Comparison with ORBX PFJ

[malibu43 2]

That was a good comparison. Some pros and cons to both options.

[Bushido5 60]

Thank you styckx, very helpful

[scotchegg 4,170]

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

[styckx 1,870]

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.

[Kaboki 437]

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.

[styckx 1,870]

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.

[MarkSC 122]

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.

[quadraspleen 7]

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!

[Kaboki 437]

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.

[Gibbage 199]

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.

[RoboRay 126]

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.

 

I have so little time in FSX that I can't really give a fair comparison to the flight models. I do remember on my few experiences that the planes (just default ones) felt very artificial, like they were riding on rails. I've been told that payware planes were much better.

 

To me, what Flight does to give me that sense of being in the seat of a small plane is a lot of things that combine together, reinforcing each other. And it's mostly the little things...

 

...Like the shadows that move with the sun and the attitude of the aircraft. That alone does a lot to convey a proper sense of motion, because they move the way they really would if you were maneuvering the plane. I can get a good feeling for my rate of turn and attitude, even looking off in some random direction, from the shadows moving across part of the aircraft structure. You can also see the effect of heading changes, even in unfamiliar territory, as the ground objects are lit on one side by the sun, casting shadows behind them.

 

The sounds are a big part of it. After some time in the plane, I can tell how far my flaps are extended as I slow down on approach simply by the changes in airflow sounds. I know when my RPM is correct, by the sound of the prop turning. I know when I've touched down on the runway with a bit of lateral motion from the sounds of the tires.

 

The planes simply move and respond they way I expect them to. I don't have any seat-time in any of the aircraft in Flight, so I don't know personally how accurate they are, but from the accounts I've read of real-world pilots flying the real planes, they seem pretty close. Close enough that I probably wouldn't recognize the differences, anyway. Now, if we get a C-172 (which is what most of my flight time is in) I'll be in a better position to judge.

 

Yes, FSX with the right add-ons and the right tweaking can do great things. I just don't have the time, the money, nor the perseverance to put into it. And I still don't know if I'd ever get it as good as Flight does it. Some things would be better, sure. But for the overall package and what you have to put into it, Flight does "low & slow GA" very well.

[jcomm 5,890]

Yes, FSX with the right add-ons and the right tweaking can do great things. I just don't have the time, the money, nor the perseverance to put into it.

 

Exactly! But even if I had the time and the money to invest now in a full fsx install + add-ons, I wouldn't. Even the best aircraft add-ons I ever bought for it, including A2A's and RealAir's could never make me feel what I feel when using FLIGHT!

[Kaboki 437]

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.

That would be nice, I think MS could have solved this with an option too turn it off in the graphics settings so that people with low end computers could run it with good FPS too. Just like Orbx solved this by adding options to turn of "People Flow" in their scenerys.

 

 

I never felt cross winds in FSX as much as I Do in Flight

 

For me I cant feel the difference in the default Maule in FSX, have tried flying in the same crosswind conditions in booth sims with the same plane. But maybe it's just me...

[Gibbage 199]

For me I cant feel the difference in the default Maule in FSX, have tried flying in the same crosswind conditions in booth sims with the same plane. But maybe it's just me...

 

Thats fine, but let me explain what im "feeling" so as its not so v ague. As RoboRay said, FSX default aircraft felt "on rails" in that they were not flying in a light fluid, but in very dense air. They did not move much without pilot input. In Flight, they have this surreal "floaty" feeling too them, and if you leave your hand off the stick, you will get pushed off course if your in the right weather pattern. Cross wind landings are a struggle in Flight, and I never once struggled with them in FSX. There are little things, like opening up the left door on the Maule in Flight will result in a left hand turn due to the added drag. When your over speed, the aircraft shakes (audio and visual) like its going to fall apart (no dmg), plus if I dont say so myself, the aircraft LOOKS 100x better then FSX, adding further to the immersion. Even the gear sinks a little when you add weight from Pax, fuel, or cargo. Its a collection of small details that the default FSX Maule did not have.

[RoboRay 126]

Thats fine, but let me explain what im "feeling" so as its not so v ague. As RoboRay said, FSX default aircraft felt "on rails" in that they were not flying in a light fluid, but in very dense air. They did not move much without pilot input. In Flight, they have this surreal "floaty" feeling too them, and if you leave your hand off the stick, you will get pushed off course if your in the right weather pattern.

 

For someone who hasn't flown themselves, it's something like the differences between driving cars and powerboats.

 

Even the gear sinks a little when you add weight from Pax, fuel, or cargo. Its a collection of small details that the default FSX Maule did not have.

 

There were people actually doing "push-backs" in Flight's RV-6 by setting the brakes, going to high-power, which makes the nose dip as the nose-strut compresses slightly from the aircraft trying to rotate vertically around the locked main-gear wheels due to the line-of-thrust being above the wheels, but being stopped by the ground, then yanking the throttle back while releasing the brakes. The nose would pop back up as the strut decompressed and that energy would start the plane rolling backwards.