My favorite flight sim experience was Flight Unlimited III. I can't put my finger on it, but there was something about that sim that made it more immersive than anything I'd experienced previously. The developer, Looking Glass, touted their "Computational Fluid Dynamics" based flight engine - and while the accuracy of that label was debatable, the realism it produced wasn't. This was the first sim in which the air itself seemed to be tangible, vs. the uniform field of position coordinates and the "riding on rails" sensation in the then current version of MS Flight Simulator.Of course, Flight Simulator continued to advance, and Flight Unlimited series stopped at III - but I'd argue that even todays sims are still missing that "something". X-plane seemed to have it for a while, but as the scenery and eye-candy have advanced, the fluidity and realism of the flight model seems to have taken a back seat. I have been looking for that "Holy S$*$, I'm flying a plane" sensation ever since.I was hoping that AeroFly would be akin to Flight Unlimited IV - based on the similarities (the sat based scenery, the focus on aerobatic planes, the physics-based damage model, etc...). It's not - but it has the potential to be. Most of the pieces of the puzzle are there: realistic stall response, turbulence and buffeting on a micro level that makes the air seem tangible, structural physics, and a truly amazing frame rate to visual quality ratio.However, there are a few flaws that break the suspension of disbelief. The most noticeable is the lack of inertia. Aircraft seem to have almost no mass. The Cessna, for example, can initiate and halt a bank or roll maneuver almost instantaneously. Vertically, the plane definitely feels like it has weight - climb performance actually seems a bit underestimated - but in any other direction, it's like flying a piece of styrofoam. The effect is exaggerated by the micro-turbulence which can bank the plan 10 or 20 degrees at the drop of a hat.Since the developer previously produced model-airplane sims, this makes perfect sense. The good news is, it's not terrible - and it should be something that can be easily addressed with further tweaks and updates to the flight model and/or the aircraft. Others have mentioned the lack of depth - avionics, mixture, altitude effects on engine performance, etc... None of these are show stoppers either, but they do add to the realism, so I hope these are also addressed in future updates. Of course, the big question is: will they be?There's a ton of good stuff here - ground effects seem to be modeled - the sensation of landing seems realistic. The scenery has a very integrated look - nothing looks out of place, and it all blends together nicely. The aircraft models look good... In short, a great start - and the potential to be a great sim, with a little time and (hopefully) devotion from the developer.John

Hi John,I don't own a copy of Ikarus's AeroFlyFS and won't until I can get it delivered at a reasonable price; their US office wants over 50% of the cost of the software to deliver it to Canada!In the meantime, I sample opinions found on forums such as this one and occasionally find something special such as your very well written 'first impression' and of equal interest, the basis of your evaluation. I enjoyed reading it and want to thank you for preparing a true 'constructive' review. In fact, it defines what 'constructive criticism' is all about!Regards,Jean-Jacques

Excellent review John. I have been thinking about purchasing AeroFly FS for a couple of months now but I heard that It only has one scenery. Is that correct? The deluxe version is selling at a price of $129 Do you think that is a reasonable price for AeroFly Deluxe? Or should I just go for the standard retail version for now?Regards Ciaran

Edited March 2, 201214 yr by Shamrock727

@shamrock727:There is only one version of Aerofly FS:http://www.aeroflyfs.com/index.php/en/produkte-shop/shop-international.htmlIt`s $49, or 39 Euros.It`s easy to confuse Aerofly FS with Aerofly5 and other RC simulators from Ikarus.

their US office wants over 50% of the cost of the software to deliver it to Canada!

Another example of Ikarus's marketing confusion.When I asked Uwe Frank Heinrich, Ikarus's US agent:''Out of curiosity, why do you have to charge $28 for shipping to Montréal? Is the package coming from Florida, or is it actually being shipped from Germany?''He answered:''Because we ship Priority Mail International and INSURED. We had enough cases, where packages got “lost”.And actually, if you would look at the charges, then you would have found out, that we could not have chargedyou $28.00 plus $49.99 for the software. That would have been 76.49 after the 3% internet discount! Wecharged you only $63.44, which means the shipping charges were reduced to $14.95.''It took a couple of weeks, but Postes Canada eventually hand-delivered Aerofly FS to my door. With a German user manual :-(

Hi John,I don't own a copy of Ikarus's AeroFlyFS and won't until I can get it delivered at a reasonable price; their US office wants over 50% of the cost of the software to deliver it to Canada!In the meantime, I sample opinions found on forums such as this one and occasionally find something special such as your very well written 'first impression' and of equal interest, the basis of your evaluation. I enjoyed reading it and want to thank you for preparing a true 'constructive' review. In fact, it defines what 'constructive criticism' is all about!Regards,Jean-Jacques

