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.

 

No, what I jab at is people that seem to go out of their way to find every negative thing they can say about Flight, and would it should have and what it should look like. I have been flying light planes since the 70's and you don't fly light planes in icing conditions unless you want to kill yourself. That's just a fact. What are you going to do in a Cub or Maule or Stearman if you encounter icing conditions, turn your "de-icers" on? No, you are probably going to crash!!!

No, what I jab at is people that seem to go out of their way to find every negative thing they can say about Flight, and would it should have and what it should look like. I have been flying light planes since the 70's and you don't fly light planes in icing conditions unless you want to kill yourself. That's just a fact. What are you going to do in a Cub or Maule or Stearman if you encounter icing conditions, turn your "de-icers" on? No, you are probably going to crash!!!

 

That's maybe a fact, but Isn't this thread about what people dont like about Alaska in flight, and maybe what they would like too see? I want too see icing in flight, maybe not that important right now, but when/if they make some bigger planes one day I would think that will be very important.

No, what I jab at is people that seem to go out of their way to find every negative thing they can say about Flight, and would it should have and what it should look like. I have been flying light planes since the 70's and you don't fly light planes in icing conditions unless you want to kill yourself. That's just a fact. What are you going to do in a Cub or Maule or Stearman if you encounter icing conditions, turn your "de-icers" on? No, you are probably going to crash!!!

 

Actually you'd get clearance to ascend above the cloud cover that is causing the icing conditions. Pitot heat to clear the pitot tube, alt air knob on aircraft like the Maule if your intake filter gets blocked with ice.. Among other things.. Altitude gain being the main one.. Happens all the time and many never crash.

My post had nothing to do with icing or flying GA in icing conditions or whether you're a real pilot. My point was, your one liners taking stabs at the "unbelievers" is doing more harm than good.

 

Just from today:

 

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

"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"

"Apparently you did look long enough to see all the new challenges, scenery and airports.

Might as well delete it then"

" If you don't like Flight, don't Fly it."

"

Maybe they should have included an SR-71 and one of the retired Space Shuttles, so that folks wouldn't feel like they were

duped"

 

I've said my peace. Again, nothing to do with icing.

Actually you'd get clearance to ascend above the cloud cover that is causing the icing conditions. Pitot heat to clear the pitot tube, alt air knob on aircraft like the Maule if your intake filter gets blocked with ice.. Among other things.. Altitude gain being the main one.. Happens all the time and many never crash.

 

You wouldn't get a clearance to fly through "known" icing conditions. It's ice buildup on your wings that eventually get you. But that's beside the point. Most Alaska flying is going to be VFR, without talking to controllers most of the time. The majority of airports & airstrips will be uncontrolled. This doesn't preclude flying around clouds though. In real life, you have to maintain your VFR distances from clouds, and see that "visible moisture" is not present.

in a basic single engine prop, you're actually more likely to want to go lower if you've got ice on the airframe, i.e. descending into warmer air. Going higher will put you in a lower ambient air temperature, and whilst your carb heat and pitot heat might sort out the intake icing and the ensure you've got an airspeed reading, it isn't going to crack the ice off the leading edge. Additionally, going up into thinner air with an already compromised aerofoil is not going to improve matters much.

 

Sure, if you've got some kind of fancy twin with de-icing boots or heaters which can crack the ice off, then climbing might work, but if not, then going into colder temperatures is probably going to make matters worse, since you'll get even more moisture in the air freezing on contact and sticking to the colder airframe. The only advantage flying through cloud when your wings are iffy and your instruments are icing up, losing visual reference to the horizon too, is that they won't have to dig a grave for you, because you'll bury yourself when you come spinning out of the cloud deck and drill yourself a 20 foot deep hole, and the tailplane sticking out of the hole will make a nice cross to mark the location.

 

Al

You're actually more likely to want to go lower if you've got ice on the airframe, i.e. descending into warmer air. Going higher will put you in a lower ambient air temperature, and whilst your carb heat and pitot heat might sort out the intake icing and the ensure you've got an airspeed reading, it isn't going to crack the ice off the leading edge. Additionally, going up into thinner air with an already compromised aerofoil is not going to improve matters much.

 

Sure, if you've got some kind of fancy twin with de-icing boots or heaters which can crack the ice off, then climbing might work, but if not, then going into colder temperatures is probably going to make matters worse, since you'll get even more moisture in the air freezing on contact and sticking to the colder airframe. The only advantage flying through cloud when your wings are iffy and your instruments are icing up, losing visual reference to the horizon too, is that they won't have to dig a grave for you, because you'll bury yourself when you come spinning out of the cloud deck and plough into a 20 foot deep hole, and the tailplane will make a nice cross to mark it.

 

Al

 

Losing visual reference is what I was basing my comment on. Either way, it's a dicey situation and in Alaska the weather can change in a heartbeat.. Hence the reason I pointed out how there are zero icing effects and in all weather. It's as if your plane is flying over Florida in spring time 24/7 in Alaskas Flight as far as that goes. It would indeed be nice to have that sense of danger lurking to keep you on your toes.

