export level checks, but you have to understand that we take terabytes of data and condense and export it down to the 14 gigabytes we ship. There is alot going on in there.

Thanks for the super fast reply! That makes sense, it's just so disapointing to see areas like NZ done perfectly, and others where I just want to hit 'slew' to get past it cause it's done so poorly. NZ sets the bar! On the last flight I opened Google Earth and zoomed into the area we were over in FSX, and it matched almost identically, right down to the smallest coves and estuaries, absolutely stunning!

Phil.While I understand what you are saying, I can't seem to apply your explanation to some of the problems I have seen.In British Columbia there are areas around the larger cities which have greatly improved from FS9.However, away from the larger cities many areas are terrible compared to FS9. Canals along with extremely poor coast lines missing on Vancouver Island, large lakes missing, a major river missing when it goes into the interior are some things I have noticed.Comparing the scenery in FS9 with FSX, in some areas FSX is greatly improved, while in others it is a very large step backward.I have been working with some scenery programs and have my area so I can recoginze it, which I didn't when I first loaded the sim. Unfortunately I do not have the time nor the experience to tackle all of the British Columbia coast line. LOLWhile I think FSX has some great improvements I was surprised that the scenery was not at least equal to FS9 in the areas that were not around the big cities.I guess my question would be, if you purchased a certain level of scenery in FS9, why wouldn't you have the same level in FSX along with some improvements?Mac

I believe the data source they used was different than that of FS9, at least I remember that being mentioned somewhere, and whether or not that applies to Canada I am unsure.Ian.

Both source and requirements for the data were different is my understanding. The 'world' the data is applied to is also very different in FSX from FS9 - it's a totally new construct.

Mac, the data in BC was more extensive in he inland portions in FS9 but it was very inaccurate. MS would have to add to blend two data sources: the accurate but limited coverage area data they used in FSX, with the more extensive vague data from FS9. It's understandable they did not choose to go to the major amount of effort this would require.The solution, at a cost, is to use more detailed addons for your area of interest, like Ultimate Terrain Canada which I believe is coming out this fall, or Holgerized ultra-detail addons like Bella Coola and Vancouver+.Jon

>The solution, at a cost, is to use more detailed addons for>your area of interest, like Ultimate Terrain Canada which I>believe is coming out this fall, or Holgerized ultra-detail>addons like Bella Coola and Vancouver+.>>JonThere probably will be some great products becoming available. Unfortunately, the amount of money needed to get a computer to run FSX is going to leave very little room for addons.As not everyone enjoys flying around big cities it is too bad that the team saw fit to use the data that they did. It certainly took away much of the enjoyment for me.Anyway, that's the way it is and I guess there is no sence harping on it. Back to the scenery and add another lake. LOLMac

I just spent a lot more time flying around NZ, and the detail is amazing. Even with different source data, I can't imagine why it looks as good as it does, even the US detail pales by comparision.Is the source data that much better for NZ than the US? Or did an Aces coder take special interest in NZ and do it right?

Is the source data that much better for NZ than the US?It's from a different source than the US.The level of detail the source provides determines the level of detail in the default FS.But NZ does have some issues - check out Milford Sound.

> NZ sets the bar! I will definitely remember that when I finally get FSX. I don't care where I am flying as long as terrain looks good. How about NZ airports, any of them have decent amount of detail?Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

You need to see it to appreciate it :-)

>You need to see it to appreciate it :-)Airports too?Michael J.http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9320/apollo17vf7.jpg

New Zealand has a temperate maritime climate. Parts of the country record annual rainfall levels exceeding 7 metres! It's a very green place, yet, like much of the world, FS portrays it as a desert! There are also significant mesh errors; Reggie mentioned the most glaringly obvious one (the runway is 800ft above the ground!) Outside of the 'big three' (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch), you'll be hard pressed to find airports that are much more than just a runway. But companies like Red Baron, Godzone etc are starting to bash it into shape. Also look at ARNZ (http://www.flightsim.co.nz/) and the Avsim library for freeware stuff.

I have noticed alot of blockiness in the British Columbia area. I simfly out of Prince Rupert and do most my flying in BC or alaska. BC is much better than before in a stock FS9 but still needs work. Just flying around all them islands between Seattle and Anchorage would take a lifetime, and im working on it lol