I have been working on Flight Simulator scenery for a long time, and like everything, the more one knows, the more one respects the work accomplished. (The corollary is also true: the less people know, the more they are prone to complain.)

 

So, I always find something in Flight that astonishes me, because of the dedication and work required, the attention to detail, the painstaking effort that is needed to make the sim world look good. Alaska is so large that it contains a lot of details that probably escape most people, who are (rightly) complaining of the generic airports. Although it would have been impossible to make detailed and realistic airports for such a large area, absolutely impossible.

 

But first, here is an example that you have all seen in Hawai'i: the tunnel entrances and elevated highways on Oahu. I would probably never bother putting these details in my scenery, because there just isn't enough time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a big fan of water textures and their effects, particulary this "crinkly" look - I just love it!

 

 

 

 

 

I flew down to Port Larsen and was surprised to find some scenery objects at this out-of-the-way port, since most of Alaska is bereft of them, to put it mildly. It makes me think that there was the intention to make a more detailed rendition of the region, but the enormous size of the area covered just made that too difficult.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And finally something completely new and unexpected. In past versions of FS, the coastlines for Alaska and for many other places were angular, straight lines. Why? Because available data sources simply don't have enough detail and converting a data file with little modification will not result in realistically shaped coasts.

 

Nature abhors straight lines. And, in Flight, Alaska coastlines are realistically rounded, pleasing to the eye, and give a very good rendition of the world. (But while they could fool most of you, I know, from having traced out countless coasts in my day that these are still not very highly detailed compared to the real thing.) Still, I had not yet found any flaws at all, which in itself is surprising, except for this little piece of straight coast just to the left of my airplane. All the more reason to be astonished because it shows how much effort was put into an aspect of the scenery that most people don't even notice. But, you would if it were all angular coastlines! :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

These apparently small details are, in fact, the proof of the dedication of the team and their success in reproducing the world.

 

Best regards.

Luis

I know the guy who did all the land class in Flight, and he really did care about the small things. Its the small things that total up to be great. Im sure your kind words means a LOT to him right now. It means a lot for people to notice your work, especially under trying circumstances.

I agree with you completely on this Luis. I have seen and used some of your work and having attempted a bit of it myself (without much success I might add) I fully appreciate the labor that goes in to making the world look as real as possible. I think the Flight team did a great job.

I always respected the Flight team and its talents. I think a lot of people here who gave Flight a chance did so almost as much for all the subtle groundwork for the future (if one cared to look) as for what was actually implemented in the here-and-now.

That is one of the beauties of Flight and the aircraft we have for it. Low, slow. Gives you a chance to notice the scenery and how well it's done. If one pays attention, it's hard to get bored sightseeing in either Alaska or Hawaii.

Very nice Luis

 

Yes, low and slow is the way to enjoy what we have. The Flight developers made a great job.

The people who built Flight did a truly magnificent job with it. The project failed at the management level, not the production level.

What they said. My feelings exactly.

I agree with everything said in this thread. What I really appreciate is that they over ran the boundaries of Alaska to include a bit of northwestern BC which, for many years, was home to me. The landclass that they created for that area is nothing less than amazing. Farms were placed in the exact location of those in the real world. Whoever did that area was very informed about the Telegraph Creek area. So much so that I wonder if they had been there or lived there at one time.

Thank you Luis for pointing this out, the flight team did a great job and it's why flight is a jewel in the crown of flight simulators.

Hi Folks

 

But first, here is an example that you have all seen in Hawai'i:

the tunnel entrances and elevated highways on Oahu.

I would probably never bother putting these details in my scenery, because there just isn't enough time.

Get down there and take a look at

the conduit & termination boxes for the light fitings. :Nerd:

 

 

 

Still, I had not yet found any flaws at all, which in itself is surprising,

except for this little piece of straight coast just to the left of my airplane.

All the more reason to be astonished

because it shows how much effort was put into an aspect of the scenery

that most people don't even notice.

Click here to be even more astonished. :biggrin:

 

 

 

HTH

ATB

Paul

Ooh nice :) I have to fly more at Hawaii, so much to see there still

What a shame that this magnificent work was wasted on Flight; it would be perfect for FS11.

 

While the detail is great, I've got to say I'm not that fond of the ground texture resolution. They are extremely blurry and at low flying they look worse than FSX. I'm still wondering why for that.

As many of Flight users I also enjoy all the tiny details in scenery that makes flight realistic :rolleyes:

Thx for that.

@@++

They are extremely blurry and at low flying they look worse than FSX. I'm still wondering why for that.

I don't find that so. I do a lot of low and slow in Flight and find the ground texture resolution fantastic, much better than FSX. On my computer anyway.