ManuelL

I fully agree with this. Forrest photo textures just look horrible when flying low. I much prefer just having darker textures as ground and 3D trees on top. In this way the X-Plane approach of scenery creation is quite interesting. Then again, what X-Plane lacks at the moment is scenery diversity. I don't think there is a clear winner when it comes to the different sims. All have their pros and cons. With hardware limitations, developers can only make significant improvements in an area by making sacrifices somewhere else. Often it isn't even the graphics that make the immersion. For example I still like the Condor soaring sim, which is 7 years old, has much simpler graphics, but feels just great.

The mixed weather theme has excessive wind (68 knots) in some places. This blows every aircraft off the runway. What I noticed once is that the aircraft seems to turn away from the wind. Normally I would expect it to turn into with wind.

Hi, out of curiosity I took a flight from Petersburgh to Sitka in both, Flight and FSX + Tongass Fjords. Here are some comparison shots I made. Of course Tongass fjords covers only a small area of Alaska, making it a bit of an unfair comparison. The locations and altitudes are not exactly the same, but I tried to take the shots at similar places. Kind regards Manuel

If you like a challange, check out the French altiports from LLH.I also like the SceneryTech landclass a lot.Simaddons has some nice Canadian airports.Pacific Island Simulations for nice bush flying scnery in the pacific.

Thanks a lot! That was quick :-)

Hi,I have finally installed (and unstalled) Flight yesterday. One of the reasons for not keeping it for me were 2 sections in the license agreement. But maybe some of you already have some experience and are able to lift my concerns.1) The license agreement stated that Flight is not sold, but only licensed to 1 system. I did not see if it is possible to move an existing copy of Flight and addons to a new system (e.g. in case you update your hardware). Does anyone know if it will be possible to move Flight to a new system, or would you have to pay for all addons again?2) According to the license agreement all changes to overcome limitations of the program are prohibited. So strictly speaking this would apply to any kind of tweaking of cfg files etc. Or how would you interpret this section? I have seen there are already some tweaks posted (e.g. for changing the view point).I hope some of you can help me with the questions. I don't want to start an extensive discussion, but am just interested what can or cannot be done with Flight before putting any time and money into the program.Thanks!Kind regardsManuel

I just got it yesterday and have posted some images and comments of my first impression over at simviation:http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb25/YaBB.pl?num=1324123163http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb25/YaBB.pl?num=1324642863Hope that helps.

You can't know he's only speculating. So saying that is just speculating.Oh, wait. I can't know you don't know - so saying you are speculating is also just speculation.

This is just a superb piece of humor in my opinion. In November we get the announcment of some exciting news to come in December. Then in December we get the news, that a few people got information, some of which (not yet determined) they may (possibly) be able to share with us in January. Can't wait to see how this develops :(

Maybe they will just include a link to the AVSIM Flight forum and this is what crude humor and mild violence is referring to.

+1At the risk of making a complete fool of myself: I thought XPlane 10 scenery was already based on detailed OSM data (among others where no detailed OSM data is available). But looking at your post this seems to be not the case (???).Will the OSM data at some point be included in the standard installation or does every user have to convert data on their own (or download it manually somewhere)?

Actually, I wouldn't miss it, as I still have FSX installed for this.I think Aerofly FS looks interesting for certain types of flying - namely glider flying and aerobatics that don't require complex instrumenation but a good flight model and a good atmospheric model (thermals etc.). For this I think the sim looks very interesting. If I want to do IFR, I can always still go back to FSX.

I have Switzerland Pro and while it looks the same as Aerofly, I would get no autogen and only blurry textures in less than 30 seconds, If I fly at the speed shown in the Aerofly video (flight to Lausanne). Therefore I think this really is an improvement over FSX.

Hawaii of course No just kidding. As I'm located in the EU, I will wait for the EU version published by Aerosoft. First thing might be of course my home town, but then I will have a look how the more remote regions are represented (Africa, etc.)

I would say, most definately a mountain shaddow. The sky texture in the background suggests the picture was taken with the sun very close to the horizon. If it was a cloud shaddow, it should extend much more to the left and not stop right under the cloud.Edit: with the number of clouds you can see, there would also be more shaddows and not just this one.