I'm really trying to like Flight but I'm fed up with trying to land in Alaska at airfields with a giant sequoia on the threshold!! This is like the dark days of MS Flight Sim. I know this DLC didn't cost a lot but it also doesn't give you a lot. Airfields that are impossible to land at, no missions/caches, only a rubbish cockpitless aircraft. I want this sim to succeed but MS seem determined to send it to an early grave.

I think it's the exact same tree at a couple a dozen airports. I don' t mind the tree, just treat it like a giant pylon.

My only real question is who the heck beta tested it?

A couple of dozen airports? I don't think so. It seems to be at many dozens of remote airstrips. It's almost impossible to land. As HiFlyer said who the hell beta tested this. They must have been flying a vstol harrier!! How long have MS been working on this. It is quite pathetic. It may not cost much but I wish I had saved my money.

Heck even more major airports such as PAHN (Haines) there is a massive one all by itself directly lined up with the center line maybe 10 feet off the threshold. I've flown out of this place in real life... no such tree... I mean I know this is supposed to be an "adventure pack" but come on, its more like a "suicide pack" :P

I know we are not supposed to complain about Flight as flightsimmers but what on earth does Alaska give the casual gamer? Nothing but pure boredom. That is the way I feel already as a simmer for the last 20 years. No ATC, no AI, Alaska scenery marginally better than FSX. Who on earth are they hoping to attract with this very boring package?

granted it's annoying, but there are plenty of real alaskan strips where pilots have no choice but to do a very steep STOL approach. bush strips are usually not conducive to a standard glide path. use it as incentive to increase your skillz (Stll no excuse for the water tower at Merrill though)

Well it certainly is still early for me as I only grabbed Alaska today, but so far I am enjoying it...

How do you perform a very steep vstol approach with a giant redwood literally on the threshold? This is not acceptable. Water towers and trees!! Has this been tested at all? I have been a software engineer since 1968 and would have been as embarrassed as hell to ever have released something as bad as this. I really am not a happy bunny!

There are trees in the same position in FSX..... I think those placements are intentional

 

I don't mind the trees bordering the dirt strips but when you have a 75 foot spruce right down the centerline and well above glidepath on a 5000ft paved runway with instrument approaches available... don't get me wrong i love this game, just this one aspect makes landing in weather/dark nearly imposible at alot of this medium sized airports

I know we are not supposed to complain about Flight as flightsimmers but what on earth does Alaska give the casual gamer? Nothing but pure boredom. That is the way I feel already as a simmer for the last 20 years. No ATC, no AI, Alaska scenery marginally better than FSX. Who on earth are they hoping to attract with this very boring package?

 

They're trying to attract people that will keep paying the division bills because apparantly they believe on some level that FS enthusiasts just spend money on anything that is developed for it. That's how it looks to me. Normally I would have been happy to purchase an expansion like this but frankly I'm sorry that I'm not willing to support a Game/Flight whatever without ATC/AI Traffic/VC less aircraft. I'm hoping from the sidelines that there will be a new direction but I doubt there will be time/money for it.

What's hilarious is this problem plagued FSX and someone even wrote an FSX addon called Lumberjack specifically designed to clear your approach of trees. It's hilarious this problem plagues their new "flagship" Flight Sim product.

 

http://library.avsim...=root&Go=Search

The trees are a problem indeed. You might want to contact MS about it or post something on the official forum on Steam. But I think MS is already aware of the problem. We are, that's for sure, because all this has been mentioned in other topics already, so I am locking this one.