We need bush planes and cabins...

[Dillon 2,194]

As many as they can throw at us.... After finally loading this scenery up and flying around the lower Fjords area this scenery is screaming for float planes. Planes that are bigger and have the ability to fly long distances. We need as many cabin areas as possible to populate this large baron area. We need moving AI ships and float planes to go along with our multiplayer sessions. Microsoft has to make this area come alive. My suggestion to them is look at:

 

FSAddon's: FSCargo

Misty Morings

 

We need ATC for Alaska hands down in nothing more that to get the weather for the area. We need major airports in this scenery to have more than a default FS9 look. I was expecting more from MS when it came to modeling the various airports like they did for Hawaii.

 

But first we need many more options for BUSH PLANES to fly. Microsoft we need DELUXE BUSH PLANES to fly not jokes....

 

 

Great job MS on the scenery, hopefully you don't stop now. This one area can carry Flight for a long timer if you develop the live world within it. That could hold us for awhile until you either open up the code for third party developers or build up the rest of the world. Alaska is a unique world for aviation and I hope MS realizes what they could have in their hands if they play this one right...

[Bobsk8 12,489]

The Icon is a modern, very capable bush plane. Can go easily from water landings and takeoffs to regular runways, climbs well, and is fairly fast.

[Gibbage 199]

I would NEVER call the Icon a bush plane. Its too light, and under powered! Also its not STOL at all, and the tires are much too small. Plus not many people would fly a pure VFR like the Icon in such an unpredictable place like Alaska.

[Bobsk8 12,489]

I would NEVER call the Icon a bush plane. Its too light, and under powered! Also its not STOL at all, and the tires are much too small. Plus not many people would fly a pure VFR like the Icon in such an unpredictable place like Alaska.

 

Well that is all true, but it is pretty good at getting in and out of the small strips and landing on water where you wouldn't have the problems that you would have with a float plane. Folks that have never flown float planes find that they have alot to learn abut landing on water with floats. Do it wrong and you could wind up with your plane in pieces.

[RoboRay 126]

When I think of bush planes, I'm thinking about off-airport landings. The Icon may be fine on calm lakes, and maybe even gravel strips (though it does sit awfully low to the ground for that, I would think), but that is as "bushy" as I would want to get in one.

[NismoRR 191]

Agree we need more bush planes...at least one (for the time being) very capable plane that offers the flexibility to use floats and tundra tires...and skis too. I don't want to be too demanding. A Beaver or Kodiak...something capable of handling more pax and cargo.

[Chock 17,769]

Yup, the Alaska scenery needs a Beaver or a Twotter or something like that to be honest. Something a bit more long-legged, rugged and capable. Those things were designed for that kind of environment.

 

Al

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Totally agree!

 

Here we have some nice scenery to fly in, and no plane suited to the environment.. the Maule would be the closest

candidate, but we get a "teaser" Carbon Cub.. come on MS - you can do better than that!

 

Other misc observations:

 

- This scenery is priced at $14.99, but you have to buy $22.50 worth of MS Points to get it..

 

- I've got a nice, fast hard-drive where I installed Flight, but MS knows better and installs

Alaska in some obscure spot on my C: drive, without asking..

 

- The confirmation message about my points purchase has the wrong date (I know, I am getting

picky, but it does not add to my confidence..)

 

More importantly, I still do not have a working autopilot or GPS which limits my ability to explore

the new scenery... so reluctantly, back to FSX, at least for a while longer..

[rtodepart 761]

Yes a deluxe twin otter would be nice . A few years back i spent about a 10 months flying the otter daily .

[Dillon 2,194]

Totally agree!

 

Here we have some nice scenery to fly in, and no plane suited to the environment.. the Maule would be the closest

candidate, but we get a "teaser" Carbon Cub.. come on MS - you can do better than that!

 

Other misc observations:

 

- This scenery is priced at $14.99, but you have to buy $22.50 worth of MS Points to get it..

 

- I've got a nice, fast hard-drive where I installed Flight, but MS knows better and installs

Alaska in some obscure spot on my C: drive, without asking..

 

- The confirmation message about my points purchase has the wrong date (I know, I am getting

picky, but it does not add to my confidence..)

 

More importantly, I still do not have a working autopilot or GPS which limits my ability to explore

the new scenery... so reluctantly, back to FSX, at least for a while longer..

 

Until they address some of these concerns (especially wind socks at some of the larger fields) I'm back to FS9's FSCargo, some third party bush planes with VC's, 'Misty Fjords (with Misty Moorings additions for cabins), Tongass Fjords, and Glacier Bay. I will fly this rendition of Alaska but we have to have a capable environment not just scenery to fully enjoy it. Microsoft can't throw a few missions out there and keep releasing cockpitless aircraft and expect this to work. The cockpitless idea needs to die now with the Carbon Cub. They should go back through all those basic releases and offer deluxe upgrades and be done with it.

 

Now I'm going to stop before I get banned... :Nerd:

[Guest]

- This scenery is priced at $14.99, but you have to buy $22.50 worth of MS Points to get it..

 

- I've got a nice, fast hard-drive where I installed Flight, but MS knows better and installs

Alaska in some obscure spot on my C: drive, without asking..

 

You could have paid with a credit card or paypal account... No need to buy MS points anymore.

 

You can change the default folder for DLC in GFWL.

[T_Fleck 36]

At this point I am more concerned for the future of Flight then ever before. I cannot help but feel that the Cub was originally intended to be a deluxe plane. But, for whatever reason was downgraded before the launch of Alaska. The reason I say that is because it is the only basic plane that has challenges. Also, being deluxe would have put Alaska on par with the Hawaii pack. This is why I fear for Flight's health, Alaska seems so undefined compared to Hawaii. It seems rushed and incomplete. Alaska was supposed to be Flight's first major DLC pack but is quietly released without fanfare. I hope all is well, and the devs are cooking up some great deluxe planes, but to me things are not looking good.

[Torg Smith 31]

As the last update had loading optimizations in it and Alaska probably having a much higher poly count than Hawaii, I suspect they are working optimizations right now. They may be holding off on many deluxe aircraft until they get the systems in. When they get the systems in, they will only need to rework four aircraft as of now.

 

The shadow engine still needs some work. I don’t know if they plan on doing this but they may while they have it ripped open.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

You could have paid with a credit card or paypal account... No need to buy MS points anymore.

 

You can change the default folder for DLC in GFWL.

 

I saw no optiion to pay with credit card... other than to buy the points with a credit card, which I did.

How could I have paid 14.99 instead of 22.50?

 

Where do I change the DLC default folder, and when is that offered?

 

Please elaborate!

[Guest]

I paid for points with a cc in the past. When I wanted to buy Alaska I got the option to pay with the already registered cc or points. Maybe this was your first purchase and you didn't yet have a cc registered on GFWL...?

 

You can change the default locations by going to the settingspage in GFWL.