Nice pics!

 

They made me realize Flight needs some bugs splattered on the windscreen, though.

Nice pics!

 

They made me realize Flight needs some bugs splattered on the windscreen, though.

 

When I used to fly in Florida, I would always clean the windscreen first, I hated looking though bug splat. When I saw that C-172 I flew in Alaska, and they told me they ran out of the windscreen cleaner, I asked them if I was going to have to file an IFR flight plan..... B)

 

By the way, if you look closely, you will see that some of the aircraft in Flight have a dirt film on the windscreen.

Oh, yes... I've noticed the dirt and grunge on the windscreen as well as inside the plane. It's part of what makes Flight's cockpits look more realistic, as I've never once sat inside a pristine clean airplane.

 

When I look at screenshots from planes in other sims, now I understand why the interiors never looked right to me... too clean!

 

Perhaps the bug splattering will come into play when they get the rain streaking off the windscreen! :lol:

And to add in what I have said before, if you fly a RA in Alaska, you will notice that the real scenery looks pretty low res in many areas, just like it does in Flight.

 

I find it utterly preposterous how low-fi reality is compared to how I imagine it to be!

Who knew Alaska is 16-bit. Could be worse, I guess. Kansas is 8-bit.

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention much are how well glaciers are implemented. They are so realistic looking; it's a real pleasure for me to see them in game.

Fly somewhere else.

 

Thanks, that's a helpful response.

 

The mesh is not low resolution all over Alaska.

 

Hadn't noticed the mesh is different resolutions over Alaska. Which areas have you noticed are higher resolution?

 

And to add in what I have said before, if you fly a RA in Alaska, you will notice that the real scenery looks pretty low res in many areas, just like it does in Flight.

 

Really? The mountains in the 3rd picture look pretty jagged to me. I'm hoping for some mesh that looks something like the real life in this picture:

 

http://www.livetravelmountains.com/hiking/trekking-alaska/

 

But as I mentioned above, overall I have a very high opinion of the graphics in Flight.

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention much are how well glaciers are implemented. They are so realistic looking; it's a real pleasure for me to see them in game.

 

 

On the flight that I took up to Whittier, I flew up this Glacier. See how closely it resembles the same Glacier in Flight ( it is the Portage Glacier). It'e erie......

 

C-172 in RA

 

 

 

 

In the Maule.

 

 

......

I like your 'Real Life' pics Bob. And good to see how well they translated the scenery in Flight.

On the flight that I took up to Whittier, I flew up this Glacier. See how closely it resembles the same Glacier in Flight ( it is the Portage Glacier). It'e erie......

 

Hm, er... I don't really see a resemblance... The real world pic wins hands down. Still, I also love how those glaciers look in Flight.

Hadn't noticed the mesh is different resolutions over Alaska. Which areas have you noticed are higher resolution?

 

Have you flown Merrill Pass yet, west of Anchorage? You'll see both lower and higher resolution meshes there. Nothing as bad as the far southeast of Alaska, and no stairstepping like you get west of Dutch Harbor.

 

Actually, go fly FSX in the Grand Canyon and come back and tell me how bad Flight's mesh is.

 

Hook

Hm, er... I don't really see a resemblance... The real world pic wins hands down. Still, I also love how those glaciers look in Flight.

 

LOL, agreed, there is no comparison, if anything it proves the point that Flight (or any other sim not using photoreal textures and highly detailed mesh) misses the mark on that.

 

Bobsk8, your images are great, but just add to my frustration with Flight (and other sims also). It also just cements the fact that you and I have totally different ideas on what a good flying/sim experience is. I agree that Flight does some things very well which is why i keep giving it a chance, but there are so many more things i am missing that are frustrating. I went up in a 172 last week with a buddy and while it wasn't Alaska, it always reminds me of what I look for in a sim experience. I notice the living world beneath me very much when taking off and on final. The cars, the other aircraft, animals even (there were a herd of cows and hay bales in a pasture off to the right on take off).

 

I will agree that once at altitude, Flight really shines, the best feeling in flight based off my RW experience, but is proving to me that it isn't enough.

 

the lack of quality aircraft is really getting to me also,

 

I have been bouncing back and forth from Flight to FSX to Flight lately. I swear, if I could mix the two i would be in sim heaven.

I think the fact that people are missing here is that Flight is single threaded and already pegs that CPU core at 100% most of the time. To expect more detail or features to be added without the Flight team doing an entire engine overhaul is pretty much wishful thinking at this point. You just have to look at all the "Alaska ruined my performance" threads to realize the engine doesn't scale all that well to additional detail.

Actually, go fly FSX in the Grand Canyon and come back and tell me how bad Flight's mesh is.

 

So your point is it's better than the vanilla mesh of Flight's 6-year old predecessor. Well done.

I have a set of the Alaska Sectional Charts (1:500,000) that I use while flying VFR. The scenery seems to be fairly accurate for navigation exploration. It adds to the flight realism. Real fun!