Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Air1

Unalaka (PADU)

Recommended Posts

Sure takes a long time to get anyhere, think I have to call for a fuel drop if anyone can hear me. Nasty weather, could not see the short gravel strip until I was right over it. Wearing this Hawaiian shirt is not going to cut it, burr. I must be missing something because I don't see a updated career path or new pilot caractures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see they have Ketchikan Airport all the way at the bottom right of the map. There should be some great scenery in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I see they have Ketchikan Airport all the way at the bottom right of the map. There should be some great scenery in that area.

 

Well... the airport is very simple. They did add quite a few things to the harbor, big boats, small boats, but the city itself looks like the usually... er... not too good. Those city textures are too big and are cut off awfully. I wish MS could come up with a better method to create cities, because cities suck.

 

7455171752_57d9ff615b_b.jpg

 

7455172142_5d648064d4_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure takes a long time to get anyhere, think I have to call for a fuel drop if anyone can hear me. Nasty weather, could not see the short gravel strip until I was right over it. Wearing this Hawaiian shirt is not going to cut it, burr. I must be missing something because I don't see a updated career path or new pilot caractures?

 

Thanks for the PICS.

 

You sure that is PADU? It is a paved runway, with an approach lighting (VASI) system and markings....and it is carved right out of Mt.Ballyhoo with water on both ends of it....that doesn't seem to match your photos?

 

Could you provide an overhead map view?

 

Thanks...I won't be able to download for a week or so....but PADU will be my home base in Flight if it is correctly set up.

 

 

Bill

KGYH

DVD Author: Electra! Queen of the Aleutian Islands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anybody else seeing FSX models everywhere? I look at your picture of Ketchikan, J van E, and all the ship are straight from FSX. I can not be sure on the autogen texture but it look the exact same. The crane seem new though. Good thing too since the FSX cranes killed FPS

 

not a complaint but an observation, it seem there is a lot more FSX in FLIGHT than i thought!

 

Oh BTW. Anyone have picture of Juneau?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... the airport is very simple. They did add quite a few things to the harbor, big boats, small boats, but the city itself looks like the usually... er... not too good. Those city textures are too big and are cut off awfully. I wish MS could come up with a better method to create cities, because cities suck.

 

7455171752_57d9ff615b_b.jpg

 

7455172142_5d648064d4_b.jpg

 

Thanks for the pics, I almost buy Alaska just too compare Ketchigan with what i have in FSX just because the price wasnt that bad. Now i don't have too, think I'll stick with FSX . This is what Ketcigan looks in my FSX setup.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the pics, I almost buy Alaska just too compare Ketchigan with what i have in FSX just because the price wasnt that bad. Now i don't have too, think I'll stick with FSX . This is what Ketcigan looks in my FSX setup.

 

 

 

 

 

keep in mind thats a $35 orbx airport on top of a $35 ORBX region that only covers < 3% of Alaska. lets compare your shots of, say Talkeetna. $15 is a pretty good deal for the whole state regardless if you can make one city look better in FSX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm flying right now in the Maule from PADU to Cold Bay.

 

Just landed.....

 

Here is enroute shot about 1/2 way.

 

EnroutetoColdBayfromPADU.jpg

 

And here I am parked at the Hangars at Cold Bay.

theRampatColdBay.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep in mind thats a $35 orbx airport on top of a $35 ORBX region that only covers < 3% of Alaska. lets compare your shots of, say Talkeetna. $15 is a pretty good deal for the whole state regardless if you can make one city look better in FSX

 

Im quite aware that it cost 32,95$ for a single airport and 40,95$ for the region and It's a smaller a smaller area, but right know i dont have any choice too improve the default Flight scenery. And I rather pay more for a small area in greater quality than a large one, that i personaly think looks like crap. I'll be happy too buy payware airports and scenery for Flight too If I had that option. But when can I improve Flight scenery with quality payware?

 

Like too add that i didnt pay that much, bougt everything Orbx had during their April sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the PICS.

 

You sure that is PADU? It is a paved runway, with an approach lighting (VASI) system and markings....and it is carved right out of Mt.Ballyhoo with water on both ends of it....that doesn't seem to match your photos?

 

Could you provide an overhead map view?

 

Thanks...I won't be able to download for a week or so....but PADU will be my home base in Flight if it is correctly set up.

 

 

Bill

KGYH

DVD Author: Electra! Queen of the Aleutian Islands

'

 

It looks like PAKT to me. Kinda sparse.

