Jump to content

Archived

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

trevorbee

Flight - an enigma

Recommended Posts

Let’s recap.

 

Most of us thought that Flight would be FS11.

 

But all of the previews were based in Hawaii? Well, that’s OK we said, all of the previews of FSX were based in Netherlands Antilles – just a showcase, and so that doesn’t mean anything.

 

Then Flight was released and, shock horror, it is just Hawaii.

 

But hey, this is a new approach. It is only Hawaii but done in higher fidelity then ever before, even though it is missing a lot of features that we have come to take for granted. (Fill in the gaps). And, this is a work in progress. It can only get better.

 

Four months go by during which the developers only release cockpit-less add-on aircraft.

 

Then, the long anticipated Alaska Adventure Pack is released with yet another cockpit-less aircraft included for free.

 

Well, I have only done a few short flights in Alaska but, so far, I have to say I am quite disappointed. The airports I have seen look like default FS9 and the mesh does not do justice to the grandeur that it Alaska I also have FS9 with Holger Sandemann’s Freeware Alaska scenery included and, frankly, although it is quite a small area of Alaska, It leaves Flight for dead.

 

I thought that Flight would be good. But now I have serious doubts. Alaska should have been treated same as Hawaii. Take a relatively small, representative area and present it in high fidelity. Give us some aircraft with cockpits suitable for the territory.

 

And talk to us, tell us what you intend to do to make this the best sim game ever and then I may eat my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that holger's mesh for Alaska is superb and the Flight mesh is disappointing.

 

I strongly disagree that Flight's Alaska looks sub FS9. IMHO the textures an the autogen re better than Orbx FSX, and the lighting / shadows off the autogen on the landscape? Best in any sim I've yet seen, and I have a lot of them.

 

Just today I was flying at dusk and the shadows from the mountain range behind me were reflected on the range in front of me, INCLUDING THE TREES ON TOP OF THE RANGE!

 

If you're missing all of these incredible things your eyesight may not be up to Flight, and so sticking with much simpler graphics might suit you better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flight is not perfect. Neither is any other sim that I am aware of. For every point you have made, many of which I agree with, counterpoints could also fairly easily be made. Some were made in the post above.

 

Its a personal decision we will all have to make as to whether the proverbial "glass" is half full, half empty, or even simply in the process of being filled.

 

And whether what the glass contains is sweet or sour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s recap.

 

Most of us thought that Flight would be FS11.

 

But all of the previews were based in Hawaii? Well, that’s OK we said, all of the previews of FSX were based in Netherlands Antilles – just a showcase, and so that doesn’t mean anything.

 

Then Flight was released and, shock horror, it is just Hawaii.

 

But hey, this is a new approach. It is only Hawaii but done in higher fidelity then ever before, even though it is missing a lot of features that we have come to take for granted. (Fill in the gaps). And, this is a work in progress. It can only get better.

 

Four months go by during which the developers only release cockpit-less add-on aircraft.

 

Then, the long anticipated Alaska Adventure Pack is released with yet another cockpit-less aircraft included for free.

 

Well, I have only done a few short flights in Alaska but, so far, I have to say I am quite disappointed. The airports I have seen look like default FS9 and the mesh does not do justice to the grandeur that it Alaska I also have FS9 with Holger Sandemann’s Freeware Alaska scenery included and, frankly, although it is quite a small area of Alaska, It leaves Flight for dead.

 

I thought that Flight would be good. But now I have serious doubts. Alaska should have been treated same as Hawaii. Take a relatively small, representative area and present it in high fidelity. Give us some aircraft with cockpits suitable for the territory.

 

And talk to us, tell us what you intend to do to make this the best sim game ever and then I may eat my words.

 

Since you brought up the comparison with FS9, of which I have 1,000's of hours with, I would like to add this comment.

I never could get FS9 behave anything like real world flying with decent frame rates and without the program crashing, no matter what kind of add on scenery or aircraft I installed on it, and I had a ton of money spent on those add ons and in upgrading computers so that it would run decently. The hassle factor of trying to get FS9 to behave, for me, was not worth whatever enjoyment I tired to get out of it. $30 for this airport, $25 dollars for this mesh or scenery, $50 for weather, $50 for ATC, the list went on and on, and the result, a slightly unstable simulator that is really old school by now, with 10 year old software running it. Don't miss it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting replies everyone! I agree, though I haven't been able to install yet! I think youre all right, the ridiculously good fps must be a result of the simpler mesh. I think in some of the better weather setups (read stormier), in a deluxe plane, you won't be whingeing at the mesh. It's like the still too cotton wool fair weather clouds- on startup I notice them, but once flying I don't notice them- too busy keeping stable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I am equally disappointed. The modular world idea I could come to terms with in time, if they released regions at a quicker pace. However, all the while they're releasing these appalling aircraft I have absolutely no interest. It is impossible to fly an aircraft accurately and realistically without a cockpit, therefore it is of no use as a simulation at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having never been to Alaska, I don't know how accurately the terrain is modeled. But I can say one thing for sure...

