Luis,While I appreciate your response, to say it is much easier to fix than complain about is not very fair.My first repsonse is why should we have to fix it in the first place? FS9 did not have this issue so why should FSX with it's increased texture detail be stuck with this?Secondly, between two daughters under the age of 3, learning to fly for real and working full time, I am done with constantly trying to fix FSX's shortcomings. In one year with FSX I have spent more time tweaking and fixing than in four years with FS9!!! I'm done, I just want to fly.Thirdly, with the sheer number of airports that display this ugly texture, how many man hours do you think it requires to fix them all? Certainly more than I am prepared to do.I hope a payware (or freeware) developer takes care of all this at some point as I am completely frustrated with it all. Sand textures and airport polygons completely ruin the entire FSX experience. As if it didn't have enough issues and challenges already........Back to flying in the summer it is then........Glenn

I just pretend I am a high-flying sand flee. lol

I was thinking about getting the Ultimate Terrain X package from Flight1. Reviews are very good.Anyone using it?

Thanks for your efforts Luis, but I have to agree with Glenn. This isn't just some small little problem like a bad tree texture or occasional anomily. Its all over the place, was right in our face from the beginning.How the Hill did this get past the art department? past testing? Beta?Was everyone so enthralled witht the water or moving street trafic?I'll bet someone said soemthing and they just got passed over for the sake of schedule or budget, fine....Fix this along and send it with SP1, but no, SP2? Nope! Its kinda like having nice new Vista or OSX os with the nice icons but having a 16color image as your wallpaper. Its a joke.

Glad to hear you are learning to fly-I look forward to hearing some stories!I think you will find the real world is also not cut and dry-I find regardless of if the polygon surrounding an airport is green or "sand" -the airports (especially runways) just don't look terribly real. I wish as much time was was devoted in this area as to the outside models of aircraft...Some "real" sand textures:Ionia, Michigan-in the summer!http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180086.jpgMuscle Shoals, Alabama in late November:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180087.jpgCrystal Mountain, Michigan in mid October:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180088.jpgKennet Missouri in late November:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/180089.jpghttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Thanks for posting I'm more the constructive type so this is so easy going to make some real grass stuff and update for FSX...Thanks for sharing... now of to the brush :-lol http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

Well, Glenn, I understand that you are upset and I understand why. I even share, in part, your analysis (but not the emotion - after all, this is just a computer game, and just about anything in life is more important.)However, the "fix" for this problem and for all airports in the world will only take about 5 minutes, and that is for the old and mentally-impaired folk that we are on this forum (except for Geof who is still a youngster! He could do it quicker if he wanted.)Anybody who takes a minute to read my explanation will see that it is simply a matter of removing a handful of yellow-brown textures, copying the green textures and giving them the name of the removed textures. And it will change the airport grass in the entire world. Everywhere.As I wrote, fixing this problem is more productive than complaining, and brings a lot more pleasure (except, of course, for those who like to complain.)Best regards.Luis

Luis-I have always had tremendous respect for everything you contribute! But now that you said" except for Geof who is still a youngster! "-I am not so sure anymore! :lol :-beerchugWait a minute-I just forgot-who said that? :-lolhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Luis one question though when changing for example the structure I believe detail1.bmp is used...Will this effect other textures to?Ok guys willing to do it any beta testers up for it?See example made quick and fast lol...Summerhttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/test.jpgAutumnhttp://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/norm.jpgCheers,http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

I think the original post in this thread mentioned using it, and that the problem persists...RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

My point is that I think the awful, awful, awful, awful sand like textures have nothing to do with source data. Source data for the northeast is very prolific and accurate. Yet the northeast, Massachusetts we're talking about here, is filled with these desert looking textures. This could not possibly be due to bad source data. I believe they are an attempt to show browning or dead grass in the non-summer months. Problem is, it looks just awful, nothing like what these areas would look like for real. I'm not talking about airport backgrounds. These textures are used everywhere. It is my contention and opinion that the source data has nothing to do with what these textures look like. If that were the case, we would see these textures year round. But summer looks just fine.This was just bad, bad, bad texture design. Period.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

I'd read Holgars post again. He explains why the datasources miss much of the country along with the complication of using the new photo textures instead of hand drawn caused the mess.It also explains why many areas-such as Michigan are much better.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

Geoff,Take a flight out of Nashua in stock FSX and you'll see what I mean. These are not desert textures. They are farm textures.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 looks MUCH better Andre! I'd be happy to beta test.Geoff has some excellent pics up there, and they show exactly what I was talking about. Notice that the brown areas have reds and greens in them (like what you did). They do not look like desert sand. There's also some shadow to them because they are 3D, also some muddy brown areas. No sand.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

I know-I don't like it either.As Holgar explained in his post:"The classes used are the Olson "Global Ecosystems Legend" - http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/glcc/nadoc2_0.html#olso . Note how many class names coincide with the land class names given in the FS9/FSX Terrain SDK documents.Unfortunately, the source data themselves are too general and often inaccurate (parts of Alaska, including super-wet Sitka, are classified as "semi desert" and many alpine regions in the Rockies and elsewhere as "bare desert")"That doesn't mean everything wrong is classified as desert-it means that there are areas of the country/world that are "too general and often inaccurate" .......such as already mentioned areas of New York state, the Nashua area.There are other areas that are highly accurate in contrast-luckily my area happens to be one of them.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/