Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jtmedina

Aerofly FS panoramas

Recommended Posts

First post on this forum :smile:Just got a copy of Aerofly FS and I thought It'd be a good idea to share some screens to spread the word. They are stitched images for this reason they look like a panorama. No more editing done on the pictures.aeroflyfsdiscussuisse56.jpgaeroflyfsdr400suisse202.jpgaeroflyfsdr400suisse172.jpgaeroflyfsdr400suisse112.jpgaeroflyfsdr400suisse102.jpgaeroflyfsdr400suisse042.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Nice shots on their own right (nice stitching! :( ), but I also thought it all looked very arcadish. Probably because of the very bright colors, but also that 3rd shot makes the game look as it it is railroad models scenery, if you know what I mean. Since Aerofly FS is in fact an updated RC-game, that does make sense, I think. It looks like a miniature world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerofly can't even distinguish between runway and grass.These screenshots depict exactly what I described, very high details close up, but the photoscenery with the fuzzy landscape and super-green grass is inhomogeneous and takes a lot away from immersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aerofly can't even distinguish between runway and grass.These screenshots depict exactly what I described, very high details close up, but the photoscenery with the fuzzy landscape and super-green grass is inhomogeneous and takes a lot away from immersion.
Believe me these screens don't make any justice to the sim. In my opinion it has an excellent flight model and the quality of the scenery is simply incredible.Some feed back from real pilots.http://www.ipacs.de/...ns-and-feedback
As PPL(A) mostly flying Robin DR400, addicted to MS Flight Simulator since V3.1 and former RC aeroplane builder, I would like to give some (long, sorry) feedback and ask a few questions in a real constructive spirit.The scenery :As a Swiss pilot I feel positively spoiled to have my usual playground featured both in FS9/FSX and in Aerofly FS with photorealistic sceneries. I reckon it's based on the Endoxon aerial pictures database (I think it is dated 1993 or so) that was used also to create both Switerland Pro 2004 and X, for me it's ok (aerial pictures are very expensive).I find it a good idea that the World doesn't totally stop at the Swiss border, but neighbouring zones are at least featured with satellite pictures - it's not as nice as aerial photos, but keeping at some distance it's ok and looks much better than nothing at all.Flying with locked 60 FPS over sharp HD textures (even after 1h hi-speed with the F/A-18) is really enjoyable, and I congratulate your staff for that outstanding performance ! The mesh is pretty good, and mountains can be easily recognized.I love also the terrain features display - an excellent idea ! Is there a way we can add some missing places ? Flying VFR, it would be great for instance to add names of the passes.I know from other threads that you don't want to detail now the potential add-ons roadmap - it's too early. However I wonder how Aerofly FS world is represented : is the current map a finite, own world, a little bit like a scenery in Condor? Or is the current map just a "released" part of the larger Aerofly world, just like a scenery in FS? To ask my question in other words, say you release a new scenery for Spain, and maybe later a scenery for France (simple work hypothesis) : would the 3 sceneries be connected, so that one could fly direct from Samedan to Barcelona, or would there be 3 separate worlds, so that you would have first to choose in which country to fly?In case the 3 sceneries would be connected, does it mean that the whole covered territory must be loaded in memory (ie. the system could be overwhelmed), or is there a LOD system like in FS?Once again, the question is not about your "etension strategy" and your short/long term priorities, but rather about technical feasibility.By the way I think I found a small bug , causing a power loss (i.e. detected as exiting the map) when flying over the eastmost part of Switzerland, in lower Engadin (near Scuol) towards Austria. Looking at the map in the manual, I noticed that part of Switzerland is not featured on the map => the ground is featured with aerial photo textures, but one cannot overfly it.Autogen : as some people already mentionned, there are too many trees at some places. Sion, for instance, is covered with thick pine trees in Aerofly FS. Trees are also too big IMO (just like in FSX, and I guess it simply allows for better coverage).One would also appreciate some buildings, provided that it's not a FPS killer (there are techniques now for automated placement). Airports : to speak frankly I feel a little bit disappointed by the lack of featured GA aerodromes (AD), while Aerofly FS concentrates on VFR. Instead, you feature disabled or closed military AD's like Interlaken, Turtmann, etc.I fully agree the detail level you provided in Birrfeld cannot be offered at each AD for the same price. But the detail level you provided on "gray" AD's (ie. just the runway, or say the ground surfaces) should be availble at each GA AD so that one could at least land : Bex LSGB, Yverdon LSGY, La Côte LSGP, Geneva