Hello there,

 

I own FSX with the ORBX add ons Pacific Fjord that cover a little part of south Alaska.

 

Is someone owning Flight Alaska and FSX with the ORBX Pacific Fjord add on is willing to make screen shot of the same place under the two simulator so I (we) can see if it worth it from a graphical point of view ?

 

Thanks in advance.

That would be an interesting comparison!

What about feom a money point of view??

Well one way of comparing them would be to note that Orbx Pacific Fjords costs $41.22

Throw in the Pakt Airfield for Pacific Fjords and Czst which are both going for $33.17 and the total price at this time would be over $100

 

Considering the pricing disparity, which will only grow wider as more high quality Orbx scenery is created for the area, I would say that each scenery gives about what you would expect, and maybe more for the prices being asked.

I do get amused when people complain about how much it will cost to "buy the world" in Flight DLC, then somebody else (and sometimes even the same person), follows that with a complaint about how Flight DLC doesn't look as good as their add-on scenery that costs at least 10 times as much money. More than that, really, when a single airport can cost twice as much as the entire Alaska DLC.

 

Perspective, folks. Perspective. Value is a subjective thing, but it's hard to complain about "good enough" scenery at .00265 cents per square mile.

 

That doesn't mean I'm not interested in seeing pictures, though!

From my limited flights yesterday, I would say that the land scenery is better in Orbyx (Flight is more like default FSX + GEX) but the lighting effects and glacier/ice scenery is better in Flight.

I do get amused when people complain about how much it will cost to "buy the world" in Flight DLC, then somebody else (and sometimes even the same person), follows that with a complaint about how Flight DLC doesn't look as good as their add-on scenery that costs at least 10 times as much money. More than that, really, when a single airport can cost twice as much as the entire Alaska DLC.

 

Perspective, folks. Perspective. Value is a subjective thing, but it's hard to complain about "good enough" scenery at .00265 cents per square mile.

 

That doesn't mean I'm not interested in seeing pictures, though!

 

I am with you. Some folks were having a fit thinking that they would have to pay a whopping $15 for Alaska and all they were getting was a measly 600,000 miles of scenery, airports, lakes, etc..etc..etc... and no Cockpit with the free Cub. Then they talk about add on scenery's that could cost $25-40 a piece, sometimes just for one airport area, or $30 just for one aircraft, like it's nothing, and to boot, these are add ons, on a 10 year old piece of 32 bit software that can't even begin to take advantage of the modern multi-core processors of today. . I don't get it.......

Did I ever write about money ?

Did I ever say flight is rubbish compare to : FSX / X Plane / a racoon / whatever ?

 

I only ask for screenshot comparison to know if it worth the buy from a graphic perspective considering I already own FSX + various add on (that cost more I known but I already own them)

 

So please no FSX / Flight war it is not the purpose of my topics.

 

@MarkSC thank you, any chance for some screenshot ?

Did I ever write about money ?

Did I ever say flight is rubbish compare to : FSX / X Plane / a racoon / whatever ?

 

I only ask for screenshot comparison to know if it worth the buy from a graphic perspective considering I already own FSX + various add on (that cost more I known but I already own them)

 

So please no FSX / Flight war it is not the purpose of my topics.

 

@MarkSC thank you, any chance for some screenshot ?

 

I'd like to see some comparisons also. I'm very aware, that I don't expect Orbx detail........or at least not much. BTW-- I really DO enjoy Orbx & FSX as a combination.

 

L.Adamson

Did I ever write about money ?

Did I ever say flight is rubbish compare to : FSX / X Plane / a racoon / whatever ?

 

I only ask for screenshot comparison to know if it worth the buy from a graphic perspective considering I already own FSX + various add on (that cost more I known but I already own them)

 

So please no FSX / Flight war it is not the purpose of my topics.

 

@MarkSC thank you, any chance for some screenshot ?

 

I agree. You have to understand, some in this thread have different expectations and needs from sim flying and when others that have different expectations and needs pop in, they get on the defense. Bobski8 says he doesn't get it, which is part of your answer. If one can't justify spending for addons, or has never had a fluid experience over Alaska with ORBX addons, it's had for them to understand what a great experience it can be.

 

There are some great things in Alaska Flight, like the new shadows and lighting, but having enjoyed the old FSX Alaska in all it's glory, it's really hard to enjoy the new one with all that is missing.

 

From my perspective, I agree with MarkSC. Unless the comparison shots show the strengths in Flight, it won't be a fair comparision.

I was actually really surprised by the price of Alaska, not a Flight fan yet but maby these low prices will actually drive down some of the prices for FSX. I think Flight should have offered the whole world kinda in a default fsx scenery, then slowly introduced these high detailed area's as DLC.

Airport: PAKT

 

(all full size click each image for full size)

 

PFJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flight Alaska

 

 

 

 

 

Good comparison shots. Thanks!

 

I see some advantages on either side of the fence.

Welcome.. PFJ is just out and out more detailed with much higher resolution ground textures and imo better land class.

 

I own both, I'm warming up to Flight Alaska, it cost half as much as PFJ and has 1/2 the detail.. So, I just keep reminding myself of that and I'm warming up to it.

Nice, styckx! I'll have a close look at them when I get home!