Hello all,I just completed a flight from Cold Bay Alaska to Dutch Harbor then on to Adak and finally shemya Alaska ( Earickson AS) and I have to say that my purchase earlier in the Day of Active Sky was critical in making this alaska peninsula flight my most enjoyable yet. Active sky did an excellent job of rendering aleutian weather considering there were not alot of reporting stations. Thank You Active Sky Developement team for making Alaska weather awesome. :0)

And thanks to you Dave, and all our customers!Jimhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-community-sigbanner.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/

Agreed. And X Graphics 'rocks' as well.I rarely fly at night, but decided to fly in real time (and real weather) tonight after today stumbling across the P-3C Orion re-released for FSX.I gotta say, flying at dusk, and at night is so much better in FSX vs, FS9, and ASX and X Graphics simply make it even better. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178259.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/178260.jpg

can anyone ponit me in the right direction of the P-3 aircraft with the virtual flightdeck? She is one fine looking birdThanks

Right here:http://library.avsim.net/search.php?Search...fsxac&Go=SearchA really nice aircraft for freeware. Any previous FS9 repaints will work just fine BTW.

I recently purchased ASX and X-Graphics. I can tell you it really made an already enjoyable hobby even more enjoyable. I really like the option to set up the textures to match the current weather. I recommend it to anyone wishing to make their time more enjoyable in FSX. I also recommend you NOT do what I did. I first bought X-Graphics and was so impressed with it that within one day I went back and bought ASX. Buy the bundle and save a couple bucks. It's a winning combination. Jim

can anyone give an honest comparison between X-Graphics and Ultimate terrain? I have FS Genesis and Ultimate Terrain and I'm not sure UT made much of a difference.

For the most part, they do many different things. If you prefer some of the UT textures, simply disable X Graphics from changing those settings via X Graphics. If you prefer X Graphics textures, simply do not install those particular UT textures.I have UTUSA for FSX, Genesis, ASX, and X Graphics all working together within my preferences.

I don't have X-Graphics, but I think that this is a decent explanation of the two.I believe X-Graphics revamps/improves the textures for FSX. So it gives you better road textures, grass textures, etc., but, as far as I know, it doesn't do anything about placing those textures. It just makes what textures are there look better.Ultimate Terrain does several things:It adds all roads. FSX is way better than FS9, but it still only has major roads. UT has all of them (though you may choose to turn the minor roads off).It increases traffic on those roads. Where FSX has traffic on highways, UT adds traffic nearly everywhere. I love this feature.It adds polygons (accurately placed) for features such as graveyards, parks, golf courses, beaches, and a bunch of other features. If there's a golf course there in real life, you should now see it.It adds all existing water features, ponds, lakes, etc..It adds accurate coastlines, both ocean and internal.It adds much more accurate landclass for populated areas.The two products really do different things.Yes, UT does have some new textures, but that is not what it is about. And it doesn't do anything for airport textures, just road textures and feature textures (beaches, golf courses, etc.). And I don't know about you, but I can't do without the added car traffic now that I have UT.For VFR flying, UT can't be beat. But it probably won't do much for you if you spend most of your time up in the upper flight levels, except for the improved coastlinees and added water features.You didn't say which FSGenesis product you have. They sell mainly Mesh and landclass products. Their mesh improves the accuracy of your hills and mountains, how high they are and where. But it doesn't do anything for what textures are on the mountains (nor does UT, except for glaciers). Neither X-Graphics or UT have any mesh component. FSGenesis also sells landclass products. I tend to layer UT landclass on top of FSGenesis landclass, so the vegetative areas are improved by the FSGenesis landclass, and the populated areas are improved by UT landclass. SceneryTech landclass is also a good choice underneath the UT landclass. I haven't tried the Cloud9 landclass.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

UT Textures are custom supplied within UTX.Changing ANY option in X-Graphics will have NO effect on the UT supplied textures.X-Graphics only changes default supplied MS textures.As the UT textures are custome in a seperate location, they are not effected by any changes in X Graphics.Glenn

Well, that depends. You don't have to use the UT textures. For instance, you could use the X-Graphics road textures in place of the UT textures (see the UTSetup tool). In fact, I edited the UT textures to remove the "cars" from them, to get just straight asphalt.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

>Well, that depends. You don't have to use the UT textures. >For instance, you could use the X-Graphics road textures in>place of the UT textures (see the UTSetup tool). In fact, I>edited the UT textures to remove the "cars" from them, to get>just straight asphalt.>>Thomas>>[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com]>http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]>>I like using VC's :-)>N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180Thanks for that great write up!!In regards to removing the cars, are you talking about setting the road options to 'No Traffic' in the modify texture settings?

No, no, as I stated, I love the traffic.My problem is that the road textures have little pictures of cars in them. This works for me on my system that I can't run traffic on, but on my fast system, I find those little pictures very annoying. So I edited the textures and blotted them out.Allen was going to get back to me with "official" textures with the car drawings removed, but he hasn't gotten around to it yet.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)N15802 KASH '73 Piper Cherokee Challenger 180

That is what I meant, I heard you could get rid of those cars (static) by changing the road type to "No traffic" but you will still have moving cars. Keep us updated on that because I thought that showed a bit of laziness leaving those on there like they did.

Help me with this, please: I am almost desperate to buy Active Sky - especially for the graphic enhancements (the winds aloft would be good, too). But I look at my native FSX skies, and I ask, can I really justify not a little, but a whole lot of cash, on something that looks this good?Here is a pretty randomly-chosen set of native FSX screenies:http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb154/P...22-8-48-339.jpghttp://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb154/P...2-14-25-656.jpghttp://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb154/P...6-33-54-578.jpghttp://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb154/P...0-22-15-416.jpghttp://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb154/P...4-30-30-133.jpghttp://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb154/P...12-38-7-478.jpgI am really impressed by a couple of the screenshots on the AS webby - the clouds look "fuller", and more layered - and I suspect that in the end mere screenshots don't do the product justice, especially listening to the good news I've heard in these forums and elsewhere.There seems to be at least one impressive competitor en route.Should I dive in, or wait? Can anyone tell me how much more I'm likely to get from going the whole hog now? Should I just bite the bullet (and add to my ever-expanding list of receipts that tell me that I could probably have bought 10 PC games for the price of simply expanding this one) and get AS now?Any comments appreciated.