 

I'm pleased with how it looks and how it performs. I made two flights yesterday in the RV-6, through Merrill Pass and Lake Clark Pass, west of Anchorage, and it never once crossed my mind that the terrain didn't look impressive. There were a couple of mountain flanks where the textures looked a little low-res, but autogen trees popped over those as I got closer and they looked better.

 

I do consider every single moment of developer-time spent on cockpitless toys to be time wasted, though. And from the looks of it, they don't have a lot of resources to squander like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still use FS9 and I must agree Holger outdid himself so many years ago. I look at Flight's PANC and go back to FS9's just released Aerosoft PANC and find myself amazed at what I already have. Not to mention all the bush plane options we have for FS9, FSCargo, and Misty Moorings in which all these options aren't available for FSX.

 

I fly FS9.75 meaning a modified version most of us FS9ers use. It makes Flight look sterile to say the least which is why I I'm appealing to the Flight team to stop and do Alaska right. What we have is FS9 has not been topped yet but Flight could do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the greatest disappointment (was the same with Hawaii) is the lack of life in the Flight environments. I long for road traffic, some people/wildlife in appropriate places, perhaps some more environment sound effects and most of all some AI. Even just some GA AI traffic for Alaksa would be adequate. Otherwise I can't help but feel it comes across as a bit sterile as environments go.

 

I think for the price they are asking Alaska is worth getting for sure but if the Flight team (and Microsoft) want to build a solid and loyal userbase, then the attention is in the detail, just like it is for companies like Orbx, FS Dreamteam, PMDG, Aerosoft etc and many others.

 

Surely with a library of objects, it can't be that difficult to place some cabins, people, boats (though I have seen a few static ships), around the scenery.

 

Sure, this might be coming later but if MS turn too many people away in the immediate future then there won't be a later.

 

I just can't understand the strategy. The Flight graphics engine is brilliant so why not develop it in a manner which will attract customers whether gamers or simmers.

 

There are so many holes in the strategy that there has to be something going on behind the scenes that we are completely oblivious of. I refuse to believe that such a talented team of people in such a respected franchise don't realise themselves what is written across this forum time and time again which I am not going to repeat.

 

I will enjoy Flight Alaska for the step up it achieves in scenery over FSX. Even compared to FSX add-ons, there are environmental effects it can achieve, particularly in lighting, that FSX simply cannot. In fact there are so many great FSX add-ons that have now reached such detail and accuracy, I find the limitations of the FSX graphics engine even more frustrating when I think how good it could be if it was produced with the rendering capabilities of Flight.

 

In a nutshell, if your on the fence about buying Flight, for the price do buy it and have fun with what it does give you. However, it is really a carrot on a stick being dangled in front of us of what it could be and hopefully one day will be......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I don't own the Alaska addon, from screenshots I have seen it doesn't inspire much. I know it will be compared to FSX and yes it does look better, as it should considering FSX is what... 6 or 7 years old. But if you compare Flight to other modern games, nothing groundbreaking was done by MS. It's too bad in my opinion, because this was MS chance to turn the corner and make Flight a simulator in its own right. As it stands if mediocre terrain, simplistic (and cockpitless) planes, repetitive missions continue to be released, I don't know how Flight can grow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mention it above but in context Misty, Tongass Fjords, and Glacier bay in FS9 have not been topped. Orbit has an outstanding effort as well for Alaska in FSX but not the whole Fjords area. I can't say enough about how excellent Holger Sandman's work is and it's amazing it can still rival Flight's scenery.

 

After TrackIR I have faith Microsoft is listening that's why I'm pointing them to Holger's work, FSCargo, and Misty Moorings. If they put a little effort into the scenery with detailed airports, static aircraft, deluxe bush planes, some form of ATC, and AI bush planes to add life to our already occupied multiplayer sessions Flight could be fantastic.

 

I actually would rather they hold off on any other scenery area until the get Alaska right as it could set the stage for the whole Flight environment moving forward...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In the end (well, not yet, but that's how you say it :wink: ) it's all a matter of taste. Or what you like. Or fancy. Or need or want. I agree that Flight leaves a LOT to be desired, and I mean a LOT, however, the overall experience it gives me is better then any flightgame/sim I've played to far. That's simply because by coincidence Flight does well what I like to see done well. For years I have been asking for LIGHT in my flightsim, and Flight delivers the goods. Frankly and in all honesty (well, as usual... :wink: ) the new lighting system, which those great shadows, is what saved Flight for me. Without THAT specific improvement I wouldn't know which sim I'd prefer. Of course there is more that I like about Flight, just as there is more that I like more about FSX, but the way Flight immerses me (not necessarily you or anyone else) is what makes Flight THE flying game for me right now.

 

I would LOVE to see Orbx-like airports in Flight or Bay Tower's RV, but again, the overall experience, the mood, the atmosphere, the LIGHT, is to good to pass.

