I actually quit using FS until orbx started releasing stuff because it was so visually boring and unrealistic.

 

I used FU3 (and the FU2 San Francisco scenery) exclusively between 2000 and 2008 because I was disillusioned with MSFS. They kept releasing what was essentially the same product with a few tweaks here and there. In fact, my opinion is that FS5 was a step down from FS4. It may have had "photorealistic" graphics (a stretch of the imagination if there ever was one), but the terrain textures shimmered horribly, and they looked appalling unless you were at spacecraft altitudes. Sadly, I was stupid enough to waste my money on all versions of MSFS from FS5 through to FS2000......until I woke up and saw the light. I only returned (to FSX) when I saw the opportunity to build my dream......complete photoscenery coverage of the UK with detailed airports and airfields throughout this region. This dream is still in the process of construction, which is why I am hoping that all of my addons will be fully compatible with P3D v3.

What's the difference in DLC and buying payware addons. I'm sure you could spend a few hundred thousand buying all the addons for FSX. I'm really into graphics and flight physics as they make it the most realistic to me. I'm a real world pilot and honestly most of your time in a real plane is just sitting there looking around so I'd love to have a sim that looks like aerofly. I actually quit using FS until orbx started releasing stuff because it was so visually boring and unrealistic.

 

The difference is in FSX I don't have to wait to buy an addon to fly out of my local airport, in MS flight or Aerofly I will/would likely have to wait years and pay about the same price for the add-on as the core program.

 

I prefer to use the sim to convince me that I'm actually flying and I want to be able fly wherever and whenever. In Aerofly I have to fly in the areas that they determine.

 

I wondering if you either choose to forget or just don't know where flight simulation started and what has been accomplished since then. FSX default scenery was leaps and bounds over FS9. Its because of the MS Flight DLC total failure that we did not continue getting core simulators with excellent improvements every 2 or so years.

 

Orbx scenery is great I agree, but it would be so much better if MS did not try that DLC stuff with us.  

 

Check out the FS history and see for yourself how far we have come until FSX, then MS Flight messed it all up and Aerofly is trying the same thing - limited geographic area, simple planes, but nice graphics to fool people into the wow factor that blinds them to what we had.  http://mujweb.cz/havlikjosef/fshistoryenglish.htm 

The difference is in FSX I don't have to wait to buy an addon to fly out of my local airport, in MS flight or Aerofly I will/would likely have to wait years and pay about the same price for the add-on as the core program.

 

I prefer to use the sim to convince me that I'm actually flying and I want to be able fly wherever and whenever. In Aerofly I have to fly in the areas that they determine.

 

I wondering if you either choose to forget or just don't know where flight simulation started and what has been accomplished since then. FSX default scenery was leaps and bounds over FS9. Its because of the MS Flight DLC total failure that we did not continue getting core simulators with excellent improvements every 2 or so years.

 

Orbx scenery is great I agree, but it would be so much better if MS did not try that DLC stuff with us.

 

Check out the FS history and see for yourself how far we have come until FSX, then MS Flight messed it all up and Aerofly is trying the same thing - limited geographic area, simple planes, but nice graphics to fool people into the wow factor that blinds them to what we had. http://mujweb.cz/havlikjosef/fshistoryenglish.htm

Each to their own I rarely leave the west coast so aerofly 2 would be perfect for me. I live on the east coast but there isn't really anything worth seeing over here compared to the west coast so I don't mind being stuck on the west coast.I never minded being stuck in Washington state in flight unlimited 3. I'd rather get to know a small well detailed area well vs flying random places around the globe in low detail. That's just me though.

The problem for me is what happens when you reach the edge of the scenery?

 

For example, DayZ or Arma has a huuge map, but when i get at the edge, there is infinite flat terrain. For me this is ugly, especially in a flightsim. Or when to go to the end of an ORBX region, and in the other side you hav the stock scenery

 

I still prefeer the whole world for the feeling of "continuity"

People are diverse and have diverse needs and tastes. Flight simulation isn't a monoculture, and one size doesn't fit all.

