Rids, the vertical scaling is not extreme, but I'm fairly sure it's there. I agree the detail difference is not that great, but you're also seeing St. Helens from a closer perspective in your image. If you got that close with the terrain I am using, the detail would definitely be more noticeable. That terrain is also in UTM projection which is slightly less accurate (the wrong shape). I'll illustrate this in the page I post today. I am curious about your render times btw. ;) That being said I will be the first to admit that 8193 terrains are more of a novelty than anything. I will be posting images showing the actual detail differences, and they are there to be sure, but fairly minor. There are 2 uses I can think of for such large terrains. 1st, simply to get the maximum amount of detail in any position on the terrain, especially when close to the ground. The higher resolution the better, in this case, though I would venture to say unless you're working at ant level, 8193 is probably as high as you'd want to go for a heightfield, even in Terragen 2. With such a high resolution terrain, while it's still far from a whole world, you do end up with a lot more camera positions that show interesting details. Small, close-up nooks and crannies that would be otherwise uninteresting become reasonably detailed and often worthy of focus in an image, whereas in lower resolution terrains that wouldn't be the case. 2nd, for large, lengthy animations that make close passes to the terrain. You could either use the large terrain size to make a much larger terrain area to cover (with more proportional detail), or to allow a greater amount of detail in the same area as a smaller terrain. Either one would produce a nicer looking animation. However it's debatable whether you would notice much difference in many cases unless you were working at least at DVD resolution. But back to Vue. Unfortunately using an image format is not a very good solution. Unless Vue supports 16 or better yet 32 bit/channel TIFF's, in which case that would be our best option. If not, I would really like to avoid any of the image formats like .bmp as there will be severe detail loss. Sadly that limits our options quite a lot. 3D data formats are not much more feasible. They will maintain the detail of the terrain, but an OBJ of even a 2049 terrain is enormous. The output is something like 8 million polygons resulting in a 327MB file. Compressed it turns out to be about 60MB, which isn't so bad. The 4097 terrain is something like 34 million polies and nearly 1.4GB uncompressed! I have no 3D application that can load these (because of their geometry load), so I can't even test if it works, but I'm willing to make the 2049 available if it is the best format (maintains the most detail). In considering formats, remember that non-3D formats (i.e. not dxf, obj, etc.) are best both because of smaller sizes, and lower geometry loads (the application generates its own geometry), and that for image formats, 16bit per channel or higher data handling is necessary to maintain detail. Right about now I wish I had Vue so I could just experiment with this stuff directly. sigh I agree it's frustrating that Vue doesn't have better import options though! Let me know how you guys would like the terrain and I'll try and get it to you in that format. - Oshyan