So they posted some screens today I guess HERE!

I was struck by the first screen because the water looks like huge ocean swells on what is supposed to be a river. Really, really, not good looking.



The 3rd and 4th shots look better..but it still looks like a lifeless world. We'll see..



BeachAV8R

(just copy-pasting what I posted at AVSIM)

What's really gonna make-or-break MS Flight's Alaska for me is how obvious the autogen draw distance is.

If you fly out of, say, Unalakeet in winter in FSX, all the ground textures are stark-white. And the autgen trees are dark green/grey/black. The result is that you usually have a thick patch of dark trees around your aircraft then nothing but white out to the horizon. Then as you fly around, what was barren and white before, suddenly becomes a thick, dark forest once you get close to it. It's a huge immersion killer for me and as a result I find FSX Alaska pretty much useless.

This annoying effect can be reduced by better matching the ground textures with the autogen (ORBX seems to have done this to some extent). Meaning you'd be better off with a very dark ground texture (maybe with spots of white in it) to represent a thick forest of green trees on snow covered ground. If the trees have snow on them, then the texture should be lighter (more of a grey). You get the point. Other games do this better; FSX is horrible at it.

It's not much of an issue in Hawaii, but the green trees are usually on green textures. It's hard to tell from the screen shots so far if Flight's Alaska will have the same issue or not. If you look closely at the shot of the airport, the mountains in the far distance appear to be barren. I don't know if that's intentional or a result of draw distance....

*edit - and actually looking again that shot you posted, Beach, it looks like Flight's Alaska might suffer from the same issues that FSX's Alaska does. Lame.

Yes, perhaps. I think you are right on (and a lot of the people in that thread at AVSIM) that the ultimate success or failure of Flight (and Alaska DLC) will be based on the entertainment factor of the flying there. If the area is challenging and there are attendant well developed missions I think it could be a success. Also a factor, of course, is if the aircraft are suited to the type of flying. Looking at it from a value based system though..if I have to buy two more aircraft at $15 (if they are with cockpits) + the Alaska scenery (I'd assume one quality VC included cockpit plane will be included with Alaska)..that could be up to $20 to $30 more. I'm already in to the tune of $27 I think..and I'm very, very skeptical of sinking more money in.

Gonna be interesting..

For me, what's breaking it is the lack of TrackIR support. I simply wont fly without head tracking; I get the feeling they are working on their own hardware solution and waiting for that.

So on the topic of Flight:Alaska

Meh. I think it looks like a slightly hopped up version of stock FSX.

If this were FS11, I'd be a bit more excited to see the obvious evolution, but if your title still has FSX's faults but takes away it's key strengths, then it's just a disservice to everyone.

PS: REX has MUCH better water.

They have said they are actively working on including TrackIR in an update, so it looks like it's on it's way. That would be another deal breaker for me (if it was never added).

Nice waterclass work in that screenie.

Also, nice autogen draw distance.

LOL..you must have Positive Flight Remarks Tourettes..

The autogen draw distance looks the same as in FSX, about 6 miles.