Hi,

 

out of curiosity I took a flight from Petersburgh to Sitka in both, Flight and FSX + Tongass Fjords. Here are some comparison shots I made. Of course Tongass fjords covers only a small area of Alaska, making it a bit of an unfair comparison. The locations and altitudes are not exactly the same, but I tried to take the shots at similar places.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kind regards

Manuel

Another proof for the fact that FSX plus really good add ons is still a very up to date platform for our hobby for years to come...

Just my opinion...

And, nice shots btw!

It looks definitely better in FSX + that scenery add-on. In my oppinion the images taken from FSX+Tongass Fjords look closer to what I think may be the real thing.

 

Thanks for the shots!

 

When I used FSX I didn't have access to such good sceneries, I must confess...

Great shots! Again sth that was never told me before ;-(

Great pics..I don't have Tongass Fjords (but do have PFJ and PAKT) Might have to get it..Looks lovely

 

I did some flights across the same areas in UTX Alaska and FLIGHT last night..tbh, I think FLIGHT is better than UTX Alaska LOL (but not nearly as good as ORBX/FSaddon stuff - but then we know that) FLIGHT does mountains better, but the glaciers aren't as good as UTX (imo)

Good comparison shots! FSX with Tongass looks good indeed! The only thing I don't like in FSX (and never did, also with Orbx scenery) is what you see in that first shot: tree textures that run into the water. Yikes. I never liked the groundtextures for forests and such in FSX. And what I dislike most about Flight are those city textures that do not line up at ALL with the scenery, like in that last shot. Awful. They should at least have placed those textures parallel to the borders of the town.

 

It's a bit hard to really compare the shots though because of the different haze.

 

Nevertheless, even though FSX+Tongass may win this screenshotcompetition Flight wins as soon as I start flying: the light system, the shadows, they make all the difference to me. But that's just my opinion.

 

P.S. Some of those shots also make clear that the waves in Flight are sometimes way too big!

What I see is the difference between a corporate scenery and an enthusiast scenery. In one, it often appears the minimum (or in certain showcase spots a few steps above) is being done to reach certain deadlines. In the other, somebody who cared made it a labor of love. Expecting Microsoft to match that level of detail is probably silly. The fact that they almost do in some instances (the teams true abilities leaking through?) is astonishing, especially at the price-point they have set.

 

And Jeroen, Flights waves/water have always been horrible to me. Its just apparently something they are not concerned with, despite the fact that the height /look of those waves undermines other elements.

 

 

Maybe MS will sale airports, cities, planes for Alaska on the side as DLC including missions.... :Whistle:

What I see is the difference between a corporate scenery and an enthusiast scenery. In one, it often appears the minimum (or in certain showcase spots a few step above) is being done to reach certain deadlines. In the other, somebody who cared made it a labor of love. Expecting Microsoft to match that level of detail is probably silly. The fact that they almost do in some instances is astonishing, especially at the price-point they have set.

 

I think it is also the willingness to spend a great deal of time on a small area because you are going to make money selling that small area, probably close to half the price of the entire sim program you are writing it for in some circumstances. I think this scenery sells for about $25, which is alot more than I paid for 600,000 miles of Alaska.

The only thing I don't like in FSX (and never did, also with Orbx scenery) is what you see in that first shot: tree textures that run into the water. Yikes. I never liked the groundtextures for forests and such in FSX.

 

I fully agree with this. Forrest photo textures just look horrible when flying low. I much prefer just having darker textures as ground and 3D trees on top. In this way the X-Plane approach of scenery creation is quite interesting. Then again, what X-Plane lacks at the moment is scenery diversity.

 

I don't think there is a clear winner when it comes to the different sims. All have their pros and cons. With hardware limitations, developers can only make significant improvements in an area by making sacrifices somewhere else. Often it isn't even the graphics that make the immersion. For example I still like the Condor soaring sim, which is 7 years old, has much simpler graphics, but feels just great.

Lets not forget that Tongass is just a small part of Alaska. If the creators of Tongass would have made modelled the entire state, I am sure some difference wouldn't be so apparent. And Tongass costs more than twice as much as Flight's Alaska does.

 

Hm, I guess it's apples and oranges again...

I personally prefer water effects in FSX, even not maxed out(mid 2.x settings) water effects look more natural. In Flight it seems less realistic in my opinion.

 

Autogen is better done and performs better on Flight but still FSX overall feels more natural, specially in weather effects and clouds in general. I do like how Flight looks but when I fly in FSX it feels more natural even using stock scenery.

Not matter what is being compared, there are those that will oppose any comparison, good, bad or indifferent. Pity. It is quite obvious one looks like what it is and the other is of high quality. Sure you have to pay for quality just as in most things that you buy. For some it will be worth it, others will cry I only paid $15 so the comparison is not fair.

 

I just wish we could merge the two somehow and get that gorgeous Legacy moved over to MS Flight and have a real airplane. I can live with the low end scenery, but it sure needs something to make it come alive.

 

Thanks for taking the time to make the comparison shots.

 

Ray

I think its a good comparison. In the city, I think the FSX add-on looks better since it was done by hand. In Flight, its all autogen since there is no way the small team could hand build every square mile of Alaska. On the flip side, I think the wilderness looks a LOT better in Flight. The colors and shading seems much more rich in Flight, and you can really see the rivers that adds detail.

 

When comparing the two products, you really need to mention some important info. The FSX add-on is a very small area for twice the price, and also the frame rate in Flight is better on most systems.

I think its a good comparison. In the city, I think the FSX add-on looks better since it was done by hand. In Flight, its all autogen since there is no way the small team could hand build every square mile of Alaska. On the flip side, I think the wilderness looks a LOT better in Flight. The colors and shading seems much more rich in Flight, and you can really see the rivers that adds detail.

 

The FSX add-on is a very small area for twice the price, and also the frame rate in Flight is better on most systems.

 

Good assessment. That pretty much covers the strengths and weaknesses of both, across the board.

 

And to the OP, great set of A/B pics!