 

 

And Aerofly is probably laughing all the way to the bank. They have multiple successful products that have kept their company afloat for years (with high ratings on Steam) and have branched into tablets while also expressing an interest on consoles. Keep in mind Aerofly 1 was successful enough warrant an Aerofly 2. That doesn't happen if there's no market.

 

 

And not every company is large enough (Not even Microsoft) to spend AAA dollars on niche titles with marginal ROI, so Aces went away and enthusiasts were sad.......

 

How one spins a story depends on one's preconceptions.

 

One size did and still does fit all in MSFS until MS started that MS flight stuff with us.

 

Ok Aerofly FS- out since Oct 17, 2012 has a grand total of 86 reviews today 70% of them are positive and of them positive reviews you will find a bunch of negative aspects about support and lack of content - in other words people who are trying to be nice by giving a thumbs up but not gonna lie about the facts. I'm still laughing; they may be laughing all the way to the bank at them who paid $39.99 and were bored soon after.

 

FSX-SE ($24.99) has 3,352 reviews today and 78% were positive.

 

Which one has many more ratings and higher ratings? Very simple math.

 

If a company can't improve upon FSX and all of its base features, it will not succeed until it does.

 

Nothing wrong with preconceptions based on true facts and true history. Truth is all that matters-hype/marketing these days does not matter at all. I always assume that marketing and advertising is a lie until its proven true because most people love money more than truth.

 

Im not saying that Aerofly is bad. I'm saying it has a long way to go to satisfy the flight sim community as a whole, all of us, not just you or me but everybody, just like MSFS has done for decades. We wait for Dovetail, LM, LR,  Outerra, Aerofly, Aerowinx, nextgen flightsim, or others that may come along to satisfy everybody. Its possible that it will never happen if we remain satisfied with pretty graphics and nice physics alone no matter how limited the area is or how simple the cockpit panels are.

 

We did not get to PMDG/Hi Fi/Orbx/A2A quality because of a desire for simplicity in flight simulation.     

 

 

We did not get to PMDG/Hi Fi/Orbx/A2A quality because of a desire for simplicity in flight simulation.

 

Some of use have never bought needed any of their products. You need to stop thinking that your ideas are the same as the rest of us.

PMDG is great I have 3 of their planes. But I also enjoy my carenado birds. I also have A2A planes but not for all the gadgets I use them because flight physics and visually wise they are the best. I think the best bet for a future flight sim is outerra it has the whole world and great graphics.

Some of use have never bought needed any of their products. You need to stop thinking that your ideas are the same as the rest of us.

 

I will have to agree.

 

FSX-SE ($24.99) has 3,352 reviews today and 78% were positive. Which one has many more ratings and higher ratings? Very simple math.

 

Perception again. Even a hasty look at the FSX-SE reviews shows the vast majority are from FSX users just switching over, and of the vast majority of them, I'm willing to bet most are people like me who grabbed it for the $4.99 sale. (would anybody in their right mind pay $24.99?)

 

By definition however, all the purchasers of Aerofly and Aerofly 2 would have to be new users, and that doesn't even take into account all the tablet and phone purchases........... I would also point out that even on sale, Aerofly has never dropped below $19.99 on Steam

 

http://www.steamsales.rhekua.com/view.php?steam_type=app&steam_id=214130

 

Something else interesting.

 

https://thinkgaming.com/app-sales-data/15753/aerofly-2-flight-simulator/ (I believe these numbers are for Apple devices only, and don't count Android sales)

 

And another point of view from some of those different folks looking for different strokes. No, not everyone is looking for exactly the same things you are.

 

http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthread.php/7039-Tried-FSX-again-Ouch!-Spoiled-by-Aerofly

 

If a company can't improve upon FSX and all of its base features, it will not succeed until it does.

 

With a certain audience. Again I agree with mgh. And see above.

 

We did not get to PMDG/Hi Fi/Orbx/A2A quality because of a desire for simplicity in flight simulation

 

No but we may have travelled much further down the road to nichedom that way, with products that are big tasty fish in a very tiny pond.

I will have to agree.

