Unalaka (PADU)

[Kaboki 437]

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.

[ShawnG 1,823]

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.

[Kaboki 437]

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..

[wcschulz3 18]

 

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

[Kaboki 437]

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.

[wcschulz3 18]

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

[jp1018 0]

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!!!

[Bobsk8 12,531]

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.

[Kaboki 437]

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.

[ShawnG 1,823]

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.

[desbean 357]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the comparison at PAKT in FSX with UTX and GEX addons (no ORBX). I like the autogen buildings and city layout in FSX but the textures are MUCH nicer in Flight. edit: hmm, don't know why the images aren't showing, just links...

 

...................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.....snipped

 

hehe yup. I just checked out PADU in FSX to compare with that Flight shot at the end of runway 30. this is with GEX and UTX, but it still looks pretty crappy compared to Flight. Not all of AK looks this bad in FSX but..

 

[Kaboki 437]

Ok my bad, I should have pointed out that I was using addons that are expensive. But I also would say I think comparing default FSX against Flight would not do justice, and at the moment there is no payware addon scenery for Flight to compare with. I'm not trying to hide the fact that too make FSX look good you have to pay, I just forget to mention that. I have some comparison shoots in another tread and there I clearly stated that I was using Orbx.

 

I'll might give Flight that chance the day they give a roadmap for where this is going. But buying cockpitless planes and default scenery that "I" think looks bad no matter how cheap It is(others may see it differently) Isn't the road I want too follow.

[ShawnG 1,823]

• Oh I hate the pitless planes as well, trust me theres a lot that will need to be done for me to uninstall FSX. the scenery though is better than any save orbx (except for the cities) and theres some scenery elements that ORBX can't touch either. If very curious to see how this develops.
  

[Kaboki 437]

Here is the comparison at PAKT in FSX with UTX and GEX addons (no ORBX). I like the autogen buildings and city layout in FSX but the textures are MUCH nicer in Flight. edit: hmm, don't know why the images aren't showing, just links...

 

 

 

hehe yup. I just checked out PADU in FSX to compare with that Flight shot at the end of runway 30. this is with GEX and UTX, but it still looks pretty crappy compared to Flight. Not all of AK looks this bad in FSX but..

 

 

I had GEX and UTX thought It looked great(Hadn't discovered Orbx yet, because the addon market can be very confusing and there is so much too choose from), then Flight came along, and damn It ruined my FSX expirience. I was on my way too unistall FSX just because Flight looked alot better. I tried it for about a week but I realized I missed alot of stuff that i had in FSX like ATC, AI, cars, good choice of planes, I like to fly everything from the Cub to Boing 747. I was hoping Microsoft would add this at a later time, but now I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Then a friend of mine showed me some of his Orbx stuff he just bought and wow, for me it looked alot better than Flight. Now I only fly FSX with Orbx under my wings and I have all the things I missed in Flight.

 

And no, Im not paid by Orbx to talk good about their products If anyone wondering...

 

 

 

the scenery though is better than any save orbx (except for the cities) and theres some scenery elements that ORBX can't touch either. If very curious to see how this develops.

 

From my perspective I dont think Flight scenery is better in the rural areas but thats just my opinion, guess we see things differently:)