Request for alaska comparison screenshots

[jp1018 0]

I no longer have fsx installed and I am not familiar with alaska, but anyone who is- it would be really cool if you guys could find some similar ( they dont have to be exact) locations in fsx to the ones in MS's alaska screenshots, it would be cool to show some comparisons.

Thanks

[Dillon 2,198]

It would be cool to compare the Glacier Bay scenery or Orbix offerings compared to Flight. I'm sure comparing Flight to the default scenery of FSX is almost unfair. Just the same I'm sure we'll see allot of comparison shots once Alaska is released.

[RoboRay 126]

I would love to see comparisons to both 3PD offerings for FSX as well as the FSX defaults. The comparison isn't a contest, it's just a comparison.

[malibu43 2]

Here is some FSX near Unalakleet. I believe these screenshots also include Ultimate Alaska X and GEX (~ $80 worth of addons), which is probably the best combo available for the big part of Alaska.

 

 

 

In those two cases, FSX doesn't appear to stand up as well to Flight. However, here are a few more shots (I can't remember exactly where these were taken from, but it was up in the main part of Alaska):

 

 

 

 

 

 

These look a lot better (again, $80 worth of addons, and, yes, I did some auto-correct on the color in the last one). It really depends on where you are and what season you are flying in. Very different from Flight, but not neccessarily better. It will probably be more noticeable when we can play for ourselves and not be limited to screenshots.

 

I did fly out of Kodiak in FSX with GEX and Ultimate Alaska X installed (again, $80 worth of addons), and it looked pretty good. Maybe comparable to the Flight screenshot.

 

*edit - A few more from near Cordova

 

 

[Bobsk8 12,853]

I think that comparing a stock sim's scenery with a sim that has $80 worth of addons for just one state, doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.

[DAD 2,661]

I like Flight's mountains much better. Fsx are so round whereas Flight's are more rugged und just real. Plus I miss the light and shadow effects on the trees in Fsx.

[Guest]

Plus I miss the light and shadow effects on the trees in Fsx.

 

Oh yeah! I've said it a few times already elsewhere but one of the things I love most about Flight is the LIGHT. While in FSX the trees around you all look the same, no matter where you look, in Flight they look different everywhere you look depending on where the light is coming from. Fly towards the sun and the forest looks almost black: take a look over your shoulder and you see the sunlight fall on bright green trees. Awesome. So real! It's what I've been wanting for decades and Flight finally gave it to me. The lack of light in FSX makes it look flat and lifeless, no matter how beautiful the (addon) scenery is.

[malibu43 2]

I think that comparing a stock sim's scenery with a sim that has $80 worth of addons for just one state, doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.

 

That is true, but poster #2 in this thread asked for it so I shared it. If I had the time, I could go back and de-active GEX and UAX and grab some more screens.

 

In general, I think that has been one of the things that have made Flight vs FSX discussion difficult - what kind of FSX install do you compare to? Stock or heavily modified?

 

To be totally honest, I think the screens of Flight's Alaska (potentially a $20 investment) look better than FSX with $80 of addons. But that is just my opinion.

[RoboRay 126]

In general, I think that has been one of the things that have made Flight vs FSX discussion difficult - what kind of FSX install do you compare to? Stock or heavily modified?

 

Both, I say. And include the dollar-total spent to achieve it.

 

The only way to keep a comparison valid for all FSX users (those who do 3PD scenery and those who say "MS already gave us the whole world") is to have a three-way deal...

1. What Microsoft did in FSX (including just base cost)
    
   
2. What 3PDs did in FSX (including base cost and cost of applicable add-ons)
    
   
3. What Microsoft did in Flight (including cost of applicable DLCs)
   

[HughesMDflyer4 470]

I'd do the comparisons like I used to when Flight was in development, but...

 

1. My FSX has a number of add-ons installed, including REX, and it would take a bit of time to revert to default.

 

2. I don't really know Alaska's geography that well, so finding most of those locations would be rather difficult unless others helped to spot them.

 

If I had the help in finding locations, I'd consider doing them.

[beana51 0]

Some FSX ALASKA Pics....

 

 

 

 

[RoboRay 126]

That does look a little weird in the last two, now that I'm expecting to see terrain-induced shadows.

 

And the clouds in the first one look a little "fair." I guess some things never change.

 

Oh, and the taxi-way centerline is a series of straight segments rather than a curve. Nitpicking, sure. :nea:

 

But I would like to have the planes in the last two.

[tf51d 284]

I think that comparing a stock sim's scenery with a sim that has $80 worth of addons for just one state, doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.

 

Actually UTAlaska is only for 1 state, GEX however covers all of the Continental US (Alaska included.) and Canada!!!

[beana51 0]

Yes, Of Course Robo Ray...the PLANES THE THING! FLYING is Planes.!.....Yes if the Great scenery of "FLIGHT" can be married to Great Planes Of ALASKA,full cockpit,Stick and Rudder,they may be becoming a true FLIGHT SIMULATOR,with retaining the popular game aspects..I for one, of many ,retain FS9,FSX,and now FLIGHT..A good Dose Of Ed Lyons Magic could really spice up that Wilderness!..Enjoying all,and expect that the Best is yet to come!!...thanx..HAVE FUN!..

[Kaboki 437]

Here are some from Orbx PFJ scenery