 

 

Perception again. Even a hasty look at the FSX-SE reviews shows the vast majority are from FSX users just switching over, and of the vast majority of them, I'm willing to bet most are people like me who grabbed it for the $4.99 sale. (would anybody in their right mind pay $24.99?)

 

By definition however, all the purchasers of Aerofly and Aerofly 2 would have to be new users, and that doesn't even take into account all the tablet and phone purchases........... I would also point out that even on sale, Aerofly has never dropped below $19.99 on Steam

 

http://www.steamsales.rhekua.com/view.php?steam_type=app&steam_id=214130

 

Something else interesting.

 

https://thinkgaming.com/app-sales-data/15753/aerofly-2-flight-simulator/ (I believe these numbers are for Apple devices only, and don't count Android sales)

 

And another point of view from some of those different folks looking for different strokes. No, not everyone is looking for exactly the same things you are.

 

http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthread.php/7039-Tried-FSX-again-Ouch!-Spoiled-by-Aerofly

 

 

With a certain audience. Again I agree with mgh. And see above.

 

 

No but we may have travelled much further down the road to nichedom that way, with products that are big tasty fish in a very tiny pond.

 

I'm not nor ever have I said anybody has to think like me.

 

I'm saying that a complete simulator fills the need for everybody. A limited simulator fills the need for a few. There is nothing difficult about this concept.

 

To make it simple for you: if you have a Lego set with 30 pieces and I have a Lego set with 60 of the same kind of pieces I will be able to do anything you can, but you will not be able to do anything I could. Do you understand? 

 

It does not matter what anybody says, unless and until something is developed that is better than FSX/P3D it will never out succeed FSX/P3D.

 

Your nichedom concept would apply if these products did not truly attempt recreate the real life counterparts, but rather were using marketing schemes with lies. A simulator concept needs to always strive to mimic real life and somebody has to do it. The 4 companies I mention are but a few of many, but they are the most successful because of the level of realism and quality of service they bring to flight simulation. My concern is that companies develop quality products and service, it is not my concern if a company can or cannot stay afloat because of money, time, or any other constraints.

Some of use have never bought needed any of their products. You need to stop thinking that your ideas are the same as the rest of us.

 

When did I think (you a mind reader?) or say that my ideas are the same as your ideas? 

 

I say that a complete simulator is capable of filling the needs of everybody and that is a true fact.

 

I say that a limited simulator is NOT capable of filling the needs of everybody and that is a true fact.

 

If your ideas are not able to agree with these true facts, then its totally impossible for me to have any conversation with you about anything.

 

I predict that you will not agree with the facts above and if you don't, I will not reply to anything you say, so you may want to just keep it to yourself to save yourself some time/effort. :-) 

 

To make it simple for you: if you have a Lego set with 30 pieces and I have a Lego set with 60 of the same kind of pieces I will be able to do anything you can, but you will not be able to do anything I could. Do you understand? 

 

What if I don't want to do everything you could? Especially on an aging platform like FSX? You can have the most pimped-out 1970 eldorado in the world (which is about how FSX feels to me at this point) and I would still pass it (and its maintenance headaches) over for a nice new economical Nissan with less features. It fits my needs and my tastes, and does so for a lot of others as well. Companies routinely choose their chosen market and cater to it. PMDG itself is a product that caters to a very specific market, which absolutely does not encompass all people interested in aviation, and certainly not me. Nor should it have to. All it has to do is make money for its creators.

 

Which is all Aerofly has to do. No greater mission than that is required.

 

I say that a complete simulator is capable of filling the needs of everybody and that is a true fact.

 

Then apparently there are no "complete" simulators in the world, because FSX certainly doesn't meet my needs any longer. And that's also true.

 

Honestly, I would probably enjoy Aerofly 2 for PC a lot more, because I would have a greater sense of immersion, which is something which the graphics, framerate and other characteristics of FSX are steadily less and less able to to supply (for me) no matter how many layers of lipstick are applied.

I say that a complete simulator is capable of filling the needs of everybody and that is a true fact.

 

I say that a limited simulator is NOT capable of filling the needs of everybody and that is a true fact.

