I respectfully disagree that it is your fault. There are many many existing textures that look good independent of their rotation or viewing angle. That to my mind is the very essence of a good ground texture. I realy don't feel that you can justifiably accept "fault" here. If, as you suggest, you rotate the texture to appear more realistic from this angle, it will still look wrong from the opposite side of the track. This is the basis of my argument. Photo textures don't seem to work particularly well for terrain unless taken from almost directly overhead. Auran seem to have simply assumed that more resolution is better. You say that is not the case. Fair enough we have a difference of opinion and I for one can certainly leave it at that.
It's not that I don't want to see higher resolution textures or for that matter items with more polys, but these things are not an adequate substitution for modelling intelligence. I was looking at the new TS2009 SD40-2 model the other day. It is missing paint all over the bodywork with rusty patches and streaks the size of broadsheet newspapers and yet, the body curves reflect light as though the whole thing has a quarter inch thick layer of gloss varnish on it. I guess my point is that more pixels, more polys and more gloss effect do not by themselves make an object more visually convincing.
Fair enough. It still seems to me though that the "advantage" they have taken of modern hardware is simply to throw more pixels and polys at it.
Apologies for wandering from topic.
Stuart
You can get grass splines? I'll have to try that out..may speed up the process of my route a bit
