Archived

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

Bushido5

Comparison with ORBX PFJ

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Airport: PAKT

 

(all full size click each image for full size)

 

PFJ

 

7461102438_45ee778d2a_o.jpg

 

7461102190_377fb5d2b8_o.jpg

 

7461101916_04bde8be04_o.jpg

 

7461101622_31d80d7dbf_o.jpg

 

7461101296_744770dd8b_o.jpg

 

Flight Alaska

 

7461104530_e5ceb2dd5f_o.jpg

 

7461104264_093933ce74_o.jpg

 

7461103970_78d5abca18_o.jpg

 

7461103192_aa76d82415_o.jpg

 

7461102860_8b3b7cbb81_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good comparison shots. Thanks!

 

I see some advantages on either side of the fence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonable comparison but I think you have to get some VC shots in low sunlight to show the light / shadow effects of Flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasonable comparison but I think you have to get some VC shots in low sunlight to show the light / shadow effects of Flight.

 

That would start treading into Flight Vs FSX territory which is a road we've been down a million times. I'm pretty sure the OP just wanted some comparisons about scenery complexity, detail, and accuracy between PFJ and Flight Alaska to get a sense if he wanted to buy it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice comparison, but I also would like too see PFJ with Ketchigan airport addon too. I know It's cost alot more than Alaska but It also give people the idea how you can enchance the default Orbx airport if you spend some money in it.

 

Reasonable comparison but I think you have to get some VC shots in low sunlight to show the light / shadow effects of Flight.

 

This I also would like too see.

 

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 think the glacier only looks better where the ice meets the sea. The glacier Itself I think looks just as good in Orbx. I don't agree that Flight looks like default FSX + GEX, I think It looks better than GEX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice comparison, but I also would like too see PFJ with Ketchigan airport addon too. I know It's cost alot more than Alaska but It also give people the idea how you can enchance the default Orbx airport if you spend some money in it.

 

 

 

This I also would like too see.

 

 

 

I think the glacier only looks better where the ice meets the sea. The glacier Itself I think looks just as good in Orbx. I don't agree that Flight looks like default FSX + GEX, I think It looks better than GEX.

 

Agreed. With winter scenery items like ice flows, it sides w/ Flight easily. Some of the best looking scenery in Flight is up north along the sea.. It's empty(ish) but the ice pack is so well done it's just beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the glacier only looks better where the ice meets the sea. The glacier Itself I think looks just as good in Orbx. I don't agree that Flight looks like default FSX + GEX, I think It looks better than GEX.

Agree. I was too harsh. It is better than GEX and closer to Orbyx. What I really love is flying through a valley in changing weather and seeing the way the light and shadows play on the terrain--particularly the ice. I have Shade for FSX, but this is way better than that. IF only the terrain had some human activity going on, that would make it really special, but I understand the desire of the MS team to keep the FPS up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Exactly my sentiments..I think FLIGHT does small GA better than FSX, so I'm willing to forego the detail a bit (and get better FR into the bargain, and for less money)

 

If I want screenshots, I'd use PFJ; if I want a better flying experience, I'll choose FLIGHT..

 

I'm going to do a dual mission in PFJ and FLIGHt and do some weather in REXE. It's the weather and the way the planes react to it that's got me in FLIGHT..I love it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think FLIGHT does small GA better than FSX

 

What makes Flight a better GA sim than FSX apart from the scenery? I would like to know because I cant see much difference in the way aircrafts behave in both sims, but I'm not a real pilot so I can't say how the planes should behave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes Flight a better GA sim than FSX apart from the scenery? I would like to know because I cant see much difference in the way aircrafts behave in both sims, but I'm not a real pilot so I can't say how the planes should behave.

 

There few things Flight does, it does tend to do better then FSX, but FSX has more features and options. The flight modeling is amazing in Flight vs default FSX aircraft. You really do get a sense of flying and a feel for the aircraft. Lots of great visual ques to help, and the audio is AMAZING. Then you have weather effecting your aircraft a lot more adversely then in FSX, so when your in a light GA, you really need to fly properly or it will punish you. I never felt cross winds in FSX as much as I Do in Flight.

 

There are still a lot of missing "hard core" features in Flight, but like I said, the few things Flight does, it does REALLY well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites