PS. Well, if FS2004 tex-res for new KLAX will be the same quality as FS2004 DFW has, I will be more than happy.
You probably haven't understood the problem: we are not using 4096x4096 textures to really increase the overall ground resolution in KLAX, we are using them mainly to increase performances, since we are going to use much less of them, instead of many at 1024x1024 as we have been using until now so, the *total* amount of data will be about the same, but with 16x less objects/draw calls/material state changes.
However, doing this will require a specific modeling which takes lot of time so, having many 1024x1024 textures in FS9 would require redoing all the modeling in FS9. The fast solution would be simply resizing the FSX textures (since FS9 doesn't support 4096x4096), and this is the only way we could port in FS9 fast enough to make the port commercially feasible.
As I've said in my other message, this will result in an FS9 version with 4x times LESS the *actual* resolution compared to the FSX. KDFW in FS9 had the same resolution as in FSX, it simply missed the shaders, this would be different.
Since we don't know right now how it will look like, and we don't also don't know if FS9 users will accept or not a reduced resolution version, and since there's no way we'll do an FS9 specific modeling, because THIS will take a LOT of time, the feasibility of an FS9 version is not sure at this time.
And no, we are not considering making the FS9 version a sepearate purchase to pay for its developement. This it's just wrong, both because we want to have people moving AWAY from FS9 (and making the FSX upgrade path free, it's the only sane way to do it) AND because, in the time we'll do a specific FS9 version, we might do almost another complete scenery for FSX, which now is clearly leading the market so, it doesn't make any commericial sense either, more so considering we already a KLAX scenery in FS9 on sale, which still looks very good today.