I agree that it would be interesting, but the chances are that most flight simmers wouldn't appreciate it, and in any case it is not really in keeping with what MS are aiming at with Flight. I know simmers didn't like it when one or two add ons for FS made serious airframe icing something which was simulated, because I spoke to developer of Weather Maker years ago and had it confirmed that's why he removed the feature from later versions. I daresay most people prefer to enjoy the simplicity of flying around nice scenery in good conditions so they can take in the visuals, rather than be faced with every pilot's nightmare scenario keeping them on the ground.

 

Really serious icing is scary as hell as I'm sure you know, if you ever see something like an old DC-4 or DC-6 that has a lot of hours on it, have a look at the fuselage right in line with the props, and you will almost certainly observe some massive dents in the skin where the props have shed chunks of ice and flung it into the sides, bashing the hell out of it. And then imagine what that kind of ice build up does to your wing's efficiency, and those big old DC's do have inflatable de-icing boots. If you had that kind of thing occur on a little Piper or Cessna, it would fly like a grand piano. :LMAO:

 

Al

I agree that it would be interesting, but the chances are that most flight simmers wouldn't appreciate it, and in any case it is not really in keeping with what MS are aiming at with Flight. I know simmers didn't like it when one or two add ons for FS made serious airframe icing something which was simulated, because I spoke to developer of Weather Maker years ago and had it confirmed that's why he removed the feature from later versions. I daresay most people prefer to enjoy the simplicity of flying around nice scenery in good conditions so they can take in the visuals, rather than be faced with every pilot's nightmare scenario keeping them on the ground.

 

Really serious icing is scary as hell as I'm sure you know, if you ever see something like an old DC-4 or DC-6 that has a lot of hours on it, have a look at the fuselage right in line with the props, and you will almost certainly observe some massive dents in the skin where the props have shed chunks of ice and flung it into the sides, bashing the hell out of it. And then imagine what that kind of ice build up does to your wing's efficiency, and those big old DC's do have inflatable de-icing boots. If you had that kind of thing occur on a little Piper or Cessna, it would fly like a grand piano. :LMAO:

 

Al

 

All very true... I guess I got caught up with what I'm used to flying in Prepar3D with basic Pitot Tube clogs and MP dropping w/ carb ice and intake vent icing on fuel injected planes. I'm just so used that always happening it was the first immediate thing I noticed w/ Alaska. I am using Flight as a casual vacation from the in and out aircraft detail and features w/ Prepar3D(/FSX).. Sometimes the lines just aren't blurry enough between the two.. For me the icing was one of those. :)

Sure it will be nice to fully simulate icing and a few other things but as of now i like what i get with flight .its a good thing i dont mix my daily flights with my siming at home .

At first I didn't think I was going to contribute to this topic. I've been very happy with Alaska so far. I have Ultimate Alaska X and GEX installed in FSX and I honestly think Flight looks better. But...

 

Seriously, Microsoft?!?! You had to bring back the "Tatooine" ground textures!?!? Sitka in May:

 

 

 

I know these are supposed to represent either dry, brown grass or just dirt covered hills, but they just aren't convincing. In FSX the use of these textures made California look like Tatooine. And now, apparently there are sand dunes on the coast of Alaska. I'm not graphic artist, so I don't know exactly what they should have done instead (different texture pattern, different use of colors, bump mapping, autogen, etc...). I'm sure they could do better than this, though, if they tried.

 

OK. That rant was kind of a half-joke. Like I said, I'm very happy with Alaska. But it was half serious too. Those brown hills are ugly.

The Cub is cute in a homely "too bad you're not a real aircraft with a cockpit" sort of way. Fun to play with though.

 

Somebody mentioned that if you look from F11 view and adjust it, you can see over the back of the pilot's head that the instruments are actually there in the aircraft, including a GPS. BUT... take a closer look at that GPS -- it's the same useless one from the Icon, and it's currently looking at the Hilo area.

 

I too would like a little more contrast around the flat grey airstrips to make them stand out a little more, like a grungy border around them or something that looks semi-realistic.

 

I did find one actual error on one of the north coast airfields... at Point Thompson Sea Ice Airstrip (AA50), there's nothing there. In summer texture, it's just one large open field for miles around. In winter texture, it's just one snow-covered field for miles around.

Seriously, Microsoft?!?! You had to bring back the "Tatooine" ground textures!?!? Sitka in May:

 

I flew there just to compare it with FSX since there was a mission in FSX that asks you to land in Sitka.Well, just like you, I was totally disappointed by the sand dunes, they look exactly like their counterpart in FSX, with no improvements.

Well I just can't play this sham of a sim anymore... how DARE they NOT put in fishing villages where as you fly over you can see them Clubbing Seals? I mean seriously? No Whaling boats? I wanna see Grey Whale carcasses leaving a bloody red slick in the water as I fly over. And what, no bears? Who's gonna eat those hikers as I fly over huh? How about fisherman? I wanna see longliners raping the Alaskan Coast. And where is Sarah Palins House? TOTAL DISAPPOINTMENT

Gee, i'm being followed. (another one liner)