Hi Jean-Jacques, and thanks for the compliment!I'm not sure why companies continue to get tripped up by this. If I were ikarus, I'd just use Amazon for order fullfilment. Yes, they'd get percentage of the retail price, but global shipping logistics would be nil - and most importantly, customers could get the product with reasonable shipping costs. I'm sure that 50% premium wipes out 90% or more of the sales potential - that premium is actually resulting is less total profit, not more. Argh.John

Excellent review John. I have been thinking about purchasing AeroFly FS for a couple of months now but I heard that It only has one scenery. Is that correct? The deluxe version is selling at a price of $129 Do you think that is a reasonable price for AeroFly Deluxe? Or should I just go for the standard retail version for now?Regards Ciaran

Hi Ciaran - as jschall stated, that $129 price point is probably for one of their model flight sims. I'm not sure why they're that expensive - except that some of their packages come with hardware (remote controls, etc...). Their product naming scheme is definitely a bit confusing. AeroFlyFS isn't related to AeroFly5 or AeroFly Deluxe.All you need is the $49.95 AeroFlyFS package.BTW - I find it interesting that you'd consider paying $129 - I would too! if there was a trully awesome simulator out there that used every spare CPU / GPU cycle in todays modern PC hardware to give you a truely accurate sensation of flying - it'd be a bargin.I hope the ikarus team - despite the hiccups in PR / marketing, is sitting there, watching sales come in - and thinking "holy $($, demand for a realistic full-scale simulator is huge! People seem disenfrancished by the dominant player in the space, and are looking for more realism. Let's drop everything and focus on this!! Let's show the community that we're listening and realease version 1.1 ASAP!"Keeping my fingers crossed...John

Hi Ciaran - as jschall stated, that $129 price point is probably for one of their model flight sims. I'm not sure why they're that expensive - except that some of their packages come with hardware (remote controls, etc...). Their product naming scheme is definitely a bit confusing. AeroFlyFS isn't related to AeroFly5 or AeroFly Deluxe. They do have a very good potential to produce a really nice realistic flight simulator, Providing they put their heads together and go ahead with it!! From what I've seen in some utube videos of the actual simulator as it is now, I am amazed by the actual level of detail!! My fingers are also crossed! :)All you need is the $49.95 AeroFlyFS package.BTW - I find it interesting that you'd consider paying $129 - I would too! if there was a trully awesome simulator out there that used every spare CPU / GPU cycle in todays modern PC hardware to give you a truely accurate sensation of flying - it'd be a bargin.I hope the ikarus team - despite the hiccups in PR / marketing, is sitting there, watching sales come in - and thinking "holy $($, demand for a realistic full-scale simulator is huge! People seem disenfrancished by the dominant player in the space, and are looking for more realism. Let's drop everything and focus on this!! Let's show the community that we're listening and realease version 1.1 ASAP!"Keeping my fingers crossed...John

I hope the ikarus team - despite the hiccups in PR / marketing, is sitting there, watching sales come in - and thinking "holy $($, demand for a realistic full-scale simulator is huge! People seem disenfrancished by the dominant player in the space, and are looking for more realism. Let's drop everything and focus on this!! Let's show the community that we're listening and realease version 1.1 ASAP!"Keeping my fingers crossed...John

Agreed. They haven't made overseas orders easy, but there's a big potential worldwide market for this. Just need to add a couple more flightsim features and it would be a viable fsx/flight ga replacement.

I've owned it about 5 weeks now, and I fired it up today and got a box telling me there was a new update released, and to go over to the Aerofly-fs.com site....Popped over there, d/loaded a hassle-free EXE and now have a few new features in the control panel.It really is a stunning looking sim; especially with HDR enabled....... I do wish it had more features and things like the ability to start a flight at a parking space... but they will come.Flight dynamics are amazing, and although FSX is still my primary sim, I sometimes find it hard to adjust back to FSX's flight handling characteristics, after flying on Aerofly FS.

Flight dynamics are amazing, and although FSX is still my primary sim, I sometimes find it hard to adjust back to FSX's flight handling characteristics, after flying on Aerofly FS.

If you have flown only RC planes IRL the flight dynamics are amazing as the Aerofly FS flight dynamics apparently haven't changed a lot over the years since their RC sims.If you would have flown real planes you would realize that the FDs are a far cry from being 'amazing' or very realistic.Never flown a plane IRL that flies like an RC model...

