So...I've got my disc (discs) from Aerofly. I've installed. I've just touched the system and it seems sound. Is there anyone out there who has explored the software enought to have an "expert" POV, or are we all explorers now?At first glance, it seems like a good platform, but it is clear that there remains much to do if it it is to meet expectations vis a' vis MSFS / X-Plane.Fun, none the less, (after 300 seconds or so).Braun

Edited February 16, 201214 yr by btacon

Go fly around.

The default location is pretty good for doing patterns. The rwy is very narrow, short, and there is a bunch of trees about 300ft from the the threshold, which makes it good training for stabilized approach in my view. The 3d objects, which I call "manu-gen" because it's obviously put by hand rather than being automated is pretty good as far as buildings. In some villages in the Alps, it's even rather striking. The detailed home-airport makes me feel like parking and getting a beer. Flying around the country at a 2 or 3,000 agl is sometimes very very pleasant.AFS has been out for, what, 2 months and there are 2 updates available. I hope they realize that there is potential here...

According to the developers Aerofly FS is not intended to be more than a very basic VFR sim, not even in the future.Since I downloaded FLIGHT I haven't touched Aerofly again.The area is similar limited like in FLIGHT but it has about 90% less functionality.Apart from that FLIGHT is free....A year or two ago Aerofly FS would have been a good idea for a basic VFR sim but FLIGHT is already better in almost every aspect.Interestingly my PC and the GPU run a lot cooler with FLIGHT than with Aerofly FS while providing identical smoothness.....

Edited March 5, 201214 yr by bstolle

I don't have aerofly yet, but it seems to me to be superior in a few things - engine(?), area (all of switzerland), scenery model (photoscenery with some manually placed objects). Poor timing with the release of flight, though. Hope they get some marketshare and develop it into a good GA sim.

Aerofly offers sharper looking scenery (and what seem to be literally sharper mountain ridges) as well as head-tracking support, of which there is none in Flight. Flight is however pretty engaging, and promises much more to come. There is room on my PC for both these sims...

Agree. I like Flight better, but I'm impressed with Aerofly too. Definitely has potential to expand.

I like photoscenery, and i hate flying with no trackir. So whilst i'm enjoying Flight, i'm looking forward to taking aerofly up for a test flight.

I have had AeroflyFS for a couple of weeks now.The good:It is visually stunning. The lighting is almost perfect, the scenery is very high resolution so that above the tree line it is as good as a movie. Since the area modelled is Switzerland, the terrain is jaw-droppingly beautiful. Some of the planes are modelled exceptionally well, with the Pitts Special being the pick of the bunch. The VC on this aircraft is excellent.The bad:The flight models do not follow the real-world characteristics of the aircraft very well, in that they lack a sense of momentum. Perhaps this is a legacy of the RC sim. Second, nothing in the VCs are clickable, even though some are graphically good (the Pitts Special aside, the other aircraft are pretty mediocre). For the rest, the sim lacks the feature set we have come to expect in FSX; no seasons, no ATC, no nav aids, etc., etc. The list of omissions is long, simply because the clean sheet approach means there has not been time to develop all the bells and whistles.In summary, if you are looking for a next generation Sim, this is not it. But if you were thinking of getting MS Flight, get AeroFlyFs instead. It is much better.Cheers,Noel.

One big difference between this and MS FLight;TrackIR works beautifully with this!