I agree and that's why I think they need the help. They say they are willing to listen to the community so let's see if it's true.

I 100% support you in helping them, they just have so far to go, I'm not sure when they will be relevant to our community.

 

Keep us posted on their responses and progress!  I love the flying of their simulator, it just simply feels like a cell phone app.

I purchased the original AeroFS and I enjoyed it as an entertainment sim that looked great despite its limited functionality and arcade like features. The only reason I wont shell out $50 for this, is because it is largely the same thing. If there was more autogen, atc, ai traffic, dynamic weather, a functional navigation system, more complete planes, and things of the sort, I would probably go for it. But it is essentially an addon pack to the original AeroFS and that isnt worth the money for me at this moment. When the completed version is released and they include more value for the money, then I am all in, but its not there at this point. I like IPACS and what they have done, just not enough to spend that sort of money. 

Well just to give an idea of what to expect Jordan King streamed it today on Twitch,  you can see them here, My guess there will be a YT video coming too from him, like he did with DTG Flight School.

 

https://www.twitch.tv/jordankinggaming/profile

Wow I'm very disappointed to hear this and read the reviews. I had really high hopes for this sim and I was hoping it wasn't just going to be a copy of the Android version. I'll pick it up anyway because it's still early and hopefully they will improve things over time. I really loved v1 despite the missing features it had

 

Take a look at this. Voiceover is in Russian, however.

 

 

Take a look at this. Voiceover is in Russian, however.

 

46 minutes in, he's flying underneath the Golden Gate Bridge and doing a barrel role afterwards in a 737-500. Gonna have to try that in FSX immediately....

 

I don't own Aerofly 2 (or 1 for that matter) and don't plan on purchasing it, but from what I can gather from videos and comments it seems what is misleading about this product is the word "simulator" in the subtitle. Technically, it is of course a simulator, but obviously not a very complex one. However, it seems to be able to provide an enjoyable and beautiful experience of flying by drastically reducing complexity. As such it would be a great entry level product for people who don't care about realistic flight physics and just want to 'fly'. Yet those customers will be put off by the price tag, while those who would be willing to pay 45€ (or more) for a true simulator will be disappointed by the lack of realism.

 

It seems to me they wanted to go for both markets at the same time and have somehow managed to create something that is stuck in the middle and doesn't really appeal to any market.

Here is another video from a live stream. Voiceover in English here.

 

46 minutes in, he's flying underneath the Golden Gate Bridge and doing a barrel role afterwards in a 737-500. Gonna have to try that in FSX immediately....

 

I don't own Aerofly 2 (or 1 for that matter) and don't plan on purchasing it, but from what I can gather from videos and comments it seems what is misleading about this product is the word "simulator" in the subtitle. Technically, it is of course a simulator, but obviously not a very complex one. However, it seems to be able to provide an enjoyable and beautiful experience of flying by drastically reducing complexity. As such it would be a great entry level product for people who don't care about realistic flight physics and just want to 'fly'. Yet those customers will be put off by the price tag, while those who would be willing to pay 45€ (or more) for a true simulator will be disappointed by the lack of realism.

 

It seems to me they wanted to go for both markets at the same time and have somehow managed to create something that is stuck in the middle and doesn't really appeal to any market.

Well, was FSX vanilla much more of a simulator?

Why do these AeroFly 2 videos have pointless music in the background? Why can't people just provide previews with the simulator sound effects?? :blink:

Very true Christopher,  stupid music in the background drives my head nuts,  I want to hear all the sounds that it offers 

There are 18 reviews now on STEAM, 11 are negative, 7 positive. Tells a lot.

 

 

Well, was FSX vanilla much more of a simulator?

 

Yes, absolutely! It has built-in ATC, scenery for the whole world, world-wide airport database, true water simulation, built-in weather support, navaids, etc. Sure, the default planes aren't very good, but the base is there upon which PMDG, A2A, Hifi, Pointsoft, FS2Crew, ORBX and the like were able to build.

Yes, absolutely! It has built-in ATC, scenery for the whole world, world-wide airport database, true water simulation, built-in weather support, navaids, etc. Sure, the default planes aren't very good,

 

Built-in ATC is only good if you fly VFR, which was the ultimate goal FSX was created for, incidentally. It is totally inadequate if you fly IFR, especially with complex aircraft. After 10 years we still lack a decent ATC tool in FSX/P3D. The best on market, Pro-ATC/X, which I have, has a great potential, but still lot of bugs and missing features.

