Flight Alaska vs FSX Alaska (and FS9)

[dtmicro]

I like Orbx airports, they are some of the best. So far though, I haven't really found their other scenery very good but I've only used the (2) free scenery packs (Tasmania and the PWN one). For the PNW one, I mean it's using textures that look just like the default textures.

Tileproxy is the best but only if you can cache it all first for your flight, TileProxy also seems to have a very poor caching algorithm (something wrong with it), as the results are very inconsistent I'm noticing from one flight to the next. Tileproxy does not seem to be able to re-load an area at the highest resolution, even if you already visited it at a high res (that's what is odd).

The first couple days of my TileProxy experience I was getting ultra-high quality tiles that looked good, but now it's loading a lot slower. I don't know why, but I think unfortunately it might be the mapping services throttling bandwidth when they detect heavy usage over a given period of time. I don't think it's the PC or files, the difference is too large from before, besides files don't fragment much in Win 7 like they did on older OS's.

[jomni]

I didn't like ORBX Melbourne. They used pictures instead of FSX standard stuff for the taxiways so it becomes blurry as I can't load them fast enough. Maybe the small GA airports are more managable.

OMG this thead has derailed quite a bit already.

[dtmicro]

Doesn't seem de-railed to me, it was a comparison thread from the beginning (FSX vs. Flight vs. FS9) comparing graphics...
Look at title of thread. It isn't a thread about Flight specifically, but when a thread is about all three, where would you post it, in all 3 categories :P

[angels355]

Doesn't seem de-railed to me, it was a comparison thread from the beginning (FSX vs. Flight vs. FS9) comparing graphics...
Look at title of thread. It isn't a thread about Flight specifically, but when a thread is about all three, where would you post it, in all 3 categories :P

Yes, first there was the new Alaska pack from Flight, so that prompted the question for a comparison between Flight, FSX, and FS9, and which has the best scenery. It is like comparison shopping comparing the ultimate sceneries between Flight vs FSX vs FS9. Flight Alaska is good, but completely constrained in every parameter, FSX is the best and completely flexible with all options completely open. Plus a useful discussion about the Model T Ford plus addons literally = the modern day unlimited nitromethane dragster, and how that equates to the FSX situation, sure FSX may be getting old, but exactly like the Model T Ford, it also is getting long in the tooth compared for example to the latest Corvette ZR1, however the old Model T Ford plus addons = nitromethane dragster analogous to FSX plus addons, beats everything hands down. During this discussion I turned up my new (I'm completely new to FSX) FSX mesh to 100% and still get excellent frame rates. Tileproxy is very high rated, and Orbx is the last word in scenery addons.

I mentioned, there is an important reason why we should have the best scenery possible, not just because of sight seeing, but because in the RW, you're supposed to fly with sectional charts and ATC expects you to know the marked landmarks, plus other landmarks can be useful also, but the marked landmarks are known to ATC and you can announce where you are in relation to them to ATC, and vice versa ATC can ask you where you are in relation to those marked landmarks and you are expected to know those landmarks and respond. ATC can be demanding and scolding in the RW, and can tell you for example to hurry up scoot in front of a 747 bearing down on you, hurry up and land and get outta the way! The constraints and requirements of real world flying, make simulated flight a greater adventure/cliff hanger. FS11 or 12 could have improved on FSX in many ways, I mean there is such depth to real world flying that FS 11 and 12 could have greatly improved on FSX in ways that many of us might not even be aware of.

For now I think I'm going to fly default FSX as it is darn good, later will try out Tileproxy and Orbx.

[alaskancrab]

Yes but you all missed the most important thing, the topology for Flight is far more complex Doesn't matter how good the "tiles" are they need to be placed on mounds, where in flight you have sides of mountains and cliffs. Call it a trained eye...

[fxsttcb]

There are literally hundreds of free "topology" files available for FS9/FSX. Some are superb, others not so...
FSGenesis(payware) has detailed, multi LOD, mesh for the entire planet in FS9 and/or FSX sets...Don

[n4gix]

There are literally hundreds of free "topology" files available for FS9/FSX. Some are superb, others not so...
FSGenesis(payware) has detailed, multi LOD, mesh for the entire planet in FS9 and/or FSX sets...Don

Granted, FSGenesis mesh is ever so much better than the default mesh. However nice it is though, if the cliff and rock textures are smeared vertically, it is still a mess!

[dtmicro]

I bought the Idaho mesh from FS-Genesis for FS-2004, big mistake, it didn't make much difference.
I am hooked on photo-textures and just don't care much about mesh.

[dtmicro]

OK going to leave this thread with some screenshots of flying through the Himalayas, Glacier National Park, and a few others
(could not resist after all):

--Click to see full sized image--

Glacier National Park


Mount Rainier


Tacoma Suburbs


Himalayas


Mount Everest


Mount Everest


Lake Tahoe

[angels355]

Kevin,

Thanks those are incredible. Are those tileproxy?