Tell me what you think...i think its pretty neat even though i am a FU3 die-hard fan.

[ol][li]http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=12209&forum=DCForumID47&omm=3&viewmode=threaded[li]http://ftp.avsim.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=12209&forum=DCForumID47&omm=4&viewmode=threaded

CheersShelton.

Shelton,The area around Ranger Creek seems to be one of several areas in the Seattle region that have lower resolution textures than the vast majority of the high resolution scenery areas in FU3. I agree that the FS2002 version looks good. The river is far more clearly defined, and the trees are obviously more realistic.I admit that there are certain aspects of the FS2002 terrain and scenery that are better than that in FU3, but I will always prefer satellite mapped textures next to generic textures. The variety always seems to make the ground look more convincing, although there are some areas of the Seattle terrain (urban areas in particular) that look rather too blurry and obscure for my liking. Overall, the San Francisco scenery is more convincing (apart from one or two "lime green" areas) :-)Chris Low,ENGLAND.

HI Shelton,welcome back to FUIII land!!:-wavePete

Just keep in mind that those shots were taken using a payware addon for Ranger Creek. It does not look quite as good with FS2002 default scenery. Looks better than the default FU3 version, but with a certain set of packages for FU3, I like the FU3 version better.

Hi Pete - good to be backWell that explains the nice scenery - it was hard to take in that being default MS scenery!CheersShelton.