Oh yeah, I was actually quite surprised when they sold Alaska with that low price, but of course it being more generic than Hawaii explains it all, making whole area in same quality with Hawaii would have probably taken a lot more time.

 

Myself I think I will pass Alaska now as it doesn't seem to be that major improvement from default FSX and its not my favourite area to fly in anyway... They should make Papua New Guinea, other than few cities and all its small airports it has only small amount of scenery that would be needed to make non generic way, rest is mainly just beautiful rainforest.

 

 

Allowing third party development would solve all the problems, especially if MS somehow ported rest of the generic FSX world to Flight and then allowed third party devs to cover it with addons sold through live store, ensuring their compatibility together.

 

But of course Flight isn't really heading towards new FS atm.

PNG would be great

 

I think Alaska is a bit more generic in real life than Hawaii..trees..some more trees..some mountains...lots of lakes..some more trees; on a mountain...a city..etc, you get the idea

 

Hawaii has a lot going on in RL too, but in a way smaller area..To model alaska to, say ORBX standard, would take years, and end up costing about a thousand quid LOL..

 

I'm sure they'll patch up the weird autogen thing; can't be that hard? And the dust stuff..They just need to let someone else model all of the airports for them

If you are not satisfied with MS's product why are so many people continuing to buy? The only thing MS understands is $$$$$. There is money to be made with this community, just look at the prices people are willing to pay just for one quality plane to use with FSX. If MS is unwilling to give us what we want someone else will. I know nobody wants Flight to fail, but the changes it seems a lot of the community is looking for will not occur as long as the $$$$ keeps flowing in. I know I have not paid for any Flight's products, nor will I until they give me cockpits, real weather, ATC, AI traffic. Continuing to buy these products in the hope it will get better just doesn't make any sense IMHO. This post is not meant to insult, it is an appeal to stop sending MS $$$$ for something you are not satisfied with. I do understand that there are people that are satisfied with Flight in its current form and that's great, if you are one of those people, please ignore my post.

 

It's called addiction, some can kick the habit and some can't no matter what........if you are one of those please ignore my post.

 

Just having a little fun with you all... :Clown:

- No icing effects (I mean they point out in the adverts for the DLC how the major challenge of flying in Alaska is the weather and so how could you not include this??)

 

In real life, with these aircraft that are being used for Flight................you just don't fly them in icing conditions. Icing conditions are when moisture is present. You could be up over a mountain range with temps below zero, and you're still fine, as long as the conditions aren't favorable for ice buildup. That's part of the challange of Alaska weather.......which is to know, when to fly.

In real life, with these aircraft that are being used for Flight................you just don't fly them in icing conditions. Icing conditions are when moisture is present. You could be up over a mountain range with temps below zero, and you're still fine, as long as the conditions aren't favorable for ice buildup. That's part of the challange of Alaska weather.......which is to know, when to fly.

 

You are probably correct. However, there are many situations I encounter in FLIGHT where I think weather would preclude a small GA plane from operating safely in RL (I'm thinking of when I see condiitons where winds are >50kts). Maybe I'm wrong. Still think icing should be modeled.

I was looking forward to Alaska. However, after seeing the release detail regarding the released 1/2 an airplane and other comments about the scenery resolution, misplaced autogen, etc, I will pass on this until such a time that Microsoft updates this and gives us a helicopter with cockpit, or another Alaskan type airplane (DeHavilland Beaver, Caravan, etc.).

 

I will look forward to reading the comments on this forum as well.

 

Stan

 

-You can load 4 passengers in a CarbonCub !?

 

 

With the pilot flying from OUTSIDE the aircraft, it leaves more room for PAX! Brilliant!

With the pilot flying from OUTSIDE the aircraft, it leaves more room for PAX! Brilliant!

:LMAO:

You are probably correct. However, there are many situations I encounter in FLIGHT where I think weather would preclude a small GA plane from operating safely in RL (I'm thinking of when I see condiitons where winds are >50kts). Maybe I'm wrong. Still think icing should be modeled.

 

If you suspected icing in he kind of aircraft that are used in Flight, you would stay home and watch TV.

Just noticed another problem: the town and village in western and northern Alaska uses the same suburb landclass from the lower 48th states! And Unalakleet runway has tall trees on both side, but in real life the whole airport is completely flat.

Just noticed another problem: the town and village in western and northern Alaska uses the same suburb landclass from the lower 48th states! And Unalakleet runway has tall trees on both side, but in real life the whole airport is completely flat.

 

And I saw a dog tied in the front yard of a house on Halstead street in Seward today, and the people that live there don't even own a dog.

If you suspected icing in he kind of aircraft that are used in Flight, you would stay home and watch TV.

 

Really don't want to make this personal, but you seem to want to drive a lot of people away from Flight instead of inviting them in and encouraging them to explore exactly whats available to them. Maybe it's just me but most of your posts include a jab at those who aren't as thrilled with Flight as you are. Not quite troll-bait, but pretty close.

And I saw a dog tied in the front yard of a house on Halstead street in Seward today, and the people that live there don't even own a dog.

 

I know this is just a joke, but im seeing a lot of snarky comments from you in reply's. Please remember that picking up on inaccuracy's helps make Flight a better game. With almost 600,000 square miles, the relatively small Flight team cant double check every inch of that land. These bugs are needed for future patches to allow the team to fix problems that slipped by. And yes, the members of the Flight team DO read these post's, but are not allowed to take part in topics.

That's not baiting - it's a statement of fact. Light planes and ice don't mix.

Really don't want to make this personal, but you seem to want to drive a lot of people away from Flight instead of inviting them in and encouraging them to explore exactly whats available to them. Maybe it's just me but most of your posts include a jab at those who aren't as thrilled with Flight as you are. Not quite troll-bait, but pretty close.

 

Bob's correct though. This is along the lines of what I also previously said. Some want icing modeled, but in real life, you have a good chance of being one of those crunched aircraft on the surface. To model the effects, is more along the lines of animating crashing effects. I live in an area, where it's taught, that when you recieve your instrument rating...........that you most likely won't be able fly in the conditions that you wanted it for. The reason, is just too much ice in bad weather around here.