 

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and I would both agree that ORBX ketchikan is better than the Ketchikan area in flight. looks like crap is a little harsh though, there are areas of flights scenery that are worse than ORBX's certainly, but to be honest there are some areas that even ORBX can't touch at this point that flight excels at, the mountain scenery and trees in particular. I would love if ORBX were to release a full Alaska product, but they are only now working on SAK which will be far far less than the whole state. There's only so many times I can land at the same airport, regardless how beautiful it is. (Oops I may have made a metaphor for other areas of life as well, lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what folks will finally get tired of dissecting and nitpicking every square yard of the Alaska scenery and every bolt, nut and rivet in the aircraft, and either enjoy flying in Flight or move on to something else. For those of use who really like this sim, it is really getting tedious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure that is PADU? It is a paved runway, with an approach lighting (VASI) system and markings....and it is carved right out of Mt.Ballyhoo with water on both ends of it....that doesn't seem to match your photos?

You are correct sir. I landed at the only strip I could find. I guess I was lost but must have been near by, the weather was really harsh at the time. PADU really is a nice looking facility. I will need to explore it farther.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct sir. I landed at the only strip I could find. I guess I was lost but must have been near by, the weather was really harsh at the time. PADU really is a nice looking facility. I will need to explore it farther.

 

Thanks for the PADU pics! That is indeed what I remember from my visits there! Of course, the Aerosoft FSX add-on is beautiful, but I love the ambiance of Flight, and really look forward to my fun round robins from PASD-PACD-PADU and back in bad winter weather in Flight!

 

Try PASD--Sand Point--it's amazing too in real life!

 

Thanks again for the pics

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and I would both agree that ORBX ketchikan is better than the Ketchikan area in flight. looks like crap is a little harsh though, there are areas of flights scenery that are worse than ORBX's certainly, but to be honest there are some areas that even ORBX can't touch at this point that flight excels at, the mountain scenery and trees in particular. I would love if ORBX were to release a full Alaska product, but they are only now working on SAK which will be far far less than the whole state. There's only so many times I can land at the same airport, regardless how beautiful it is. (Oops I may have made a metaphor for other areas of life as well, lol)

 

After what i can see from new screens of Alaska I think mountains look alot better in Orbx. Ok, maybe Im a little harsh when I said that Flight scenery looks like crap:p

But Im expecting more from Microsoft in a sim from 2011/2012 expecially when they work only on one region at a time. I think they could have put more work in it. Don't care about if It would cost more for the DLC.

I have PFJ, PNW and Tongas fjords(Not ORBX) and all the airports they have made for these scenerys and I must say that I havent got bored yet, and I love that moving ship traffic in Tongas Fjords.

I'll rather have 28 higly detailed airports than 500 hundred that looks just a little better than the FSX defaults. And there is also plenty of freeware out there too enchant those default ones. And more is coming.

And SAK I'll buy right away when released so i can make my orbx scenery stretch out more north and soon getting NRM, CRM. So i will have alot more to explore than in Flight Alaska, not cheap but I get what I want.+ the things that Flight don't have ATC, AI traffic, birds, cars on the road etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dissecting and nitpicking every square yard of the Alaska scenery and every bolt, nut and rivet in the aircraft

 

to be fair, we're flight simmers, that's what we do. that's why you'd have to be nuts to be an FS developer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what folks will finally get tired of dissecting and nitpicking every square yard of the Alaska scenery and every bolt, nut and rivet in the aircraft, and either enjoy flying in Flight or move on to something else. For those of use who really like this sim, it is really getting tedious.

 

I think they never will get tired, maybe the day Microsoft decides too do something about it. And I think Its healty with treads that have some sort of critique and not just the ###### perspective. Maybe Microsoft lurks in the forums and maybe pick up some of that critique and do something about It..

 

And sorry for my bad english, not my native language..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll rather have 28 higly detailed airports than 500 hundred that looks just a little better than the FSX defaults. And there is also plenty of freeware out there too enchant those default ones. And more is coming.

And SAK I'll buy right away when released so i can make my orbx scenery stretch out more north and soon getting NRM, CRM. So i will have alot more to explore than in Flight Alaska, not cheap but I get what I want.+ the things that Flight don't have ATC, AI traffic, birds, cars on the road etc.

 

Right, so perhaps the FSX forum would be a better place to engage with folks, as most of us are interested in Flight's delivery of interesting flying opportunities in Alaska for around $16US.....just saying!

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so perhaps the FSX forum would be a better place to engage with folks, as most of us are interested in Flight's delivery of interesting flying opportunities in Alaska for around $16US.....just saying!

 

Bill

 

Maybe so, but I think new users that never had any sims from before they got Flight should have the chance too see some comparisons to see that Flight Isn't the only sim out ther that looks good and maybe enlighten them for the alternatives even if it cost more.

