Not always an issue of cost though, what would I rather fly, something like the PMDG 747 in FSX or the Icon in Flight?I will leave you to work out the answer.Bryan.

Good point but if I may......have you try to land the PMDG 747 in YMML (Orbx) under bad conditions FSX maxed out, withhout looking at a slide show......I will leave you to work out the answer.... :Peace:

Edited March 5, 201214 yr by alainneedle1

Good point but if I may......have you try to land the PMDG 747 in YMML (Orbx) under bad conditions FSX maxed out, withhout looking at a slide show......I will leave you to work out the answer.... :Peace:

Agreed, but why would you try to land it there when you have hundreds of other locations you could try? :Loser:

Is there a link for the bolded part or is this just speculation. I know they've announced Alaska is next but I haven't seen any mention of one pack or multiple packs.

This is what the announcement states on the MS Flight FaceBook page:"We're excited to announce some upcoming DLC: the Journey to Alaska Pack, with over 1.2 million miles of captivating scenery, new aircraft and additional missions!"It is referred to as a single DLC Pack, and it includes 1.2 million miles of scenery, which is more than enough to cover the entire state of Alaska.

Edited March 5, 201214 yr by Arwen

Agreed, but why would you try to land it there when you have hundreds of other locations you could try? :Loser:

I also agree, below is the best I could do testing the Captain sim. 727 departing from Seattle over Orbx scenery, FPS killers on, no editing directly from fraps... :hi:

Edited March 5, 201214 yr by alainneedle1

I also agree, below is the best I could do testing the Captain sim. 727 departing from Seattle over Orbx scenery, FPS killers on, no editing directly from fraps... :hi:

FPS pretty reasonable really, when I fly something demanding over big cities I tend to stick with GEX far better performance with autogen wacked right up.Bryan.

FPS pretty reasonable really, when I fly something demanding over big cities I tend to stick with GEX far better performance with autogen wacked right up.Bryan.

Yes, the FPS are good BUT stutterings and autogen pop up is very noticable, this is a Flight thread so we should leave it as it is...I win... :yahoo: :Clown:

alainneedle1, I have NO idea how you have your settings, but one thing I noticed is that you don't have an "external" frame rate locker... that function is included with NvidiaInspector now. I use it with the "unlimited" setting in FSX and it smooths things out for me very well. Just a thought!

alainneedle1, I have NO idea how you have your settings, but one thing I noticed is that you don't have an "external" frame rate locker... that function is included with NvidiaInspector now. I use it with the "unlimited" setting in FSX and it smooths things out for me very well. Just a thought!

Settings were maxed out but car traffic at around 40% if I remember (maybe more), the FPS were set on unlimited for testing, different rigs different results.

There are always tradeoffs. I wish the scenery tiles in Flight were much different than in FSX. I hate the sharp edges as city slices into country with zero transition. For me, its the most unfortunate part of FSX and now FLIGHT! scenery.Even Orbx can only moderate the nastiness and lack of realism in those transitions.So even while I love the idea of the the huge scenery area of the Alaska pack, I cringe at the thought of all the jagged transitions that never fail to remind me of the dated FSX core.Hey MS! Go consult with the Gex people, or something!And get some streetlights! :lol:Get it right, and I will pay and keep paying.

But in FSX you pay $30-$40 for a single airport. I just dont get it...

I do get it. Except for a major error in judgment with Orbx stuff, which I will not do again btw, I only buy a specific airport that I really like or have flown into myself or some particular reason like that. For instance I just bought FSDreamteam Hawaiian airports, because I have flown into every one of them in real life many times. They are many, many times more detailed and "real" than what I have seen in Flight - for instance Kona on the big island. The FSD version is spot on in detail, heck I can even see the bench I sat on waiting for the plane last weekend at the Kona airport. Flight not so much.It all depends on your preferred flying experience.Heck I just spend $150 on wine at the local store, but so what that doesn't mean I will dump money into flight just because I spend money on other things. Actually my month budget for liquor is $200/month (holly crap!), but I also spend $400 a month on golf in my budget.Flightsim sits at $50/month! I would rather that money go to new stuff in FSX than Flight until I see what is going to happen in the longer term. The secrecy about what area, what planes and such is turning me off of Flight.

But in FSX you pay $30-$40 for a single airport. I just dont get it...

I dont do that, and neither does 95 % of them that bought FSX.

Edited March 6, 201214 yr by OHN

Hi mad dog!I'm from Canada so I "sort of" know how you feel. But, I am willing to bet that you'll see an addon pack for the Brittish Isles, long before you see a pack for the area I come from... Atlantic Canada! LOL!Don't loose hope just yet... it's early days right now brother!

Europe? Too many people, too many towns, cities, roads, big airports....Think lots of empty space, lots of trees, lots of water a few bigger airports....Think Canada.

I'm hoping MS do like a big pack of DLC near the holidays, maybe Hawaii and Alsaska together? Maybe MS could do a complete pack of the DLC every year, including everything released from 1st Jan of that year onwards? Maybe MS could do some kind of subscription based service instead of DLC? Maybe cost $20-$50 a month but you get everything?

Europe? Too many people, too many towns, cities, roads, big airports....Think lots of empty space, lots of trees, lots of water a few bigger airports....Think Canada.

HelloYou have nailed it completely why there will never be a realistic rendition of Europe in MS Flight whilst third party developers are locked outToo high a population density with the resulting mess of road and rail networks.A large amount of different farming systems in use resulting in a huge amount of texture work to represent each countries rural landclass properly.A seriously large amount of airports and airfields to model, UK2000 has been at it for a decade and is still busy thats only working on the UK..Europe is a job for third party developers to help out on, they already have the art assets they just need the SDK.

But in FSX you pay $30-$40 for a single airport. I just dont get it...

I keep seeing comments like this. I don't agree that it is a valid comparison.Yes, some people do pay $30 for a highly detailed airport. But this is an option. In FSX, if I want to fly to New York, I can. If I want to buy (or download from Avsim) optional scenery to add more detail, I can. Flight doesn't give us that choice. I'm not saying that the DLC isn't worth the money, just that the OP had a valid point. Now, I'm sure Microsoft has carefully examined thier business model and determined that DLC is the way to go. I'm not looking at it from thier point of view, I'm looking at it from the consumer. I'm not convinced that multiple DLC packages are good for the consumer. I have to wonder, when Flight gets to the stage where they will offer most of the planet through DLC, what will the entire package cost? I'm sure those add-ons will be awesome, but some people would prefer more variety at a lower cost than a few amazing scenery packages. They might be willing to accept a lower quality scenery package in order to have a larger scenery package. I think that for these people, sticking with FSX might be the solution.