Aerofly 2 really bad, refunded.

[Christopher Low 5,394]

 

Hi Christopher, the early access release is 30GB already. Are you sure you want your early access testers downloading even more GB's - thats not practical on a regular basis. I think the developers have stated that higher resolution textures will be available eventually although I can see them releasing this as an optional pack.

 

You misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that the early access version should be more than 30GB. I was simply saying that I would need consistent high resolution coverage across the entire south western USA region in the finished product to be interested.

[sascha 314]

I think the X-Plane approach is the right one. I've yet to see anything that looks more realistic than photoscenery + 3D OSM objects.

 

Of course, for best results it requires good OSM coverage and good art assets for buildings. OSM coverage is better in Europe than in USA, but fortunately OSM coverage linearly improves every week/month/year. It's much better than it was 5 years ago, and in 5 years it will be much better than now.

 

Here's Innsbruck with photoscenery + 3D OSM objects:

 

 

 

Yup, that is convincing and hard to beat!

[Pugilist2 880]

I would also like to see consistent high resolution photoscenery coverage across the entire southwestern region in the finished product along with OSM objects.

[Danny Schildmeijer 4]

You have to get to there fora and say what you like to be changed, don't stare/nag and do nothing, they are willing to listen to you!!!! Say your needs on the forum!!!!!!!!

[HiFlyer 9,376]

How smooth is that!  :smile:

 

 

[tf51d 284]

How smooth is that!  :smile:

 

Smooth yes!, Almost off the runway, also yes

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

Smooth yes!, Almost off the runway, also yes

 

The only thing lit up at night is the runway. Looks like the plane is docking at the space station!

[Arthur42417 193]

it's smooth because many many features are missing.....no air traffic, no water, no cars/boats, no weather, etc.

[barrel_owl 304]

it's smooth because many many features are missing.....no air traffic, no water, no cars/boats, no weather, etc.

Speculation. Buy it, then judge it.

[an FSX-SE user]

[JimmiG 244]

Speculation. Buy it, then judge it.

[an FSX-SE user]

 

Fact: It runs smooth because it's missing so many fetures

 

Speculation: It might not run as smooth when/if those missing features are implemented.

 

P3D, X-Plane and AFS 2 user

[HiFlyer 9,376]

Unless one is a programmer and has the source code, I'm not certain how one can to tell either way; most especially if your expectations are based on experience of older programs.

 

It's probably a good bet that adding complexity would normally tend to slow things down, but not as much as previous experience might lead one to expect if the program is taking excellent advantage of modern computer architecture.

 

Outerra, for instance is so GPU oriented, that it practically doesn't care what your cpu is up to. All those cpu resources are then available for physics and systems while barely affecting the graphics, a situation our current Sims don't give us much to base any assumptions on.

 

Add in 64bit, and I suspect its all blue sky speculation for now.

[barrel_owl 304]

Fact: It runs smooth because it's missing so many fetures

 

Speculation: It might not run as smooth when/if those missing features are implemented.

 

P3D, X-Plane and AFS 2 user

 

Speculation: It runs smooth because it's missing so many features.

 

The presence of that because implies a cause-effect relationship. Unless you can prove such relationship with some kind of hard data, based on a test of AF2 final version, using not yet existing addons, I maintain that your statement is pure speculation. In the best scenario, you are applying your experience with 32-bit legacy simulators to a different product with a more advanced engine and a quite different code, as Devon correctly pointed out.

 

 

[jcomm 6,020]

One thing is for sure - flight dynamics wise, and admiting it is at least as good as version 1, which I own, it is ahead of both X-Plane and FSX / P3D in their present encarnations ....

 

It now has navaids, and they can actually be used. Don't know with which level of detail they've been implemented, but given the region, it would be great to test iv VORs are line of sight and thus

a mountain between our aircraft and a station can bring problems, something that MS FLIGHT started to implement, even if it wan't yet perfect....

[Humpty 751]

One thing is for sure - flight dynamics wise, and admiting it is at least as good as version 1, which I own, it is ahead of both X-Plane and FSX / P3D in their present encarnations ....

 

It now has navaids, and they can actually be used. Don't know with which level of detail they've been implemented, but given the region, it would be great to test iv VORs are line of sight and thus

a mountain between our aircraft and a station can bring problems, something that MS FLIGHT started to implement, even if it wan't yet perfect....

 

Should I get it ?

[jcomm 6,020]

No Zulfi, not yet, specially given the difficulties for you to get it where you live, and the big D/L....

 

Let's see what the SDK brings.

 

Flight dynamics wise you have the best UH-1H, the best Mi-8 and the BEST Mig-21 available EVER!