 

And if there are things I dont like about Flight would the FSX forum be a better place to make those posts? After all my critique is for Flight not FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but I think new users that never had any sims from before they got Flight should have the chance too see some comparisons to see that Flight Isn't the only sim out ther that looks good and maybe enlighten them for the alternatives even if it cost more.

 

And if there are things I dont like about Flight would the FSX forum be a better place to make those posts? After all my critique is for Flight not FSX.

 

Hi...you bring up some great points...of course, it's all relative to the issue of value in general. If I compare what I don't like about my Toyota Corolla, vs a Prius with all bells and whistles (the Prius was designed to be the upgrade for Corolla folks), or worse, compare the Corolla to one of the smaller Lexus (another Toyota upgrade), it's kinda pointless.

 

If folks had the budget for the Lexus, and wanted the add-ons, they wouldn't even consider the Corolla. Folks like Flight because it's an entry-level product--and we should compare it to other entry level flight sim products (which are not many). Of course, I, for one, think it is much more than entry level--for the money!

 

Given that context (entry level, very affordable), what is there really not to like about Flight and Alaska at this point?

 

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep in mind thats a $35 orbx airport on top of a $35 ORBX region that only covers < 3% of Alaska. lets compare your shots of, say Talkeetna. $15 is a pretty good deal for the whole state regardless if you can make one city look better in FSX

Couldn't agree more!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After what i can see from new screens of Alaska I think mountains look alot better in Orbx. Ok, maybe Im a little harsh when I said that Flight scenery looks like crap:p

But Im expecting more from Microsoft in a sim from 2011/2012 expecially when they work only on one region at a time. I think they could have put more work in it. Don't care about if It would cost more for the DLC.

I have PFJ, PNW and Tongas fjords(Not ORBX) and all the airports they have made for these scenerys and I must say that I havent got bored yet, and I love that moving ship traffic in Tongas Fjords.

I'll rather have 28 higly detailed airports than 500 hundred that looks just a little better than the FSX defaults. And there is also plenty of freeware out there too enchant those default ones. And more is coming.

And SAK I'll buy right away when released so i can make my orbx scenery stretch out more north and soon getting NRM, CRM. So i will have alot more to explore than in Flight Alaska, not cheap but I get what I want.+ the things that Flight don't have ATC, AI traffic, birds, cars on the road etc.

 

http://www.flightsimstore.com/index.php?manufacturers_id=92

At $30 + an airport, it better look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi...you bring up some great points...of course, it's all relative to the issue of value in general. If I compare what I don't like about my Toyota Corolla, vs a Prius with all bells and whistles (the Prius was designed to be the upgrade for Corolla folks), or worse, compare the Corolla to one of the smaller Lexus (another Toyota upgrade), it's kinda pointless.

 

If folks had the budget for the Lexus, and wanted the add-ons, they wouldn't even consider the Corolla. Folks like Flight because it's an entry-level product--and we should compare it to other entry level flight sim products (which are not many). Of course, I, for one, think it is much more than entry level--for the money!

 

Given that context (entry level, very affordable), what is there really not to like about Flight and Alaska at this point?

 

B

 

Good point. And Im not saying Alaska Isn't worth 15$(Still Isn't worth it for me, as I have something I think looks better, and at this time Flight can't offer me), but I would have liked Microsoft to produce more quality and i would't care about the price or that they let 3PD make additional scenery so that people who can afford it had some choice. The people that dont have the money to buy additional high quality could just go for the basic Alaska that cost just15$ and everyone would be happy.

 

I just can dream of what Orbx scenery and REX would be In Flight with all the possibilites It offers with It's new tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but I think new users that never had any sims from before they got Flight should have the chance too see some comparisons to see that Flight Isn't the only sim out ther that looks good and maybe enlighten them for the alternatives even if it cost more.

 

And if there are things I dont like about Flight would the FSX forum be a better place to make those posts? After all my critique is for Flight not FSX.

 

I still do most of my flying in FSX too, but your comparison wasn't either fair or presented honestly, you just said this is a screen of what my FSX looks like, not mentioning that if someone followed up your advice and bought FSX and went to PAKT they would see &amp;@(&#036;*-ugly brown desert terrain and jaggy coastlines, and crappy autogen textures. then you would tell them that they need to spend thousands of dollars like I did to make FSX palatable? or just south of $100 just to make one small region look great? I love FSX too, it's still the king, but I WELL remember uninstalling FSX for 2 years until it was acceptable, give Flight that chance, and I'm sure it will be just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...