Flight - an enigma

[RoboRay 126]

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.

[Bobsk8 12,674]

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.

 

[1mikel151 71]

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.

[RYR738 9]

" With friends like these, who needs enigmas ? "

 

:LMAO:

 

Fred.

[RoboRay 126]

" With friends like these, who needs enigmas ? "

 

:LMAO:

 

 

[n4gix 4,947]

" With friends like these, who needs enigmas ? "

 

:LMAO:

 

Fred.

 

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

[raymar 969]

" 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

[RoboRay 126]

Yeah, there's still no tubeliners.

[raymar 969]

Yeah, there's still no tubeliners.

 

Wrong post? This is about MS Flight.

 

Ray

[xplanery 250]

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.

[desbean 357]

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.

 

I agree. I used Flight for a couple of weeks when it first came out, and the textures combined with the lighting and shadows and much improved water made it seem much more "real" to me than my ORBX areas in FSX.

 

I don't think that you can compare screenshots of FSX/ORBX and Flight, regardless of the price difference, because you miss all of those things that make Flight seem more natural when flying in it.

 

I stopped using Flight because it seemed rather dead to me with empty airports, no other traffic. I also really enjoy navigating using radios, navaids, and getting airport conditions by ATIS. I also missed the wide range of addon aircraft in FSX. Hopefully someday Flight will have all of that. Until then I won't use Flight (partially because I don't want to become spoiled by its far superior graphics!)

[Kaboki 437]

Until then I won't use Flight (partially because I don't want to become spoiled by its far superior graphics!)

 

Flight has some graphics that Orbx can never do because limitations of FSX(I still thinks Orbx scenery looks more real even whithout the nice shadows and light effects in Flight), but on the other hand the level of detail Orbx put in airports and the surrounding scenery(Addon Airports). I think Is far superior over what's done in Flight so far.

[RoboRay 126]

I also really enjoy navigating using radios, navaids, and getting airport conditions by ATIS.

 

While there's no ATIS, the radios and navaids do work in Flight, assuming you have the Maule or RV-6. Those are the only two planes equipped with VOR receivers.

[rtodepart 761]

If alaska was 100$ with lots of details and a free pair of wings than you would see people talking about how expensive it was . Hey for 15 bucks i have nothing bad to talk about . And sure i wish it was 10$ with orbx detail on every inch of land covered , but since i know how much time and man hours that takes once again im ok with what we have after 4 months and no more needs to wory about fps . This is just my .02 cents ....After all i just want to flight if the stop sign in one of the streets in alaska is missing or the terminal has no one walking inside i realy dOnt wory much about that , ill be up in the air .

[Kaboki 437]

If alaska was 100$ with lots of details and a free pair of wings than you would see people talking about how expensive it was . Hey for 15 bucks i have nothing bad to talk about . And sure i wish it was 10$ with orbx detail on every inch of land covered , but since i know how much time and man hours that takes once again im ok with what we have after 4 months and no more needs to wory about fps . This is just my .02 cents ....After all i just want to flight if the stop sign in one of the streets in alaska is missing or the terminal has no one walking inside i realy dOnt wory much about that , ill be up in the air .

 

The cost It's not my concern and I would gladly pay more for quality. But what they could have done Is to do the same as they do with the planes.

I.E Alaska basic pack for 15$ and the deluxe pack for lets say 150$ maybe more as it's alot of airports to modell or that they have airport addons so that you could enhance those in the basic package. But my concern Is that I don't think they have anough resources to work on much details, because they also have to make those planes, missions and at the same time improving their engine. The best thing I think they could do Is open up for 3PD to make the things they never will have time to do.

And about the FPS they could just put in more options in the graphic setting so people with low end computers could turn off the most demanding eyecandy.