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)

 

This is exactly my thought.

DTG Flight School is being bashed and bombed with prejudments and overcriticism for 2 years. Aerofly2 is being buried on day 1.

Seems that many people simply can't see beyond P3D and beyond their PMDG 777. But then they are comfortable wasting hours debating about AM setting.

 

Very sad to see how close minded this community can be. If I were a developer, I would not invest a dime in this market.

they can be easily added at any time in the future

 

I agree that all those features can be added, but judging from the development pace of X-Plane and P3D, these things aren't exactly "easily" added but require tedious work and lots of manpower.

@HiFlyer is of course right: FSX's development is both a blessing and a curse for this community. It provides a base which has been developed upon for over a decade and thus features unprecedented levels of sophistication via third party addons. Yet this makes it all the more harder for new kids to show up on the playground, because by definition they need to build from scratch.

But that's just how it is: If you want to develop a full fledged simulator, you need to base it off of the most sophisticated base you can get (the P3D and DTG strategy) or you have to invest serious ressources with the prospect of having to develop for years without being able to show anything and without income (maybe the NGIS strategy).

The third strategy would be to create your own niche. That's what I feel Aerofly have done in the past (going mobile is an excellent idea), but going for the full sim market at the same time won't work, I think, because people will necessarily compare it to other full fledged sims out there. 

I see Aerofly FS2 as a golden opportunity to create the new Flight Unlimited. However, to be worthy of that title, it needs to be groundbreaking. The ATC system, terrain graphics, and floatplane physics in Flight Unlimited 2 were a revelation back in 1997. Flight Unlimited 3 followed that up with an excellent weather system (that could have been even better if Looking Glass Studios had been given the time and money to finish the job), solid flight dynamics, and impressive wake and other turbulence effects. That being the case, Aerofly FS2 needs a robust ATC system at launch. It has the pretty graphics, but these are not enough. A properly simulated flight environment like this needs full and realistic audio interaction between the pilot and the various tower/ground/radar controllers. It needs realistic weather systems/clouds/haze/rain etc (although I do not agree that this needs to be real world weather). It also obviously needs convincing flight dynamics, and this is something that has puzzled me about the YouTube videos. I was under the impression that one of the strengths of the Aerofly series was its flight models, so watching someone do a barrel roll underneath the Golden Gate bridge in a Boeing 737-500 came as a surprise. Frankly, that did not look realistic to me. Not one bit.

 

In short, Aerofly FS2 needs to innovate. The fact that it does not include the entire world is irrelevant to me. I would rather have a large section of the south western USA in very high detail than yet another FSX clone with the entire world covered in generic scenery (and no, ORBx FTX Global does not make a difference. It still looks rubbish to me). A total of 150 airports spread across an area a hundred times larger than the San Francisco or Seattle high resolution regions in Flight Unlimited 3 is more than enough for me. After all, I only fly around the UK in P3D!! If the developer can populate that region with interesting landmarks, decent looking autogen, and lots of realistic AI planes (and add those essential features that I mentioned above), then we might just end up with something rather special. The key here is whether the developer has the time, money and desire to achieve this. It is no easy task, but....as a dedicated FU2 and FU3 user for many years......I would love to see it.

If they would add the ability to input OSM data like world2XP it'd be perfect because OSM works great with photo textures and would add autogen buildings to replace the flat world. What I don't get is why people expect the default planes to have PMDG level detail. FSX's default planes weren't anything special,and Aerofly's have about the same level of systems modeling. 

 

 

If they would add the ability to input OSM data like world2XP it'd be perfect because OSM works great with photo textures and would add autogen buildings to replace the flat world.

 

Except the USA regions would suck anyhow as OSM data is poor for most of the USA.

Except the USA regions would suck anyhow as OSM data is poor for most of the USA.

How so every place I've flown in the US using world2Xplane has been spot on. After world2xplane, Xplane even shows my house and I live in the middle of nowhere.

Regardless w2xp makes it look way better than default XP and way better than FSX

"So what can you expect from the Early Access Aerofly FS 2?

