I have been experimenting with Gunnar Daehling's scenery utility, maps2bgl, and while I am generally pleased with the visual results, I'm finding that sometimes the textures seem to load more slowly in some areas than others. Is there a relationship between the size of an area created and the amount of time it takes for the textures to load?; i.e., will it take a scenery area of 200 square miles longer to load textures along the route of flight than an area of 100 square miles? The complexity of the textures I'm sure also is a factor. Point being, if there is a performance gain to be had by segmenting the scenery areas into smaller slices I would take the time to do so. But since it's time consuming, if no gains are to be made, I'll just leave things as they are. Thanks!Tawni

Hi,I don't know enough about maps2bgl to really answer your question. But I assume it uses resample to make the terrain?In general if you cover a bigger area with photorealistic terrain, it will also take more time to load of course. Simply because there is more information to load. Splitting it into a lot of small files will not really help, as the amount of data to load is still the same.The resolution of the terrain is the main factor for the size I would say.