 

Obviously some (or a lot) of you will find this a utterly ridiculous reason for preferring Flight over other offerings, but hey... I couldn't care less. I don't play this game to please others but to enjoy myself. :wink: In the end that should be what matters, right? If you enjoy something else: perfect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we are all in the infant stages of Flight. As I fly around and visit some of the Alaska airports and look at the job board, I think there are some neat things in the works. Down in the panhandle area, Sitka, Wrangel, and other airports, some jobs are listed as carrying goods to airports that are strictly floatplane accessible. That hints to me that a larger cargo capable amphib is in the pipeline. As for the distances between airports, I hope and think that we will see multi engines and larger cargo and passenger planes in the future.

 

Remember, this is a work in progress. It's only 4 months old and I think MS might be programming on the fly somewhat based on the data they collect and the comments from users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Down in the panhandle area, Sitka, Wrangel, and other airports, some jobs are listed as carrying goods to airports that are strictly floatplane accessible. That hints to me that a larger cargo capable amphib is in the pipeline.

 

Do they? I haven't seen those yet. That is encouraging.

 

As for the distances between airports, I hope and think that we will see multi engines and larger cargo and passenger planes in the future.

 

I did notice some much longer Job flights offered than we are used to seeing, but I haven't done any yet. I'm just exploring so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woohoo another Flight bashing thread. Glad you all can find new ways to whine about something soo much. You know I bought Warrock in Retail (I know it was free to play) and assumed I be getting some extra stuff along with what we beta tested for a couple years and low and behold I was wrong. I complained for ohhh maybe a week then moved on. Not worth the breath. I would suggest the same for Flight haters.I would think sitting in the FS9 forums talking about how good you got it would be a more productive waste of your time and mine.. since i have to read through all the repetitive complaints .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politely discussing the product's shortcomings is far from "bashing" it.

 

If you see a thread that doesn't interest you, you are certainly not forced to read it. It's not like "hate," as you say it, is being injected into every thread, like it once was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe we are all in the infant stages of Flight. As I fly around and visit some of the Alaska airports and look at the job board, I think there are some neat things in the works. Down in the panhandle area, Sitka, Wrangel, and other airports, some jobs are listed as carrying goods to airports that are strictly floatplane accessible. That hints to me that a larger cargo capable amphib is in the pipeline. As for the distances between airports, I hope and think that we will see multi engines and larger cargo and passenger planes in the future.

 

Remember, this is a work in progress. It's only 4 months old and I think MS might be programming on the fly somewhat based on the data they collect and the comments from users.

 

I just flew from Ketchikan to Annette Island. This is an area I flew for hundreds of hours in FS9 and with a C-172 in real life. I had Misty Fjords in FS9 as well as Alaska mesh and scenery, and frankly the woods and seashore on my flight today looked better than what I had with FS9. The Pine trees at Annette Island looked like actual pine trees, not some weird combination of telephone poles and leaves from a palm tree glued on them. The terminal buildings at Ketchikan were in the appropriate place, and while the activity I had from all the add ons in FS9 wasn't there, it looked pretty good. And the flying was smooth and trouble free with no stutters or jerkiness. I flew the ILS into Ketchikan and it worked perfectly.

 

BTW, here is a photo of the Pine trees I saw this morning after landing at Annette Island.

 

AnnetteIsland.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Bobsk8's shot he show two of the things I like about Flight, the trees and the runway textures, but those two things alone don't make for the whole experience with me unfortunately.

Sad thing is, much of what we are asking for with Alaska is cosmetic and an easy fix and frankly could have been done which makes me wonder if the reason it was left out was to keep performance on the right track since addons are what kills performance in the other sims. Guess we'll never know since MS doesn't tell us anything, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" With friends like these, who needs enigmas ? "

 

:LMAO:

 

Fred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" With friends like these, who needs enigmas ? "

 

:LMAO:

 

 

Black%20Eye.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" With friends like these, who needs enigmas ? "

 

:LMAO:

 

Fred.

 

With friends like this, who needs an enema? :yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" With friends like these, who needs enigmas ? "

 

:LMAO:

 

Fred.

 

You clever dog, you must have an advanced degree in wordsmithing.

 

Ray

 

So as the original poster stated . . .Let's recap.

 

One likes the light, one likes the pine trees, one likes to fly thru the passes. Did I miss anything?

 

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's still no tubeliners.

 

Wrong post? This is about MS Flight.

 

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why people are disappointed on Alaska, it simply (other than some of the airports) isn't that big improvement from FSX with maybe some good freeware mesh and few freeware bush planes installed. Flight itself does indeed many things better than default FSX including flight modeling and lightning, but its potential is not used like it should be used, with high detail scenery and high quality planes with cockpit.

 

I don't think it is possible for that small team to create high quality scenery in amounts anything near what big third party community has been able to create for FSX, thats why allowing third party development would be good thing. Of course MS would take part of their revenue as seller of those products and would also ensure that they are compatible with each other.

 

That would allow Flight team to work on general features such as AI, ATC and others instead concentrating on making more aircrafts and scenery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...