Some more pics from Orbx PFJ scenery+ rex2. 79$ in addons

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

In that case, Flight's stock scenery of Alaska should be compared with that of FSX... :Thinking:

HeLLo

In French we say "comparaison n'est pas raison"

@@++

In that case, Flight's stock scenery of Alaska should be compared with that of FSX... :Thinking:

On the other hand you have to pay for this Alaska area only, when with FSX when you buy the game you pay for whole world and all its aircrafts.

 

If Alaska for Flight is going to cost enough why not compare it to FSX with addons worth the same installed?

Why must people get defensive and think every comparison is a contest to be won or lost?

 

And it's funny how they leap to compare Flight to default FSX features when the comparison will be favorable to FSX, yet balk when it will not.

 

Make up your minds.

Can't compare FSX Alaska to Flight Alaska, it's like comparing a 2006 top of the line computer to a 2012 one.....

 

As much as I like Orbx scenery I think Flight Alaska scenery is better.

I think it's no use 'comparing' until we can make our own screenshots in Flight... Saying that Flight is better or worse just based on a few preview shots doesn't make that much sense imho. We all (should) know that screenshots hardly ever do a flying game justice. When I was (still) a big fan of Orbx, I was always very disappointed when I looked at the screenshots I made during yet another awesome flight. 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... those screenshots look just as stunning as the game does while flying. Or maybe I should say the game itself looks even better then the already awesome screenshots...

I just compared screenshots from Flight Alaska to Orbx Alaska from what I saw so far, can't say about flying Flight Alaska...

 

We still need to see how accurate are the airports in Flight Alaska, will they be all there?

I just compared screenshots from Flight Alaska to Orbx Alaska from what I saw so far, can't say about flying Flight Alaska...

 

We still need to see how accurate are the airports in Flight Alaska, will they be all there?

 

I hope they all will be there but I doubt it. I suppose only a few will be as detailed as some on Hawaii are.

 

BTW I was talking in general and my post was not only a reaction to yours.

... 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.

Can't compare FSX Alaska to Flight Alaska, it's like comparing a 2006 top of the line computer to a 2012 one.....

 

As much as I like Orbx scenery I think Flight Alaska scenery is better.

well, it's more of helping people apprieciate flight more, especially for those who don't.

Hello

Lets not forget that Flight simulation is all about Aircraft, best not start comparing Flight! to FSX on that front.

The number of real airports in Alaska seems to vary from 300, to 600, to 3000 or more depending on how loosely you define "airport."

 

Even if they are on the low side, there will be way more than Flight's... what, 36?

Flight and Flight Simulator are different products, they do things differently to one another, having been designed and intended to do different things.

 

A comparison of terrain simulation is interesting to see out of curiosity, but it is really only of passing interest to do so. It should come as no surprise to anyone to find that Flight can blow FSX out of the water when it comes to its appearance and frame rates, and it does. But it should be equally obvious that you can get a better look from a program which was developed six years after the other, particularly when using no CPU cycles to simulate ATC or traffic and when covering a smaller area, and frankly, there would be something seriously wrong with Flight if it could not do that. IL2 Cliffs of Dover simulates the English Channel better than FSX, but then again it doesn't have Heathrow Airport to simulate and you can't fly a Cessna 172 to California in it. But nor should you want to, because they are different products, intended to offer different experiences.

 

Thus one might just as well compare Zulu with Carry On up the Khyber, they are both great movies, however, they are not, and never were intended to do what the other one is doing. So it depends what you want, and maybe you want both, which is handy because there's nothing stopping anyone from having both either.

 

So I really don't get why such comparisons alway descend into some kind of silly rivalry. There's just no need for it. Use one or use both, up to you and your personal preferences.

 

Al

It's like a black and white movie digitally remastered in color (film colorization), the movie still the same unless you cut some scene out of it like MS did with Flight, car traffic, AI and the rest of the world.

 

MS shiffed their focus from the hardcore flyers to another kind of audience with a modified product.

 

Still, we just like to compare scenery....human nature I guess.