Request for alaska comparison screenshots

[Chock 17,769]

Oh I'm not saying I'm not interested in seeing the difference in how they render the same location. I'm just as curious as the next person in that regard.

 

Al

[malibu43 2]

I agree that, for someone who already has FSX (with whatever addons) and Flight installed, the "use one or use them both, it's up to you" thing works.

 

However, for someone who hasn't already paid money for both products and maybe only owns one of them or doesn't have any FSX Alaska add-ons, comparisons and trying to decide "which one is better" and which one to continue to invest money in is a very useful exercise. I'm not saying that endlessly bashing one product or the other or insulting each other is useful.

 

While FSX and Flight are two different products, they do have very significant overlap (I think IL-2 1946 vs IL-2 CloD might be a better analogy), specifically if you are interested in GA flying in Hawaii and Alaska.

[beana51 0]

The wise Simmer or gamer uses all the of...FS9,FSX,and now FLIGHT.!..Yet there are others out there.....The Magic of Home Desktop Flying is enhanced with the variety of :FUN" things offered!..To engage in mindless comparisons is futile.. we are in a wonderful hobby..,and in forums like this..HANGER TALK LIVES!.When one goes to a museum one does not compare a Picasso to a Da Vinci...I like them all,and will not pick the ultimate Sim...For it has not been presented as of yet...If I want Scenery as the overriding factor? I May Favor one Sim,If I want the Prime Reason to Fly? I want that which offers that it to me,I with Hangers full of every flying machine that has been developed!f I want to dwell in the world of a Ed lyons? I have that also.

I also have the dedication of all the input to our hobby by giving unselfish people. I still have the vast add on market to satisfy any whim.I may have!..be it HAWAII,or ALASKA,or SHANGHAI I can fly like a LINDBURGH,,an "AMELIA.or a Chuck Yeager! I can go there at will!..I can play GOD with the weather,.I have mastered WARP SPEED.,and best of all I can "RESTORE" any human mistake...Life should be like this!

So Far Every Sim We ever got ,today no way resembles what came in that first box to us.,

 

Will FLIGHT too go thru a metamorphosis like that?? I do not know..its very game features may inhibit that...Flying to keep score appeals,Fling a Sim a a learning tool appeals also..So much so all major flight training and certification are done that way...Massive Flight Computers!

 

We come a long way as children..with Moms broom stick Dads Swivel chair, Uncle Joe's old WW1 flying helmet,making God awful sounds trying to sound like a Radial engine..and FLYING like a bird uninhibited with vivid imaginations!!.."DARN YOU RED BARON"

 

So what ever turns ya on,what ever offers most fun,what ever gives on versatility of Desk top flying is the way one should go....we come a long way from what my Avatar shows..Even that when first came out most of us thought ,How Can It Get Any More Real than That????WELL .LOOKATCHONOW!...Our hobby is growing....bring on yer one yer HOLODECK!..we Are Ready!

 

Name of the Game is FUN....."HAPPY LANDINGS PARDNER".

[Kaboki 437]

They never could compare to seeing it all in motion. Er......... have to add though (now I come to think of it) that I never had that disappointment yet in Flight...

 

I would make a video for you if i had the time and knowledge, but on my system it runs buttersmooth i motion and it actually looks better than the screenshot i took. no blurries or stutter. Dont use frame limiter and dont need to. Tried that but it looked ugly in motion.

 

... in my opinion the Flight screenshots look much better, but what counts the most is SMOOOOOOOOOTHNESS! I am no longer willing to stutter around the world, after hours and hours of tweeking and waiting for flights to be loaded. I do not want to know how much of my lifetime was already wasted in sitting in front of this loading screen of FSX. Never again!

Took me about hour to tweak fsx, thanks to all the good guides out there about it. Im running FSX SMOOOTHER than i can get Flight to run. I bought the rest of hawaii for flight and the rv6 and must say i didnt feel it was worth the money. Now i have unistalled flight, maybe i'll check it out in a couple of years if they get some AI traffic, more life like birds, people, car traffic, real life weather, speech recogniton(MCE), planes with more than one engine..These new screens doesnt tempt me because i think Orbx scenery looks alot better, and i get all the other stuff that FSX have. And soon Orbx coming to Europe and that means i can fly in areas that Im familiar with. Bet It take years before Microsoft get here.

 

But i have too say that im not here to convince anybody what is better or not, just did what the OP requested give some pics of FSX with addon scenery.

[styler360 0]

I can understand all these people who are in favour of FSX, as they have spent a lot of money for it. That was exactly the same when FSX came out and a lot of people said they would always stick to FS9. Well guys, time will tell. ;-)

[Fsau 0]

I can understand all these people who are in favour of FSX, as they have spent a lot of money for it. That was exactly the same when FSX came out and a lot of people said they would always stick to FS9. Well guys, time will tell. ;-)

 

The difference being FSX was the successor to the previous generation, Flight is not.

[Gibbage 199]

The difference being FSX was the successor to the previous generation, Flight is not.

 

Very true. Flight is a new product, not a squeal to the old products. Almost everything in Flight is new and from scratch.

[Chock 17,769]

I can understand all these people who are in favour of FSX, as they have spent a lot of money for it. That was exactly the same when FSX came out and a lot of people said they would always stick to FS9. Well guys, time will tell. ;-)

 

Not true for me. If something better able to do what FSX does comes along, I'll be on it in a flash regardless of how much I've spent on FSX, because what had been spent would be irrelevant; if something is better, then it is better. Presently the candidates are Prepar3d and X-Plane, and I've got them both, but they aren't there yet.

