If you have ever been in Alaska, there isn't alot of environmental diversity. It is what it is. !!! Lots of the same kinds of scenery, and miles and miles of it. It's similar to flying from coast to coast in the US on a commercial flight. Look out the airliner window you are sitting in at 30,000+ feet. what do you see, scenery that doesn't change much for hundreds and hundreds of miles. Here a city , there a city, some farmland in-between, and for the most part, not much beyond that. That is what the world looks like from the sky. It's called Reality!!!

 

I do think it looks better, off the side of an RV wing..............than 30,000+ flights across the U.S. Actually I find it much more interesting.

 

Okay, that RV wing pic wasn't really Alaska. It's out of Salt Lake City, but the scenery is close enough....

I have been to Alaska and there is plenty of diversity to model--glaciers, cities, fjords, etc. Throw in the diverse weather conditions and there is plenty to see and different environments to experience it in. However, you dont need to create or simulate the entire ~600,000 sq km of landmass to experience it.

 

My only point was that with the effort it presumably took to model the entire expanse of Alaksa (and all the associated airports) intact (when much of it is completely generic), I would have prefered if part of that effort went into providing more aspects of the game and simulation which I (and presumably other people, but perhaps not) enjoy. We'll see, perhaps thats what the MS FLIGHT team works on next.

 

The challenges FLIGHT offers are terrific (like the ones you've outlined in your post) and I would argue its the best GA sim/game I have tried. That doesnt mean it couldn't be better.

 

I think what they wanted to create was a stable flying platform which as far as I am concerned is a first in PC sims. Gradually they could add bells and whistles, but I would hate if adding some eye candy, or some silly widget caused the burps and hiccups that we have been living with in the past. A smooth flying sim with decent looking stutter free video I feel is the holy grail , all other add ons that could possibly cause this great sim to descend into a downward spiral, are not important to me.

Whales in the Seas!!!... Just kidding...

 

Now that's something I'd like to see...Not kidding

I expected (not really expected, but desired) a new Deluxe airplane, suitable for a fast long-distance medical flight. I expected them to fix the Maule's autopilot and the stop-watch. I expected all airfields "photoreal". I - do not laugh at me, please - expected rivers with streams:).

What do people want? Perfection, or near to it, and at a very low price, it seems.

The problem is that you (well, I did) intend to look at new scenery like Alaska the wrong way. I waited for it for months and I always thought this had to be IT! The most important DLC since the initial release. A sign for the future. Well... you've read my long post about repetitive textures. The thing is: Flight's Alaska isn't made to be examined in topdown view and it isn't made to closely inspect the individual textures, landclass and mesh... Is has to be EXPERIENCED!

 

Once I FINALLY took off in the RV-6A, sun still low on the horizon, low and threatening weather, those repetitive textures suddenly turned into a wide and beautiful landscape... and I was soaring like an eagle, enjoying the neverending panoramas...

 

I think another mistake I made was that I expected some 586.000 square miles of Hawaiian quality... bit stupid, of course. My bad. I am sure there are some parts that DO have that same quality and I am hoping to discover them the coming days. But again, when you experience Flight the way it is supposed to be experienced, even the most repetitive parts of Alaska are great.

 

(Now give me a new ingame map, please.... )

I have been to Alaska and there is plenty of diversity to model--glaciers, cities, fjords, etc. Throw in the diverse weather conditions and there is plenty to see and different environments to experience it in. However, you dont need to create or simulate the entire ~600,000 sq km of landmass to experience it.

 

 

 

I flew in flight yesterday for about 6 hours. I flew past fjords, Glaciers, in fact flew over a glacier that I also had flown over in a RA near Whittier, flew over Anchorage which is a city the last time I was there, so I don't understand your comment. Posted pictures of this on another thread yesterday of both shots from Flight and photos I took at the same places in a RA. Pretty similar looking.

 

I think a learning experience, which is why I did it, is to take a trip to Alaska, rent an aircraft, or if you are not a pilot hire a pilot and fly around and see what it looks like in person. I think you will be surprised at what a good job Flight does in replicating that.

But again, when you experience Flight the way it is supposed to be experienced, even the most repetitive parts of Alaska are great.

 

In which way is Flight supposed to be experienced? I think everybody experiences it in their own, personal way.

They did a nice job on Alaska, repetitive textures were also used in FSX and others so I don't think it's a real problem.

In which way is Flight supposed to be experienced? I think everybody experiences it in their own, personal way.

 

Like he said, by flying it. Not inspecting it with a giant magnifying glass in low-earth orbit. :search:

 

When I did my two mountain-pass runs yesterday, I was really impressed with the visuals, especially when the passes opened up and I could the forests and lakes beyond, with distant hills fading into the haze.

 

 

In top-down view, zooming in and out, not so much.

Like he said, by flying it. Not inspecting it with a giant magnifying glass in low-earth orbit. :search:

 

In top-down view, zooming in and out, not so much.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

I expected at least a photo-texture of Lake Hood :Thinking:

I expected at least a photo-texture of Lake Hood :Thinking:

 

I expected a lot of float plane models around the edge, to tease us.

 

Lake Hood empty looks even more bizarre than Honolulu International empty.

I think they should have some Pubs around the Lake Hood area so we can stop in for a beer after a flight.

 

 

I expected a lot of float plane models around the edge, to tease us.

 

Lake Hood empty looks even more bizarre than Honolulu International empty.

 

Microsoft really needs to start embracing the static aircraft concept...

well one thing I expected and was dissapointed not to see was correct airport elevations at Ketchican. Dont understand why the sloped taxiways were not modeled. ?