Alaska - Forests too sparse?

[Bobsk8 12,745]

This is a shot I took in Seward, which is south central Alaska. This is in the summer, and you can see there is not alot of tree cover, and it's pretty typical of what I saw in the area.

 

here are some other shots in that area

 

 

 

[LHookins 3,103]

Great pics, thanks!

 

Just think. In another 10 years our flight simulators are going to look just like that.

 

Hook

[Air1 136]

More then enough trees for me, thanks.

[dtrjones 356]

Might I suggest a bit more tact in your replies Bob. He said he hadn't flown up in Alaska it just seemed thin. Was absolutely no reason to get snippy with him.

wow bobsk8 didn't have a chance, you've won 1st place in snippyworld's most snippy comments! :P

[LHookins 3,103]

Snippyness aside, if the two scenery options I mentioned earlier aren't turned up to maximum, or aren't being displayed at maximum for whatever reason, the trees do look a bit thin at times. At maximum it looks plenty dense. The difference is quite dramatic.

 

Hook

[dtrjones 356]

I think may be the forests are a little bit thin. I don't have real world experiance in Alaska but It's become apparent that the Alaska scenery is more demanding than Hawaii and so it was probably envitable some compromise was going to be made. It certainly hasn't affected my enjoyment though.

 

I've flown in ORBX scenery in the Pacific Northwest which really does have dense trees but of course this sort of scenery can't be provided in terrain like Alaska and still keep everybody's frame rates ticking along smoothly - it's just not going to happen.

 

Cheers,

Dave.

[MommaB 0]

I've flown in ORBX scenery in the Pacific Northwest which really does have dense trees but of course this sort of scenery can't be provided in terrain like Alaska and still keep everybody's frame rates ticking along smoothly - it's just not going to happen.

Same article JE refers to also mentions how FSX's trees are too large in scale just to fill in the gaps. In Flight they say they use accurately sized trees so it would require more trees for equally dense cover. Can't really compare it then.

[HiFlyer 9,362]

Not really noticing a tree shortage. I would like to see a pic or two of these denser forests in other programs though, as my memory is not supporting that. (especially since FSX in particular cheats with unrealistically large trees)

 

 

 

[Kengi 0]

I've never flown in Alaska, but have driven/bussed around several areas. Along the lower coast the tree density in real life is heavy, but not as dense as the Vancouver area. As you get to the interior, further north, you would be surprised how fast the density drops along with the tree line.

 

Riding and hiking around in Denali Park there are many valleys with no trees and just various scrub brush. There were entire areas of red hills with virtually no vegetation at all.

 

In the next few days I'll try to round up some pictures i took and post them.

 

You really shouldn't compare what you see in Alaska to your expectations based upon experience at lower latitudes.

[Bobsk8 12,745]

Exactly.!!!!! Unless you have actually been there, you don't know what it really looks like.

[Guest]

Exactly.!!!!! Unless you have actually been there, you don't know what it really looks like.

 

Well, okay, then I will just imagine real life is as it is in Flight...

[tripecac 1]

Well, okay, then I will just imagine real life is as it is in Flight..

There are animals in real-like Alaska.

 

And other planes.

 

And cars on the highway.

 

And trains on the rails.

 

And ferries on the waterways.

 

Real life Alaska is not quite as desolate as Flight paints it to be.

 

I hope we start seeing DLC focused around adding details to the areas we already own. Imagine a wildlife DLC... or an AI traffic DLC... Or a "denser trees" DLC for those of us who want forests to look like preholocaust forests.

 

(And by the way, I don't expect to see trees deep inside Denali NP, but I *do* expect to see them near the park entrance, because that area was heavily forested.)

 

In Flight's "forests", we'd be able to spot bears a mile away. Not so in real life, where walking in a forest in bear territory is a little nerve-rattling, because you never know what's around the next bend.

 

Why can't Flight's forests look more like those in Skyrim?

[Bobsk8 12,745]

There are animals in real-like Alaska.

 

And other planes.

 

And cars on the highway.

 

And trains on the rails.

 

And ferries on the waterways.

 

Real life Alaska is not quite as desolate as Flight paints it to be.

 

I hope we start seeing DLC focused around adding details to the areas we already own. Imagine a wildlife DLC... or an AI traffic DLC... Or a "denser trees" DLC for those of us who want forests to look like preholocaust forests.

 

(And by the way, I don't expect to see trees deep inside Denali NP, but I *do* expect to see them near the park entrance, because that area was heavily forested.)

 

In Flight's "forests", we'd be able to spot bears a mile away. Not so in real life, where walking in a forest in bear territory is a little nerve-rattling, because you never know what's around the next bend.

 

Why can't Flight's forests look more like those in Skyrim?

 

 

And once we add all that "real life" eye candy to Flight it will probably start displaying about 10FPS, and stutters, and locking up once in awhile and a CTD here and there, and maybe the blurries once in awhile, and the smooth running of Flight will gradually disappear and we will be left with a Herky Jerky simulator . Why, it will look just like MSFS... :t0102: ..... Thanks but no thanks.;)

 

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest]

Why, it will look just like MSFS... :t0102: ..... Thanks but no thanks.;)

 

We know by now what you think about MSFS/FSX... no need to drag that into various topics and say that over and over and over again. It's getting tiresome. If you post something similar again, don't be surprised if the post will be deleted.

[LHookins 3,103]

Jeroen, I *like* FSX, but I have to agree it can have problems. If it didn't, most of us wouldn't be here.

 

What a lot of us find tiresome is the constant demand for details that would drag Flight's performance down to what we had in FSX. People who keep posting these things need to be reminded of the performance hit. If you're going to delete the reminders, then delete the original posts that caused them to be written.

 

Hook