Dutch Harbor

[WAD3 0]

Any thoughts on this add-on from Aerosoft. I would like to hear if anybody has bought this and what they think of it.Thanks Andrew

[Chalkman 0]

It's ok, the coverage area is pretty good. I like the season changer and it is not too bad overall . Probably not one of best [AS scenery] and the mission voice over actually is quite horrible. Other than that, id say only get this if you really are a fan of that area. I'd give it a 6.8/10.

[WAD3 0]

Thanks Chalk. I might pass then. I think Tongass Fjords might be better. It was awesome in FS9.

[woodhick 504]

A friend of mine is using UT Alaska and DH looked good, but generic, not photoreal. You might want to give UT AK a look at Flight1.com

[wcschulz3 18]

Any thoughts on this add-on from Aerosoft. I would like to hear if anybody has bought this and what they think of it.Thanks Andrew

Hi. First, I'm a big fan of the Aleutian Islands, and Dutch Harbor in particular, as I filmed a documentary on Reeve Aleutian Airways L-188 operations, and have a couple of in-cockpit, exciting, approaches into Dutch on film (www.flyelectra.com). So I might be biased :)Having said that, the Aerosoft Dutch Harbor package is outstanding and makes flying into this incredibly difficult area and approach well worth the price. Framerates are excellent on my two year old 2.6ghz computer, and flying KBT's freeware Electra (avail at Avsim) into Dutch gave me the shivers, it reminded me so much of my real experiences.So, if you like immersive approaches into highly challenging locations--and then want to explore the area by helicopter, car, or boat....and if you watch "Deadliest Catch", you need this add on! :)ThanksBillKGSP

[Guest MonkeyNuts]

I have to disagree completely with Bill.Frankly I think it's not worthy of payware. I'm sorry to say that I wouldn't download this even if it was freeware. I've used it on a friends PC, on maximum settings, and we were both extremely disappointed.Some thoughts from SOH;http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=34816

[Guest Longyear]

Agree, not up to Aerosoft Scenery standards this one. Poor on quality, and quantity.It's not too expensive but still falls short of expectations.

[Guest 413X3]

quite frankly I am amazed at how someone can with a serious face, complain about a lack of high resolution photo-real textures in such a remote area of the world with some of the worst weather. How about you go out and take pictures yourself? Seriously ridiculous. Looks like a decent representation of the scenery for anyone with any connection to the area or who just wants a challenging remote place to fly. The coverage could have been a little better though as you can see easily the change from default to addon

[Guest MonkeyNuts]

quite frankly I am amazed at how someone can with a serious face, complain about a lack of high resolution photo-real textures in such a remote area of the world with some of the worst weather. How about you go out and take pictures yourself? Seriously ridiculous. Looks like a decent representation of the scenery for anyone with any connection to the area or who just wants a challenging remote place to fly. The coverage could have been a little better though as you can see easily the change from default to addon

Seriously ridiculous?Do you want to purchase my scenery?

[Guest 413X3]

grow up? I'm just pointing out that complaining about photoreal ground textures as the person did in that mini review linked is ridiculous when you consider the location of the area being depicted.

[JohnE 0]

grow up? I'm just pointing out that complaining about photoreal ground textures as the person did in that mini review linked is ridiculous when you consider the location of the area being depicted.

The shot on Google maps is pretty clear. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=dutch%20harb...l=en&tab=wl

[Guest 413X3]

that looks just like the screenshots to me

[Sharrow 0]

To suggest that we shouldn't highlight problems with add-ons because the developer had a tough time finding reference resources is seriously ridiculous. Do you just buy any old crap based on the fact that the developer had a go?

It's not about having a tough time finding good quality photoscenery - there just isn't any higher resolution available for this area period. Don't you think the dev would have used it if it was? No where in the products feature list does it say that high resolution material is used and the screenshots reinforce this fact - why did you (or your friend) miss this very in your face fact before purchase?To suggest that this addon is "any old crap" is simply childish and ignorant on your part. Not only that but you are being malicious about a product you do not even own. Please take your agenda elsewhere.

[JohnE 0]

Having a look at the screen shots its not the ground textures that bother me, they actually look pretty good. Its the objects without any texture blending around them, just doesn't look natural to me.

[trisager 2]

Please take your agenda elsewhere.

Giving an opinion about flightsim software on a flightsim discussion forum does not imply that the poster "has an agenda". Not unless you can demonstrate that the poster has a history of making clearly unjustified comments about a vendor or product.I agree with the point MonkeyNuts is making - if a flightsim developer, for whatever reason, cannot deliver payware quality in a product, that product should not be released as payware. From what I've seen on Sim Outhouse and Aerosoft's own forum that is the case here.