Have to disagree with you there. I really like your FD for the Carenado birds, and I only fly the ones you've done. So I give you a lot of credit when you talk about FD. And I know NOTHING about modeling FD in sims. Shoot, I've been amazed ever since Chuck Yeager Air Combat (or whatever it was called) that we can model flight on a computer at all.

 

But I am a RL pilot and although there are some aspects of the Aerofly FD that do much more closely model the aerodynamics and flight of low mass aircraft, like RC planes, as the OP has nicely pointed out, it also does a very nice job of modeling interaction with the wind generally, which is something FSX just has a lot of trouble with. There are a few planes in FSX that give me the feeling of moving through and with the air as I get in RL, such as A2A's new P-40, for instance. But the majority do a poor job of this.

 

I've only had Aerofly a short time and have just been flying the C172, getting used to the model and the sim. But I have been impressed with the experience so far. Particularly the experience of turbulence and lift. It may model it in ways that lean toward the dynamics of RC, but it models it. It simply doesn't have that rock solid feel of most FSX aircraft, some of which feel as if they aren't even trying to model the interaction, but are merely moving the graphics around in relation to joystick input so that you point where you want to. Not as bad as IL2 in that regard, but not a lot better sometimes. Landing is a far cry from the RL exercise in most FSX aircraft!

 

There simply isn't a sim that captures what it feels like to fly in RL. And I'm not talking about the absence of kinesthetic inputs, like G forces. But there are ways that different sims get part of it right.

 

Rise of Flight does some of it very right, and overall, I probably get a more realistic sense of flying when I'm in those planes than in any other sim. But they don't land realistically.

 

Some newer aircraft for FSX have done wonders within the limits of FSX code to get closer to capturing inertia and interaction with that fluid we fly through that we call air. But there are those limits, and they do limit what can be done it seems.

 

Aerofly is a very nice sim and I'm quite glad I got it. I'll be flying in it a lot. Doing a pattern in it comes closer to what it feels like for me in the Chief than any other sim. I wish it had dynamic weather and time (...of day, ...of season). I wish it modeled systems more. I wish it had a more alive world in which to fly, with ATC and other traffic. I wish the panels were better and more fully interactive.

 

But, when I look out the window at that amazingly modeled wing, and watch the sun and shadows move across the headliner and feel the plane pitch and roll with the turbulence, my disbelief is well and truly suspended, and that is the heart of any sim.

I like it a lot, at least when I'm flying above 2000' agl, and landing circuits around Birrfield (or whatever it's called) is really fun and convincing to me (I'm not a real life pilot, just a mechanic). The graphics are pretty nice, but it has some problems. The airplanes are very nice looking, and the FD feel convincing to me. Though I will never know if they are accurate.

 

There are a lot of problems with the ortophotos interacting with the terrain geometry that I'd like to see fixed, for example where lakes go up the side of a hil, or where the texture has clouds in it. There is a lot of Z-fighting going on around trees, buildings and where clouds intersect with mountains, even where two segments of terain come together. The shadow maps change too late, so you have super low res shadows even though you're close up to objects. This is one of the most distracting problems for me.

 

I wish I had the option of adding more trees. I think my computer can handle at least twice the amount of trees, if not three times with closer culling. More trees would hide a lot of the ortophoto problems around steep slopes. I also hope they add more objects later.

 

I'm running three screens at a resoloution of 6048x1080 with bezel correction. It doesn't support this natively, but I found a way to make it work by editing the main.mcf file. I contacted them and asked for multi monitor support and a developer SDK. They replied positively about the SDK, but haven't said anything about m ulti monitor support yet. Hopefully the sim evolves into something great!

There simply isn't a sim that captures what it feels like to fly in RL. And I'm not talking about the absence of kinesthetic inputs, like G forces. But there are ways that different sims get part of it right.

Some newer aircraft for FSX have done wonders within the limits of FSX code to get closer to capturing inertia and interaction with that fluid we fly through that we call air. But there are those limits, and they do limit what can be done it seems.

 

I fully agree that FSX has the 'worst' feel, but concerning turbulence and 'feel' I think FLIGHT is a touch better than Aerofly but still not as good as x-plane 10 with very high quality add-ons like the Carenado Bonanza (no I have nothing to do with it).

Unfortunately out of the box x-planes default planes are between horrible and barely acceptable.

IMHO x-plane with e.g. the Bonanza is the sim with the most realistic 'feel'. (If you enable cockpit shadowing the immersiveness increase as well)