LSGG grass RWY (you need a slot for concrete RWY), Bad Ragaz LSZE, Langenthal LSPL, Neuchâtel LSGN, Môtiers LSTO, Gruyères LSGT, Beromünster LSZO, Thun LSZW, Buttwil LSZU, Triengen LSPN, Hausen am Albis LSZN, etc. the listing of not-at-all featured AD's is quite long (while the advertising says the opposite), I would be glad to provide you with data if I can by of any help. Moreover, some strips like Lausanne LSGL runway 18 (featured with a flat, horizontal runway in Aerofly FS) are actually famous for their slope, making landing somewhat trickier depending on the conditions coupled with ground effect. Would it be feasible in Aerofly FS to feature non-flat runways, just like what can be done in FS (although without AFCAD)? (once again, pure technical question)Aircraft :Visual models : they're just great, and the sun/shadows together with the bloom effects on white surfaces contribute to an excellent immersion sensation. I also much enjoy sitting on the right seat, having a mate on the left seat - it changes wink.pngFlight models : For my first test flight I had to reduce the in-game joystick sensitivity to a global 25%, otherwise even the Cessna would rather behave like a CAP10.On the one hand, while testing the Discus I felt amazingly close to how I expect a glider to behave, which also corresponds to my RC modelling experience - a feeling I never had with FS gliders, or even with Condor. But I'm not a glider specialist.I felt a similar feeling with the Extra 330 LX, though I'm too tall to enter the real Extra in my Air-Club, therefore I have strictly no real life experience. But the dynamics and inverse yaw effect look just great, very immersive.On the other hand, I didn't have the same feeling with the Swift glider, nor the Pitts. Maybe I still have to discover them.But since I mostly fly DR400, I will concentrate on that nice aircraft for my feedback. Taxiing is extremely touchy with my CH-Products pedals. The lack of differential brakes doesn't help, but Aerofly FS aircraft are overly reactive on ground (FS9/FSX is not any better that way).At take-off (with no wind) the initial prop wash is very strong in Aerofly FS (AFS), needing an ample foot correction (making the initial start touchy with my pedals). At rotation however, the AFS prop wash falls to almost zero, while on the real aircraft the opposite is the case : thanks to the front wheel self-locking system, keeping on the line at take-off without wind is pretty easy with toe action, but I definitely have to increase my right foot pressure at rotation and keep it during initial climb.With AFS model, if I keep my right foot pressure I have a sensible induced roll to compensate with ailerons, while in the real one the foot action is just enough to center the ball, but both wings fly at the same speed with similar AoA and lift => not much aileron action to fly straight.Cruise : the AFS model cruises quite accurately, however with far too reduced power : 115-120kt with 40% throttle and 2'500rpm at 5'000-6'000ft AMSL, while the real one needs approximately 65-70% throttle for 2'400rpm and 110-115kt or 75-85% throttle and 2'500 rpm for 115-120kt at a similar altitude. Of course it depends on the mounted prop, but I wish the real Robin was as economic as the AFS one! wink.pngOnce in flight, the prop wash is hardly perceptible : setting full throttle without any correction from trimmed level cruise, the AFS Robin simply raise up the nose and climbs, but doesn't turn left like the real thing. Idling back throttle, the real thing would drop down the nose and turn right due to the lack of prop wash, but the AFS Robin just descends straight ahead. Therefore, I think the propwash is too strong on ground and to too feable in air (of course, FS9/FSX isn't any better). Strong aileron action without foot coordination causes some opposite yaw, that's just great ! (FSX doesn't feature that effect at all).Descent : the propeller has a strong tendency to windmilling - too strong actually (hard to reduce RPM). I noticed this tendency on other AFS aircraft also. Once again it depends on the prop, but it doesn't seem accurate to me. Otherwise, as long as one keeps in the normal flight envelope, the AFS DR400 behaves quite accurately.Stalling both in clean configuration or with 1 notch flaps and 5° positive pitch causes the AFS model to simply parachute down to Earth with 5° positive pitch and -1'000ft/min rate, just like an RC Pico-Cub model I built with an anti-stall profile, which isn't realistic at all. I can even control it with ailerons and fly slow turns. The real Robin will definitely stall , mostly gently (it's a very gentle airframe), but it will stall.I had to stall the AFS model with a much larger pitch angle for the nose to drop. That's probably the least realistic aspect of that model, otherwise very convincing (I know modelling is always a question of compromises).Systems :Well, there's much discussion about that topic.On the one hand it's cool to have a light simulator that loads in a few seconds and offers 60 FPS (locked) in all conditions - or almost, without too much nasty procedures.On the other hand, I like to keep fit with my procedures, and even if the mixture simulation rendering is poor in FS9/FSX, at least I keep the habit of to setting it and resetting