Its on sale now, anyone take the plunge and bought it?

have to wait for the Mac version (february). Search youTube, there are already some interesting videos there.

Not on sale in U.S. yet--just the high priced (shipping) international version. U.S. version to be released by February. I will certainly buy once released.

Edited January 7, 201214 yr by MarkSC

I broke down and ordered simply because I was curious. Should get it next week hopefully (I'm in Sweden, I think they're in Germany, so 3-5 days shipping shouldn't be impossible).

Quoting from here http://forums.x-pilot.com/index.php/topic/2669-aerofly-fs/page__view__findpost__p__30910 , this is what Philipp had to say:

I bought it myself for christmas, and I find it quite enjoyable.I would call it an "ONLY" simulator:It is day-only, VFR-only, switzerland only.The photo scenery for switzerland is *&!"HOLY CR*P THIS IS AWESOME£~+!@ impressive. The dynamic shadows are as good as X-Plane(10)'s. The fps are incredible: Everthing set to "Ultra"+HDR+8xAA=170fps on my machine.The aerial photos are good. The colors look credible (i have seen a lot awful blue-greeny photo sceneries, this is not one of them). The resolution is okay, but it could use either autogen buildings or an even higher resolution because most houses are simply brown blobs if you look very close.However, the scenery is ideal for VFR flying. I flew around areas I know from winter holidays and immediately recognized the skiing areas I'm familiar with. Also the highways I know were easily recognized and some adjacent villages also.The autogen scenery lacks houses (there are some, but too few). The trees are gorgeous however.The flightmodel physics feel plausible as in "it feels very similar to X-Plane". I would say X-Plane and Aerofly FS feel roughly the same, whereas FSX feels quite different. The weather options are barebone: Two cloud layers and one global wind setting. Thats all. However, it has thermal generation for soaring: dark patches of landscape in the sun generate thermals you can easily find when flying over them and hear the Variometer go "boouuuueeeiiiiii! beep! beep! beep! beep! beep!"The aircrafts are barebone: Only the "holy six" instruments are working. No radio navigation is implemented. No Autopilot. No electrics. No working switches, no electrics. Engines are always running and cannot be shut down or started.The piston engine model is nonsense: it has no idea of density altitude, so you can climb the C172 to FL200 with 1000fpm. Mixture control is not implemented. Also the manifold pressure is nonsense, as are the temperatures (neither fuel flow nor EGT gauges work).For me, Aerofly FS makes for a very good soaring simulator, and awesome VFR flying with simple aircraft.However, I would love the density altitude effect as it would make mountain flying really interesting, when you really have to plan ahead because your performance is limited.Philipp

Lacking a few features, like ATC or night lighting, at this early stage isn't much of a problem. But it's a bit of a concern if fundamental things like piston engines and density altitude aren't modeled. Especially in the mountainous scenery they've chosen to include, the effects of density altitude is almost a necessity.Still it sounds like a fun sim for just puttering around. The release is perfectly timed with the disappointment in MS Flight but at the same time, AeroFly looks a lot like Flight at this point in terms of scope and realism. Whether that will change or not depends on the interest from the community and how cooperative the developers will be in sharing the information necessary for third party development of scenery and aircraft.

Still it sounds like a fun sim for just puttering around. The release is perfectly timed with the disappointment in MS Flight but at the same time, AeroFly looks a lot like Flight at this point in terms of scope and realism. Whether that will change or not depends on the interest from the community and how cooperative the developers will be in sharing the information necessary for third party development of scenery and aircraft.

+1. This is the key.

Got it in the mail today so I've been trying it out a little. Didn't get a lot of time today, just enough to set it up and do a few quick flights. I'll try it out more over the weekend. But it does look very good, especially the shadows, reflections, bump maps etc. It feels a bit more "next-gen" than the old FSX. On the other hand, water doesn't look that great, and as has been said, the scenery lacks 3D buildings even for larger cities (they only seem to appear near the detailed airfields). Trees are almost everywhere though, and mostly placed accurately. Still think FSX with something like OrbX looks better, but FSX doesn't run at 40+ FPS on a Phenom II system... The high frame rate in itself increases realism.

Edited January 11, 201214 yr by JimmiG

Thanks for the feedback on the graphics! Let us know how the game is when it comes to simulation of (any of the) systems! For a lot of people that's the interesting part.