 

 

Yeah, monsieur de La Palice would have agreed with that.

 

Even if personally I'd prefer a flight simulator modeling the whole world, I understand the point of view of HiFlyer and agree with him.

 

I'm saying that a complete simulator fills the need for everybody. A limited simulator fills the need for a few. There is nothing difficult about this concept.

 

The term "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind after reading that. What if the developers of AeroFly 2 want to becomes masters of a handful of specific aspects of flight simulation, rather than attempt to do it all, and end up failing on all counts? I understand what you are saying, but you are thinking in absolute terms. If AeroFly 2 delivers a richly detailed simulation of a relatively small region of the world out of the box, then it will be attractive to those flightsim customers who like their virtual worlds "feature complete" without having to worry about spending hundreds (or thousands) of pounds/dollars on addons to reach a point where they are happy with it. Amazingly enough, some of us really do like to enjoy the scenery as we fly around, and the more detailed that can be right from the start the better!

The term "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind after reading that. What if the developers of AeroFly 2 want to becomes masters of a handful of specific aspects of flight simulation, rather than attempt to do it all, and end up failing on all counts? I understand what you are saying, but you are thinking in absolute terms. If AeroFly 2 delivers a richly detailed simulation of a relatively small region of the world out of the box, then it will be attractive to those flightsim customers who like their virtual worlds "feature complete" without having to worry about spending hundreds (or thousands) of pounds/dollars on addons to reach a point where they are happy with it. Amazingly enough, some of us really do like to enjoy the scenery as we fly around, and the more detailed that can be right from the start the better!

 

 

Thank you Christopher. I too enjoy looking at scenery, but not for gazing as much as for immersion. I believe that we could have the best of both worlds for a reasonable price if this is what we would require. If we settle for less then we will get even less than that. I also fly my A2A Piper Cub for short VFR flights on occasion. But I want a new sim that can do that, and allow me to fly a 787-8 from KORD to LSZH. I want the scenery to fool me into thinking I'm actually there. But, if the 787 is not modeled realistically then I will not be fooled and it will be less enjoyable/challenging for me. And the OOM's have to be totally a thing of the past.

 

Remember that we have not had a complete and correct globe for flight simulator since FSX/ESP (about 10 years). As a matter of fact FSX was the first globe model that we could fly over the poles. We got this globe for a very reasonable price considering what was included in the package. So, will people like me have to use FSX/P3D from now on, because people like you don't want a whole globe? Yet if we were to have a whole globe for about the same price, like we have had in the past, we both could be "absolutely" satisfied. I think that the base scenery of any new sim would be as good as say MS flight, because development has come a long way in 10 years since FSX. Able to satisfy you and me by giving you great scenery to fly in your favored area, and letting me fly anywhere. I think you would eventually venture into other parts of the globe because we are all naturally curious and we need a never ending frontier. This is why the universe is (even the earth and seas are) so vast. Making our simulators the same is just the correct thing to do. The Aerofly 2 developers are free to do as they wish, but we simmers should require more for our futures sake. The next thing you know, rather than a part of CA for a base sim, we are going to be offered a single city, then a single airport for the same price as before. Very highly detailed maybe, but extremely confining until you pay for the DLC that will never include the whole world.     

 

If most remain satisfied with a DLC business model in flight simulation, we are all going to suffer grave consequences, because the developers will give less and less for the same price we paid for a complete globe. I wish that more leaders in the community would stand up against this DLC stuff because the easy trend for developers to make lots of money while we get less for what we spend has to stop. The word implode comes to mind.     

http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthread.php/7121-Aerofly-2-PC-screenshots!

 

We have no complete feature set yet on what aircraft and regions will be included. As we do a major overhaul to the navigation features, we will leave out aircraft for the first release, if the navigation is not working perfectly.
 

As far as airports goes, we will have at least over 150 airports, mainly in the California regions. More airports will follow in 2016. Switzerland is almost "Aerofly 2" ready, so expect to see it in 2016 as well.

Just wanted to contribute this latest Aerofly PC screenshot. Looks like there will be a focus on larger aircraft instead of just GA this time around.