 

Flight is undoubtedly better if you want to fly around Hawaii in a Boeing Stearman and not concern yourself with ATC, and if that is what I want to do, then it does not matter if I'd bought some scenery for FSX of Hawaii and a Stearman for FSX (which in fact I have, and they don't either of them do better than that which Flight offers).

 

But it is not always about mere looks; I've got better UK scenery in FSX than I have in Silent Wings, but Silent Wings is a way better gliding simulator than FSX is, because it is a specialist gliding simulator, and so if I want to simulate gliding over the UK, the purchase of some nice scenery for FSXis again not relevant, how Silent Wings simulates a glider is more important.

 

So again it is a case of horses for courses to me. I use whichever one does the best job of simulating what I want to do, and if that happens to be either Flight or FSX, or Condor, or Silent Wings, or IL2 or Falcon or DCS, then that's the one I'll fire up.

 

Al

[xplanery 250]

Very true. Flight is a new product, not a squeal to the old products. Almost everything in Flight is new and from scratch.

Hmm, at least I do recall seeing picture where someone compared part of Hawaii terrain and part of FSX terrain, both being exactly same at that area with only Flight having better coastlines.

 

Obviously Flight uses very much stuff from previous FS in many forms. Some have been updated and something new added, but it is still very much based on tech from FSX and FS beyond.

[Guest]

Hmm, at least I do recall seeing picture where someone compared part of Hawaii terrain and part of FSX terrain, both being exactly same at that area with only Flight having better coastlines.

 

I can't remember seeing that: could someone confirm this? I have to say that I really doubt if this is so. I do think some stuff from FSX has been used (basic tech like landclass, maybe even data like for VORs, etc.) but to me the graphics look all new.

[FiLooo 0]

Flight uses very much stuff from previous FS in many forms.

HeLLo

I'm surprised by your advice here. I think it's simply not true.

Bye

[jcomm 5,939]

So again it is a case of horses for courses to me. I use whichever one does the best job of simulating what I want to do, and if that happens to be either Flight or FSX, or Condor, or Silent Wings, or IL2 or Falcon or DCS, then that's the one I'll fire up.

 

And that's indeed the right way to see things... I myself have a problem though... I tend to be rather monogamic about flight simulators, so, I ride just one... ELITE is presently the only sim I start besides MS FLIGHT. I also tend to uninstall and sometimes trash those pieces of software I no longer use... I trashed fs9, fsx, xp8, xp9, ps1, il2, .... I'm about to trash Condor and SilentWings too. Both need new and better versions, and I am having such a great time "playing" MS FLIGHT, and sometimes ELITE with the ATC scenarios for USA, that I do not have the time for yet another sim, nor do I feel the need, but then again... this is me :-)

[Bobsk8 12,756]

... in my opinion the Flight screenshots look much better, but what counts the most is SMOOOOOOOOOTHNESS! I am no longer willing to stutter around the world, after hours and hours of tweeking and waiting for flights to be loaded. I do not want to know how much of my lifetime was already wasted in sitting in front of this loading screen of FSX. Never again!

 

I love Flight so far and I think that it we all should be very happy that Flight exists.

 

I'm with you. There is nothing that makes flying a simulator more unrealistic than having the view or display stutter, or jerk, or slow down. When it goes black or locks up, is also a nightmare. Give me Flight anyday.

 

I can understand all these people who are in favour of FSX, as they have spent a lot of money for it. That was exactly the same when FSX came out and a lot of people said they would always stick to FS9. Well guys, time will tell. ;-)

 

That is exactly what I did when FSX came out. A friend of mine installed on it on a brand new gaming computer, I went over to his home and tried it for a few hours, and that convinced me not to buy it, and stick with FS9 which I had hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours of time invested in. When I finally uninstalled it about 5 years ago, I had boxes of add on software that I threw out, and I was amazed and how much money I had spent on FS9 just to make it look good and flyable.

[tf51d 284]

Very true. Flight is a new product, not a squeal to the old products. Almost everything in Flight is new and from scratch.

 

New and from scratch? Man you must be in real denial! I'm not saying Flight is bad, it's actually pretty good, but it is what it is, FSX stripped of most of it's features, a new GUI, different (Not necessarily better) ground textures, and an increased Lod Radius! Nothing more nothing less. Let's stop trying to make Flight out to be something it's not!

[Bobsk8 12,756]

New and from scratch? Man you must be in real denial! I'm not saying Flight is bad, it's actually pretty good, but it is what it is, FSX stripped of most of it's features, a new GUI, different (Not necessarily better) ground textures, and an increased Lod Radius! Nothing more nothing less. Let's stop trying to make Flight out to be something it's not!

 

I have never personally seen FS9 or FSX run on any computer, no matter how fast, as smoothly as Flight does on my middle of the road machine. I flew around Hawaii yesterday just looking at the scenery, and it was leaps and bounds better than anything I had ever seen in FS9 or X, even with hundreds of dollars worth of scenery add-ons to try and make it look like something. And the hurky jerky's were always there ready to ruin the experience. Comparing MSFS to Flight is like comparing an 8 track tape player to an iPod.