Aerofly 2 really bad, refunded.

[HiFlyer 9,361]

Give what a chance? It is what it is.

 

If you like the flat photoscenery stuff, have at it. Just because something is new doesn't make it worthwhile or above judgement.

 

 

Give the program a chance to reach its potential. Its not even a full release. Give them a chance to address peoples issues. Give them a chance to add more features. Give them a chance to add the additional planes they mentioned. Give them a chance to reveal how 3rd parties will be able to add to the program. Give them the same chance we are apparently willing to give DTG, to work the program into its final state.

 

Give them the assistance they requested from this community before shooting them in the head.

 

And finally, if one really hates photo-scenery, then why would a person buy it in the first place?

[HiFlyer 9,361]

Honestly I see a lot of room here for some quick cash for airport/scenery designers and osm guys. I think I'm going to buy this! Not everything has to (or even wants to) be FSX.

 

https://youtu.be/OJAVHFu9rec

[Jeff_Favignano 12]

Honestly I see a lot of room here for some quick cash for airport/scenery designers and osm guys. I think I'm going to buy this! Not everything has to (or even wants to) be FSX.

 

https://youtu.be/OJAVHFu9rec

Thank you for showcasing my video! I have about a solid 5 hours in this sim so far and I really like it! Sure it doesn't have complex systems similar to how most sims are with default airplanes, however if you can look past that you really have a fantastic simulator. I think it is terrible for people to bash an early access product so early especially when the developer is so forthcoming and open to feedback. I did a flight form OAK to LAX today in the 737-500 using charts and VOR navigation and had a blast. Some of the airplanes are really well done and I can see it getting younger crowds and more people into aviation, to me that is a win. We shouldn't hurt the very community we love just because we disagree with how a product is marketed. To me $50 is not too crazy, I mean any xbone and ps4 game is around the $60 mark so price point to me is unfair.

 

I really am excited for the future of this platform, they are open to allowing 3rd party development and that is the one thing that really makes FSX/P3D/XP stay relative and alive. It is not AFS's intention to directly complete with X-Plane and FSX/P3D as they have clearly stated that. Making a simming platform that is beautiful and has very solid default airplanes out of the gate without needing to tweak is a god send for people that aren't so tech savvy. I got a solid 60FPS with vsync and never saw it drop.

 

In the end, this is not for everyone. I could go on and on why I prefer to use X-Plane 10 over FSX/P3D but it is a moot point as we all have our reasons. I enjoy AFS and I don't regret the purchase.

[HiFlyer 9,361]

ipacs aerofly  [developer] May 20 @ 7:16am 

 

It seems like people don't seem to understand Early Access. We want and need the feedback of users to add new features and to fix bugs. This first version was never meant to be our final version with respect to what it has.

 

ipacs aerofly  [developer] May 20 @ 4:25pm 

 

We considered using OSM data but have currently put it aside as the data for the USA is not good enough in the regions we had planned for our first release, e.g. we see lots of holes in the coverage. However it is something we have still in mind, OSM is growing steadily.

 

ipacs aerofly  [developer] May 20 @ 4:28pm

 

We can add more aerial images with higher resolution at any time. For Early Access we didn't want the whole package larger than 30 GB of data.
The current resolutions are optimized to have detailed maps around airports with lower resolutions outside. However at normal cruising altitude the resolution should be high enough.

Anyway, we will consider adding more data in one of the next updates.

Animated water is not a top priority at this time, but we would like to add it eventually.

 

ipacs aerofly  [developer] May 13 @ 3:48pm 

 

Yes, we intend to add more places as Aerofly evolves.

 

Our biggest intention is to attract external developers for adding more content.

 

To do this we plan to publish development tools real soon, stay tuned.

 

Etc.......

[Heimi 91]

I reviewed the comments here and on other forums like Steam, and i also reviewed my decision.

And i looked to the numbers.

