Hi;

I have a question, the answer to which will be obvious once I convert the FSX scenery to Flight, but I'm holding off in case I receive any replies to another post regarding the conversion process.  And the question might be more appropriate at FS Developer but there seems to be more recent activity in this forum.

In an FS Developer post from Oct 2014 Stonelance said "Eventually we should be able to hook up Flight's cliff texturing system to steep grades so that we don't get the ugly stretched texture effects."  What is the situation now?

In FSX I can either fly through Yosemite valley with enhanced ORBX scenery or the Grand Canyon using some other upgraded scenery and still have the uncomfortable feeling that if I'm not careful I'll scrape my elbows on the walls.  Any feeling of immersion is lost.  Flight's rendering of vertical terrain makes all the difference.

Jim F. 

 

 

While I cant speak directly on that statement or what ever he may have meant I will give you my thoughts here.

The 'converted' scenery is not going to surpass all available scenery addons that may be found for FSX, IF you have enough machine and patience to set them up and use them properly.

 

However even after you install the toolkit and convert the scenery you can still use Hawaii and Alaska scenery from Flight which DOES rival at the very least anything seen in FSX.

 

Frankly I believe your 'over thinking' this      the best way to find out 'how good' this or that is - is to try it, a lot will depend on your pc and settings anyway.

 

Also you can still use FSX when you want so no harm done.

 

By the way, I believe most of the 'conversion' replaces FSX stuff with Flight textures/models so not exactly converts it. Meaning if you add say orbx scenery and try to convert it - it either will be skipped and not converted or will make no difference, but just a guess here.

I think the texturing on steep grades is still there in the converted FSX files. A while ago I did a few comparison screenshots between FSX and Flight - if you look at the Grand Canyon shots you'll notice that there is not much difference between FSX and Flight rendering. In other areas there is much bigger differences in the rendering.

https://flic.kr/s/aHskunZJs8

 

Oh, and to encourage you to try the conversion, have a look at these screenshots of various locations around the world in Flight :-)

https://flic.kr/s/aHskxL5fZ9

On the shots from the alps you can also see the rendering on steep gradients in Flight using the converted FSX files.

Hi,

Thanks for the replies.  I'm playing catch up here.  I was disgusted when MS abandoned Flight.  There's nothing in FSX that compares to flying through the wilderness in the Alaskan mountains or the Hawaiian valleys.  I read rumors that Flight would be developed outside of MS and gave up flight simulation all together for about six months.  Not hearing about further development and missing flying I went back to playing FSX.  About six weeks ago I read that DTG was basing a new simulator on FSX technology and not that of Flight so I decided to return to Flight.  I wasn't aware of the continued development made by stonelance and stymied because the GFWL servers weren't working; I wasn't aware of alternative downloads of the Flight core.

Nothing I've read has been any sort of deal breaker and I fully intend to stick with Flight.  By asking so many questions here I have learned a lot and hope that the replies will not only help me but others as well. "Flight über alles!"

Jim F.

Yeah I haven't had the opportunity to revisit the terrain mappings to add cliff textures.  Given the limited set of cliff textures that shipped with Flight, i'm not sure how much can be done.  Before getting cancelled we had updated the engine to have extensible cliff textures per DLC, but that never made it live to the shipping version.