it before descent, the same applies for run-up, carb heat, etc.Anyway, if there's one system really missing IMO in AFS, it's the navaids : ADF/NDB and VOR, which are part of VFR. Not that they're necessary for enjoying a virtual flight over Switzerland. But I think here of flight schools (at least Swiss air-clubs) that would have with Aerofly FS an excellent, very affordable and easy to install/maintain tool to study/rehearse navigation with their sutdents.FS or Xplane are much more difficult for a non specialist to install and maintain on a cheap computer.Weather :Clouds are very heavy for framerate, but I'm ok with flying in nice clear weather in Aerofly FS (I cancel many enough real flights due to weather). Anyway, the sun/shadows effects don't seem to correlate with clouds, therefore I prefer flying with very few of them.What is great is that the wind is actually directly influenced by the ground (mesh), which is not enough advertised IMO - I noticed it while flying the DR400 around the Eiger and was really amazed.Well, sorry for that long memo. I hope you'll take my feedback the right way - I'm only trying to be constructive since I think Aerofly FS is a real nice simulator with a lot of new, refreshing ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got my copy today and love it but it's no simulator, well not like FS9, FSX or X-Plane.It is however great fun to fly especially fast and low in the VC or High up using full screen no cockpit view, you do really get the feel of high altitude and low down the speed is awesome.It's worth the money just to try and help them continue to develop it, with the right addons like ATC, active controls in the VC and some AI Traffic I think it will be great.As for Arcadish I understand where you guys are coming from as the imagery is so very clean it does sometimes look a bit false but most of the time it's well gorgeous.They have a long road ahead of them with this one but I do hope they get there eventually.CheersMartin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got my copy today and love it but it's no simulator, well not like FS9, FSX or X-Plane.It is however great fun to fly especially fast and low in the VC or High up using full screen no cockpit view, you do really get the feel of high altitude and low down the speed is awesome.It's worth the money just to try and help them continue to develop it, with the right addons like ATC, active controls in the VC and some AI Traffic I think it will be great.As for Arcadish I understand where you guys are coming from as the imagery is so very clean it does sometimes look a bit false but most of the time it's well gorgeous.They have a long road ahead of them with this one but I do hope they get there eventually.CheersMartin
Arcadish no way, it might not have complex flight procedures or clickable cockpits but It's very realistic specially when flying gliders. Give them some time this is their first simulator before it they used to do RC sims.HAWX is an arcade but not AeroflyFS.(Read the review I posted above.) .In fact I find AeroflyFS way more realistic when flying gliders than FSX.Give the gliders a try and you'll be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jtmedinaLike I said I can understand the thinking behind the Arcadish comment, take a look when flying the jet, external view from the rear reminds of a very early arcade fighter game, can't remember the name of it but the look is there, only slightly mind but it is there,There are elements of it that would give the Arcade feel but they are very minor and overall you'll notice I am very pro aerofly and would really like to see it developed further but it's got a long road ahead of it like I said.I agree with you about the Glider, I had a really good flight and landing which I could never seem to do properly in FSX, although I did give up on them quite quickly.I do wish you could use the VC controls in the cockpit, but give them time I'm sure they'll begin to add lots of features.I have particular plans for mine, I intend setting up a stand alone PC in my living room for it and using Track IR, Joystick, Throttle and a bean bag I fancy a bit of leasurely gliding around Switzerland.CheersMartin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't like the F-18 either, most of the time I use AeroflyFS to fly gliders.It'd be also great if they implemented multiplayer. Sometimes it can be really boring flying alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Gliding around Switzerland with others would be good fun, ideal place for it really. Maybe we should suggest this to them.CheersMartin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Maybe we should suggest this to them.
I'm certain they have already considered this - at the end it will have been a conscious decision to exclude this feature...Perhaps to get to market in time... Given the importance (in this sim) of the visual aspects, in addition to multi-player, or at least some local AI traffic, I would love to see 'time passing' by adding stunning sunset views over the mountains...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unclickable VC is a major no-go for me... thanks for the info, which saves me the cash for the time being...A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites