>If you fly low, photoscenery of buildings tends to look flat>to me. Once you get up a bit, it looks very natural (again,>to me). It doesn't seem to matter so much with rural photos.>>scott s.>.>So I guess my question would be, how is that different with the default FSX city textures with scattered autogen displayed, vs photoreal with scattered autogen displayed?

I would be interested more in photo scenery if they could actually come up with a way to do proper autogen. I'm talking proper alignment and amounts. The way it is I'd rather cover areas with FTX, which has an autogen object for each item on the texture. But if you could get a Megascenery product with that kind of autogen then that would be better still. I would also echo the comments about poor customer service from the PC Aviator/MegasceneryX company. I've been trying for 11 months to get off their mailing list and despite repeated requests it hasn't happened. These days when you send an email to thier [email protected] address you get a prompt mail return letting you know the address doesn't exist, depsite thier false claim that you will be removed in 24-48hrs. You would think they would be aware of this problem, and of course when you let them know through [email protected], all is silent. Not even a response in regards to my repeated attempts to get off thier list.

If you turn on autogen in this scenery I think you will find it is not customized. The screenshots, unless I am blind, does not show autogen. Thats why I stated that I did not like 2d terrain. If it was customized, in the same way as FTX, then I would love to have this scenery, but default autogen placement on photo textures looks awful. This is my opinion only though, and I must admit I only fly low-level. For high altitude then there is no reason for autogen anyway.

I have this scenery (o/s xp pro with acceleration) and I think it is great.Dave

The scenery is great until you try and land at San Diego Int and have no runway.

I've un-installed every other Megascenery title I bought except Oahu / Honolulu in FS9 and this one for FSX. Oahu is just spectacular, nothing better IMHO, at least in FS9. My problems with the other titles had to do with the super-large file sizes and correspondingly slow file loading, as well as the grey scenery textures if you failed to load 'Summer" settings. Just to much of a pain really for a heavy jet flyer, so I ditched them. I'm hoping this smaller package will shadow the Oahu package in terms of quality, decent load times, all season compatibility, and small hard drive footprint...Strange that we're calling 1 Gig a small FS footprint!I still think FTX is the future, but until they offer a Hawaiian or Pacific Islands product, and I get larger hard drives, this will have to do..so far, I like it.Cheers,http://www.my-buddy-icon.com/Icons/objects/red_3d_plane.gifAlex ChristoffN562ZBaltimore, MD

>The scenery is great until you try and land at San Diego Int>and have no runway. Try the patch I made for KSAN and see if it works, it does for me (FSX/SP1). Look at the attachment on my other post on the page before this one.