Well.... from a another real pilots perspective, knowledge of the buildings in the surrounding area is imperative unless you are always only flying with an IFR hood on. Even on take off, a vertical landmark in the distance that is aligned with the runway is a great way to correct for wind and ensure that you stay on the runway heading at climbout. Also, autogen gives a sensation of speed and height...especially on take off an landing when they always tend to look too close to the bottom of your plane. Mike T.

I'm a real world pilot...for over 30 years...and I respectfully have to disagree with the "intensity" of the above conclusion. No single landmark, building, or "knowledge" of any landmark or "group" of landmarks is "imperative" to VFR flying. Never has been in the real world, and shouldn't be stated in such a way that it implies it also is "imperative" in any flight simulator.If it was, than no VFR pilot should ever fly VFR to an area that they were not "imperatively knowledgeable" about in the first place. They would be compromising the safety of the flight, their own personal safety, and making a very bad "risk management" decision. That, however, is not how you would describe a VFR pilot who conducted a VFR flight to a geographical location they had never flown to before, and therefore was not "knowledgeable" of the local buildings, landmarks, etc.Yes...a building in the distance may be "helpfull" in maintaining runway alignment during takeoff. But if the pilot can't maintain a runway heading and alignment by using other cues if that building wasn't there, they shouldn't be piloting the aircraft in the first place. I hope they never attempt a takeoff in Special VFR conditions with only 1-mile visibility from a 6000-foot runway...they are gonna be hard pressed to find any building aligned with their takeoff heading either from the start of their takeoff roll or after they get more than a couple hundred feet AGL.And although the "sensation of speed and height" may be a result of having "autogen"...whether it be in FSX or the real world...you should NEVER operate your aircraft judging your speed and/or height solely on the appearance of "autogen" objects on the ground. That's a good way to get killed. Even a VFR pilot does an Instrument Scan to SUPPORT what he/she THINKS he/she is seeing out the window. What are you going to believe as a pilot? I hope it's your instruments, unless you have a very good reason to think they are malfunctioning.This whole thread just shows that there are "levels" of the realism available in Flight Simulator. And those "levels" sometimes reflect the reality of the real world quite well. If I am flying over a major metropolitan area in either FS or the real world, then I expect to see "autogen". But to say that autogen is "imperative" for any type of VFR flying...real world or simulation...just isn't accurate. Try flying real world across someplace like Kansas in the middle of winter. Flat, flat, and more flat, as far as you can see. And almost all white, as far as you can see. What do I use for VFR navigation then? Well...a flat road shown on my VFR sectional works very well. Or a flat river. I don't "need" a building or other landmark sticking "up" from anywhere to fly VFR. If the FLAT landmark is shown on the VFR sectional chart, and I can discern it from the cockpit, then it's fine. And that is what you get with photoreal scenery in Flight simulator.I like both...photoreal scenery and scenery with autogen. I switch between them often. But to say one is "wrong" and one is "right" is not correct. They can BOTH be a very good simulation of the real world in FSX.FalconAF

My preference is STILL photo-real scenery "without" cartoony auto-gen houses. I do want high rise buildings for city scapes, but just don't add cartoonville to housing subdivisions. 3D terrain is of great importance, and the amount of auto-gen trees can vary, depending on the shading of photo-real. These are my views as a "real life"; or is it a "reality" pilot... :( (Note: see the "real life" thread)L.Adamson

I don't "need" a building or other landmark sticking "up" from anywhere to fly VFR.

FalconAF - I agree 100% with your whole post. In my VFR flying I also found man made objects to be of relatively small importance, mother Nature provides so many more clues. Perhaps I would have different take on it if I were making routine approaches over downtown LA or Washington DC but these are not the type of airports that I ever fly into.

These are my views as a "real life"; or is it a "reality" pilot... :( (Note: see the "real life" thread)L.Adamson

LOL, saw that thread... good one :(

For Mike T:I have gone back to a compromise that I have used with generics for the past 1.5 years-turning the scenery complexity to the max to get airport buildings/major cities,obstacles , turning the trees actually up past their default setting giving more of them, but turning the autogen buildings down to their minimum since they look extremely unrealistic to me, and this technique prevents covering the high res textures fsx is capable of with low res autogen.In any case-you asked from some shots straight on-here they are-though not straight on from the frontal view they are pretty straight on from the side view (I didn't have any shots of this area from a frontal view-my wife takes the shots from the back seat most of the time when I fly). They are also very low altitude-where photoscenery is often thought to lack. I am at least extremely happy with the results. I would have liked to have included shots of the photoscenery with no autogen but I would have gone past the limit on shots in the screen shot forum. It is interesting-because on some of the mountains-without the autogen trees you can see the logging patterns-turning on the autogen trees covers this up. None the less it seems like a good compromise.http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=241926