Yes, scenery is world-wide, but with a very low resolution. This is the price you have to pay if you want a worldwide simulator. You have a base package with a very poor resolution and you expand it with local sceneries one after the other according to your needs and your money. Or you can have small limited areas with very high resolution, but not the entire world. Look at DCS Nevada and its size to have a comparison reference. Or, if you prefer, just look at your own Orbx layers (Global+Vector+LC+all the payware airports) and see how much space you need to get there.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

 

but the base is there upon which PMDG, A2A, Hifi, Pointsoft, FS2Crew, ORBX and the like were able to build.

 

Yes, all this after 10 years development. And for a lot of money. You simply can't compare a base package with your current simulator. AeroFly made pretty clear that their future development will depend on the market response.

46 minutes in, he's flying underneath the Golden Gate Bridge and doing a barrel role afterwards in a 737-500. Gonna have to try that in FSX immediately....

 

 

Flying underneath Golden Gate was no problem obviously, but I didn't manage to fly a barrel role in the FSX-default 737, not even close to it. Even when climbing to 5000 feet first, I just lose too much altitude, overspeed and crash into the ocean. And I do get proper GPWS warnings when doing it.

 

 

You simply can't compare a base package with your current simulator.

 

I didn't mean to. I wanted to compare the potential of the base simulators. (Again: I do not own Aerofly 2 and I do not have programming expertise so my judgment may very well stand corrected). FSX/ESP has de facto proven to be a very good base simulator because it allows for all those developments that we've seen over the past ten years.

From what I can gather, Aerofly's base seems to lack the potential of becoming a true simulator in the foreseeable future, because there is so much that is missing/needs to be added. It might not be impossible to add all those features, but it seems like a very long way down the road to me. And again: I do see some appeal to it, because the visuals are outstanding (absolutely beautiful VCs!) and it feels fun just watching people do crazy things with airplanes. It's just the term 'simulation' that promises something different, I feel.

I didn't mean to. I wanted to compare the potential of the base simulators. (Again: I do not own Aerofly 2 and I do not have programming expertise so my judgment may very well stand corrected). FSX/ESP has de facto proven to be a very good base simulator because it allows for all those developments that we've seen over the past ten years.

From what I can gather, Aerofly's base seems to lack the potential of becoming a true simulator in the foreseeable future, because there is so much that is missing/needs to be added. It might not be impossible to add all those features, but it seems like a very long way down the road to me. And again: I do see some appeal to it, because the visuals are outstanding (absolutely beautiful VCs!) and it feels fun just watching people do crazy things with airplanes. It's just the term 'simulation' that promises something different, I feel.

 

But this is exactly what my post was all about: the potential. All the missing features you mentioned require a lot of work, time and money, but they can be easily added at any time in the future depending upon the market response and third party support. This is why I say that we can't compare the current level of realism we get in FSX/P3D, after 10 years third-party developments and a pile of addons on the top of it, with a brand new flight simulator being offered in early access. Not only visuals, what I see in those videos is an amazing level of smoothness and stability, which is what really counts.

 

 

 

It's just the term 'simulation' that promises something different, I feel.

Again, this is a common misunderstanding here. Remember that using a flight simulator in arcade mode or more seriously is totally up to you, your goals, the complexity of the addons you may add at some point in the future, your expectations etc.

Built-in ATC is only good if you fly VFR, which was the ultimate goal FSX was created for, incidentally. It is totally inadequate if you fly IFR, especially with complex aircraft. After 10 years we still lack a decent ATC tool in FSX/P3D. The best on market, Pro-ATC/X, which I have, has a great potential, but still lot of bugs and missing features.

Yes, scenery is world-wide, but with a very low resolution. This is the price you have to pay if you want a worldwide simulator. You have a base package with a very poor resolution and you expand it with local sceneries one after the other according to your needs and your money. Or you can have small limited areas with very high resolution, but not the entire world. Look at DCS Nevada and its size to have a comparison reference. Or, if you prefer, just look at your own Orbx layers (Global+Vector+LC+all the payware airports) and see how much space you need to get there.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

 

 

Yes, all this after 10 years development. And for a lot of money. You simply can't compare a base package with your current simulator. AeroFly made pretty clear that their future development will depend on the market response.

 

It seems anything new has to run through a gauntlet of literally decades of FSX development. That's a shame, since it pretty much destroys the chances (here) of anything but FSX clones.

 

They've asked for help from the community, and one day in are being gleefully buried.

 

Why would any other company's ever step foot into such a toxic arena?

 

DTG is very brave. (Of course, they have a secret weapon designed to sooth the savage beast: Yet another FSX clone)