We have a few points on our list that we would like to add within the coming month. Note that these are just planned features, there is always a chance that those feature might not make it into the final product, but we try to do our best. Here are some of our features:

• Tools for 3rd party developers to add airplanes and airports
• Full controller support so you can use the Steam Big Picture mode
• More airplanes
• More airports and regions
• Support for VR devices like Vive and Occulus
• Flight presets
• Support for Saitek control panels ( maybe also support for Saitek Flight Display )

Some features did not make it into the Early Access version yet, they include:

• Higher level autopilot modes like Flight Level Change, Managed Modes, Lateral and Vertical navigation. You can select some of these modes on some aircraft, but don't expect these to be working correctly or at all.
• Autotuning and VHF frequency selection for A320, B747, Learjet 45 and King Air"

How so every place I've flown in the US using world2Xplane has been spot on. After world2xplane, Xplane even shows my house and I live in the middle of nowhere.

Regardless w2xp makes it look way better than default XP and way better than FSX

 

You sure about that?

 

I feel like Tony really felt that large chunks of the USA had very incomplete OSM data?

 

On your last line, I personally don't 100% agree as XPX needs way more variety in trees/buildings for different regions of the world.  I think that was one area where Tony said that W2XP takes a *lot* of work, understandably so.

You sure about that?

 

I feel like Tony really felt that large chunks of the USA had very incomplete OSM data?

 

On your last line, I personally don't 100% agree as XPX needs way more variety in trees/buildings for different regions of the world.  I think that was one area where Tony said that W2XP takes a *lot* of work, understandably so.

I agree some more variety would be nice but the OSM is spot on in rural Alabama and Florida. It even added a gravel service road at my local airport that was never there in any sim.

Your message at the time where other users are looking some feedback is particularly rude and inappropriate

Early access is exactly the time where "All Aircrafts fly awful, not near any other simulator i know. Handling, controller options and user interface are very bad." can be fixed. Submit your complaint to Steam forum so that the developer can act on it instead of crying here.

By the way give us a list of the early access games that you tried and were fine...

From my part I have only Dirt Rally and Automobilista that were fine from day 1. if I think of Assetto Corsa I was quite unhappy at the beginning but after waiting one more year it was much better.

Don't think it's rude at all. Thank you to the poster for saving over $50.00.

Just tested it for about an hour.

It`s awful, and i applied for refunding at STEAM. It`s the first game ever i applied for refunding on Steam.

Graphics here and there nice, sound is good, flight school is not bad but thats it.

All Aircrafts fly awful, not near any other simulator i know. Handling, controller options and user interface are very bad.

Yes it`s early access, but it`s the worst early access i participated on. And i did a few. No word on the high price for this early acces on Aerofly 2.... can`t even imagine how they figured that out.

Going back to FSX and MSFlight until DTGFS arrives.

 

That was just too much, can`t stand that Sim.

Thanks for the report. I'll avoid this until I hear consistent and better news particularly at the price. I'll stick to X-Plane and P3D.

 

 

I feel like Tony really felt that large chunks of the USA had very incomplete OSM data?
 
On your last line, I personally don't 100% agree as XPX needs way more variety in trees/buildings for different regions of the world.  I think that was one area where Tony said that W2XP takes a *lot* of work, understandably so.

 

Indeed this is the case, however there is MUCH more data in OSM for the US now than there was when I started 2 or so years ago. The lack of artwork for the US means the buildings can look out of place. I did the entire state of Massachussets (Which is a small area) and created a pile of artwork for it. I want to do more states with regional style buildings, but I want to finish other things first.

 

For large parts of California there is some excellent data in OSM or from gorverment sites, I'm surprised they didn't use these in some way to make some autogen.

For large parts of California there is some excellent data in OSM or from gorverment sites, I'm surprised they didn't use these in some way to make some autogen.

 

Two things that might be possible in Aerofly Fs 2, depending on how far they open it up for outside developers might be Osm building import and higher resolution photo-scenery import.

 

If they were clever, they would have made it compatible with something like Megascenery (make a deal with them!) as well, and possibly allowed import of high quality mesh's

 

Third parties could also start making landmarks and major airports.

What I recall from v1 is that the flight dynamics were very acceptable.

 

The default gliders behaved strangely, but some mods and freeware add-ons were good.

The Lear Jet flies very nicely,feels more realistic than than most planes in MSFS.

Except the USA regions would suck anyhow as OSM data is poor for most of the USA.

 

In rural areas? Yeah. (even though most small cities still have some OSM building data to fill out the downtown areas while autogen fills out the neighborhoods).

 

But in major cities like Aerofly 2 is modeling, the OSM data is very good in the USA, extending well out into the suburbs.