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!

 

I use WACs, since they are twice the scale of sectionals so I don't need nearly as many. But yeah, the terrain information on them matches up pretty much exactly with what I see in Flight. I can navigate by simply following the landmarks, identifying roads, mountains, rivers, lakes and so forth by name as I go.

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

 

Your original post just screams "I spent 5 minutes and didn't like it." So... spend a bit more time. I've got 65 hours so far in Alaska and I've been looking for some low res mesh to illustrate the problem to a friend and I can't find any. The only place I've seen it so far was far southeast, and I didn't get screen shots at the time.

 

I'm not saying there's no low quality mesh anywhere in Alaska. Are you saying there's no high qualilty mesh? Check out a few screen shots on this forum. If you aren't getting that kind of resolution, you should check your options. You definitely shouldn't be seeing so much low resolution mesh that it affects the quality of your game. But only if you're actually flying.

 

Hook

I have a ridiculously good time using gmap as I fly, cross referencing visual references and what-not, as I crawl along the map.

 

Nice how Gmaps is of course google based, so we can switch from satellie view, terrain, street, etc. Lots of fun too when you get lost and have to show all airports to look for the nearest one!

+1

Hi Jereon so +1 one means "meaning to click on the green up arrow but I forgot all about it" phrase right?

 

Cheers,

Dave

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.

 

If you want to see what you are looking for, go down to your local airport, have an instructor take you up in a 172 or Warrior and fly around for an hour or two. If you want to put something on your PC, that doesn't stutter, crash to desk top, lock up, shimmer, or give you 11 frames per second at a busy airport or with nice looking clouds, but it is going to look like you are watching an Imax film done by National Geographic, a PC sim isn't going to cut it, and either is any kind of commercial sim you could get today regardless of price. Do you think that you see all this eye candy in a 20 million dollar simulator made by CAE for instance? They are into creating a simulator that duplicates flying a real airplane, not some kind of glorified video show.

Your original post just screams "I spent 5 minutes and didn't like it.

No, had it been written in the past simple like you have there that would be a fair inference, but it wasn't. It was written in the present simple suggesting routine, as in I routinely fly there and and routinely enjoy what I said I enjoy, and routinely find the illusion of being there broken by the mesh.

 

Anyway...

 

thanks for the suggestion of Merrill Pass, I'll give it a go. As I said before, MS seem to have got so much right graphically, a decent mesh seems to be a simple way to give a big boost to the already good work they've done. Although of course it will never look like the real thing.

... a decent mesh seems to be a simple way to give a big boost to the already good work they've done. Although of course it will never look like the real thing.

 

It's difficult to fault Microsoft, based upon what data is available to use in the game. Hawai'i has better data available, either public domain or commercial. Alaska does not have that type of data, at this time. The public domain data for Hawai'i is 10m and Alaska is 60m, so expect a better landscape in Hawai'i.

It's difficult to fault Microsoft, based upon what data is available to use in the game. Hawai'i has better data available, either public domain or commercial. Alaska does not have that type of data, at this time. The public domain data for Hawai'i is 10m and Alaska is 60m, so expect a better landscape in Hawai'i.

 

Ah, that I was not aware of. I was under the impression there was better coverage given Holger Sandmann's work on that area but if not I guess it's something we'll have to live with.

 

I guess from your name you kind of know what you're talking about ^_^

Ah, that I was not aware of. I was under the impression there was better coverage given Holger Sandmann's work on that area but if not I guess it's something we'll have to live with.

 

I guess from your name you kind of know what you're talking about ^_^

 

The price for Holgers scenery just around Ketchikan alone, was about $45. With folks quibbling about spending $5 for a cockpit, does anyone think that Flight owners are going to pay prices like that for a one tiny area of Alaska?

The price for Holgers scenery just around Ketchikan alone, was about $45. With folks quibbling about spending $5 for a cockpit, does anyone think that Flight owners are going to pay prices like that for a one tiny area of Alaska?

 

Probably not considering most will have to pay for the rest of the world now, unlike before.

 

If you want to see what you are looking for, go down to your local airport, have an instructor take you up in a 172 or Warrior and fly around for an hour or two. If you want to put something on your PC, that doesn't stutter, crash to desk top, lock up, shimmer, or give you 11 frames per second at a busy airport or with nice looking clouds, but it is going to look like you are watching an Imax film done by National Geographic, a PC sim isn't going to cut it, and either is any kind of commercial sim you could get today regardless of price. Do you think that you see all this eye candy in a 20 million dollar simulator made by CAE for instance? They are into creating a simulator that duplicates flying a real airplane, not some kind of glorified video show.

 

Look I am sorry you have had issues with past sims, but I haven't, no CTDs, no lockups, no stutters in FSX and my FPS are locked at 33. I am wanting to simulate what I do see in a real flight, not what I see in a learning full motion simulator, Since I can't "feel" the creakyness of an old Piper, or "feel" the wheels on take off or landing or even "feel" the crosswond or updraft from sitting at my desk, then visuals and sounds are going to have to make up for it.

 

If you are thrilled with your Flight experience, I am happy for you, I am just trying to get there myself but obviously we have different needs.

Look I am sorry you have had issues with past sims, but I haven't, no CTDs, no lockups, no stutters in FSX and my FPS are locked at 33. I am wanting to simulate what I do see in a real flight, not what I see in a learning full motion simulator, Since I can't "feel" the creakyness of an old Piper, or "feel" the wheels on take off or landing or even "feel" the crosswond or updraft from sitting at my desk, then visuals and sounds are going to have to make up for it.

 

You are SERIOUSLY the first person I've ever heard say that, and I have no reason to doubt you, I'm just surprised.

 

Ah, that I was not aware of. I was under the impression there was better coverage given Holger Sandmann's work on that area but if not I guess it's something we'll have to live with.

 

Note that he mentioned "public domain" data, which is freely available to all. There may be more detailed coverage available, at least for parts of Alaska, but the price for licensing it may have been incompatible with Microsoft's intended price-point for the product.

 

The price for Holgers scenery just around Ketchikan alone, was about $45. With folks quibbling about spending $5 for a cockpit, does anyone think that Flight owners are going to pay prices like that for a one tiny area of Alaska?

Considering what I've dropped on FSX over the years I would pay $45 for meshwork up to his standard in a heartbeat.

 

Have just done a quick hop in the Merrill Pass though (for the first time) and it does look very good down there. Might be my new favourite place to fly so thanks for the tip.

You are SERIOUSLY the first person I've ever heard say that, and I have no reason to doubt you, I'm just surprised.

 

Don't be surprised, there are lots of us that have no issues with FSX. It's just that since we don't have problems to post about you rarely here from us, unless of course we're asking for opinions on the latest addon scenery/plane or helping others.

Don't be surprised, there are lots of us that have no issues with FSX. It's just that since we don't have problems to post about you rarely here from us, unless of course we're asking for opinions on the latest addon scenery/plane or helping others.

 

That makes sense... I'm just so used to seeing all the threads about problems and such, and from my own experience, I assumed everyone had a problem now and then.

 

Thanks!