Well there isn't much to say about systems, as there aren't really any. It's a "flight" simulator rather than an aircraft simulator.If you ever played the original Flight Unlimited, then you know exactly what this sim is like. Some planes have flaps, or retractable gear, or adjustable prop pitch, but that's about it. None have a working mixture control. There's no COM radio, VOR, DME, ADF or ILS, only a moving map. You can't start "cold and dark", the engine is always running (unless you're in a glider, of course). You can only start on the runway or in the air. There's no night, no real weather (other than haze and/or clouds) and no aircraft lights.I think that about covers what the sim *isn't* and doesn't do. You do have the basic instruments for VFR flight. There's still a lot that it does do well though. If you like glider or aerobatics, or just flying VFR over beautiful scenery, it's great. If you're short on time and just want to spend 30 minutes flying, it's perfect, since you can literally be up and running in seconds. I think it will be my "weekday sim" that I fire up after work, leaving FSX for the weekends when I have more time to set up tons of options and follow every procedure.

Edited January 13, 201214 yr by JimmiG

Well there isn't much to say about systems, as there aren't really any. It's a "flight" simulator rather than an aircraft simulator.If you ever played the original Flight Unlimited, then you know exactly what this sim is like. Some planes have flaps, or retractable gear, or adjustable prop pitch, but that's about it. None have a working mixture control. There's no COM radio, VOR, DME, ADF or ILS, only a moving map. You can't start "cold and dark", the engine is always running (unless you're in a glider, of course). You can only start on the runway or in the air. There's no night, no real weather (other than haze and/or clouds) and no aircraft lights.I think that about covers what the sim *isn't* and doesn't do. You do have the basic instruments for VFR flight. There's still a lot that it does do well though. If you like glider or aerobatics, or just flying VFR over beautiful scenery, it's great. If you're short on time and just want to spend 30 minutes flying, it's perfect, since you can literally be up and running in seconds. I think it will be my "weekday sim" that I fire up after work, leaving FSX for the weekends when I have more time to set up tons of options and follow every procedure.

Excellent !! Good post and POSITIVE!I can do with a break from all the complex.Flight whether real or simulated should be surely enjoyable, and sometimes i just want to look at mountains, (with goats huts and conifers ) and a nicely turned out cloud or two (cumulus and preferably fluffy) All we are saying...is give sim a chance.Well done Aerofly.Working to keep siimming (in ALL its variations alive) Andy

Will this program be downloadable? I don't really want to pay for shipping.ThanksBernd

Will this program be downloadable? I don't really want to pay for shipping.ThanksBernd

Why don't you ask Aerofly?

Thanks

Got it today, and tested it for about 5hrs.First the conclusion: I definitely have to try FLIGHT as well once it's released because to me it looks now more promising than Aerofly FS.The (compressed) impression after the first day of flying is that the plane graphics are very nice but certainly not better than any FSX high quality add on.The VCs of good FSX add-ons are better as well.What does make Aerofly FS look good is simply the superb lighting engine which seem to be more lively and less dull than in FSX but that's an area in which FLIGHT is also supposed to be better than FSX.Concerning the 'feel' of flying it's similar to x-plane but even the rather twitchy and unstable default planes in x-plane 'feel' more realistic.For the Aerofly RC simulator there's a 'true scale' add-on available and that's the best description for the Aerofly FS planes. It feels like flying a big RC model.The realism of the FDE is definitely not better in FSX or x-plane.E.g. when you perform a straight and level power off stall, the IRL very docile 172 immediately rolls onto her back.The F/A-18 doesn't have any systems or fly-by-wire which means no autoflaps and you constantly have to trim ...Aerofly FS simulates structural damage and you can snap the wings off the gliders.Nevertheless with the F/A-18 I was able to pull +38Gs and push -32Gs and extend the flaps and gear at 800kts without any consequences.Another point is the missing replay funtion and you can't move the viewpoint (move the seat) in the plane. Worst is that the VCs are non-clickable.The crisp lively and vibrant colors of the planes and detailed houses etc...don't fit to the coarse slightly washed out photoscenery. Looks a bit inhomogeneous.Another point are the Alps. I do fly past them very often but they never have such a strong blue hue.

Edited January 13, 201214 yr by bstolle