Jon,I can see that you've added one or two fences to the Wax Orchards airfield. Does this mean that the terrain has been flattened ? I seem to recall you mentioning this in another post.

It all looks nice :-) However (that fancy "but"), if you were to create a megamodel to save polygon surfaces and still keep the illusion of variety /randomness how about breaking up the mathematical alignment? Two bushes could be a tad closer than the rest or one could be slightly offset in any direction. You might even skip one of the bushes. Would that work within the concept of a composite model? True, if you join several iterations of a semi-random megamodel it will create an obvious pattern that gives away the fact that it wasn't really random after all :-hah

I think I see what you've done, by just having single end-to-end rectangles with a repeating texture. Easy and effective. I did something similar with my abbortive attempt to add street lighting to London, but the framerates couldn't support it. I've got framerates up again for UKS, by ruthlessly removing all old models (esp the Oakland ones) and ALL TREES (except forests) - the packages size halved, framrates went back to 12 or so fps (I never get above about 30 fps anywhere in FU3) and terrain haziness disappeared.But this seems too restrictive - trees are nice, and I had carefully landscaped several areas - even matching the colours of the individual trees around St Pauls (not that anyone would ever notice!). FU3 is not good at handling large numbers of models - anything over about 1500 seems unworkable (especially if multiple large packages are visible from the same location).So I had a look at the MSFS versions of London. There's an extraordinary MSFS package where most buildings are modelled around the Thames area and for some distance back, must be thousands of models, but the modelling is rather simple (most buildings are cubes, a few are more detailed), and the London Eye seems lower in polygons than mine. Then in a computer sim magazine I found a new released version of London City Airport, and it was vrey sparse (this is for a new product!). So I would guess that MSFS has the same problems.Here's what's wrong (current limitations):1) Too few models can be shown to create the illusion of low-flying over a city.2) Textures over 256x256 are not supported in FU3, and too many of these seems to slow the sim.3) I still think number of polygons has some effect on speed, based on some experiments I did with the balloon over my McChord AFB many years ago.4) No axles.5) No partial transparency.6) 256 integer palettes per region.Best policy seems to be grouping models into single models, but still trying to keep polygon counts low (as you have demonstrated here brilliantly).Oh well,Robert.

Chris,Yes, at least where the fences are. There are a couple of levels though - the airstrip and taxiway are slightly higher than their surrounds (by ~1m). Close-up, the fences disappear into the ground in many places. Just not any easily visible - I try to hide the ends behind trees ;)H-PI tried with an asymmetrical model but as you say, the entire thing 'repeats' (and you need 'filler' parts because the orchards aren't symmetrical). I have a workable alternative, but it kills the framerate a bit (~300 polys per field vs. 80). The trick is to do it with textures only but the pattern still repeats somewhere, and requires multiple textures :-( I don't expect everyone to want everything as-is. There is nothing preventing anyone from editing the package to remove or replace them either ;)And there's nothing to prevent the edited areas being re-edited if someone wants a small hill removed.PS The local gliding club is located right next to a large citrus orchard and the symmetry of the rows of trees is quite distracting at certain angles as they all look the same from 500ft...Regards,Jon Point

Jon ; Yes you are a master ,Truly amazing .Happy hollidays to you and drinks are on me .CaptRolo