Aerofly 2 is popular on new releases on Steam but has very few players playing it. In all places you can find reviews between 50-60% not recommending it and 40-50% recommending it.

This thread here has more than 2000 hits, can`t see another one about the positive side of Aerofly 2.

Which i have to admit is abit unfair. I had no intention to bash it, just wanted to express my disappointment. Looks like i am not alone. And again here is why:

 

I read what IPACS promised, or is still promising. I just can`t see how they wnat to implement these things until end of the year when it is still lacking basic things.

So when i read it`s early access with less than a half year to release i thought it must be near completion, especially when i saw the price tag.

From the STEAM Early Access page:

QuoteSome developers will start by offering a discount for buying early while others will charge a premium, depending on their goals and the level of commitment and feedback they desire from Early Access customers.

I think IPACS have the wrong attitude to this point.

 

In addition the Game description says

High detailed clickable cockpits: They just missed half of it...

World wide elevation and aerial images: Outside the High detailed area it`s just a pile of green/brown mud.

 

So maybe myself and other people are/were a bit to harsh. But the reasons leading to it are there.

 

I will have any eye on further development and hope they get it. But i don`t see that honestly, because i did some early access and betas and i know what is possible in a given time frame and what is not.

 

Edit: Somebody wrote that on the Product Page for Aerofly2 is a statement from IPACS that Aerofly2 is 85% completed.

I didn`t find a link, so can`t validate that.

But if true this confirms my decision and opinion even more.

[jcomm 5,939]

There is one aspect of Aerofly v1 I recall easily - fliught dynamics.... They were much more convincing than default FSX or X-plane aircraft flight dynamics.

 

The Extra and the Pitts were very well done.

 

In terms of flight dynamics Aerofly uses an approacgh which is very close to that of Flight Unilimited 2 and 3, and X-Plane / DCS / Il2 BoS... The aircraft are decomposed into lift, drag and thrust generation bodies, and their sum is calculated to give the final state of flight.

 

While weather model isn't, in graphical terms and diversity, better than the best we can get with MSFS and derivates, it is still very good, and I recall turbulence and variable wind effects were very convincing - better than X-plane, MSFS and DCS for sure, comparable to those I get in il2 BoS which are the best for me....

[HiFlyer 9,361]

I reviewed the comments here and on other forums like Steam, and i also reviewed my decision.

And i looked to the numbers.

Aerofly 2 is popular on new releases on Steam but has very few players playing it. In all places you can find reviews between 50-60% not recommending it and 40-50% recommending it.

This thread here has more than 2000 hits, can`t see another one about the positive side of Aerofly 2.

Which i have to admit is abit unfair. I had no intention to bash it, just wanted to express my disappointment. Looks like i am not alone.

 

If you don't like it, you don't like it, no shame in that.

 

Partially its going to come down to expectations, and having purchased the original Aerofly, and kept good track of Aerofly 2's progress on tablets/phones not to mention haunting their website these last few years I had a pretty good idea of exactly what to expect, and it definitely wasn't loads and loads of system depth right at the beggining.

 

Instead, I think they're trying to create an open platform on which 3rd parties can build, and I think that's an achievable goal, assuming any developers attention can be attracted for more than a few seconds from the big familiar shiny of the FSX/P3D and probably DTG troika.

 

They've made good progress! World coverage, however poor for the moment... (are you listening, megascenery?)

 

Clickable switches of any sort since their last offering had none. Switch-over to a round earth global coordinate system. Much wider use of 3d objects when the original Aerofly was pretty much bare...

 

Ipacs has promised working FMS and RNAV FMC / LNAV / VNAV.......

 

There is a lot of potential here in a civilian aviation market that is pretty damn empty of anything but FSX clones..

 

As far as meeting their goal in a limited time-frame though, who knows? For now, I myself am willing to give them the same benefit of a doubt I'm giving to DTG Sim, which is also attempting to accomplish quite a lot in a similar period, and whose soon-to-be released Flight school may also have a few inactive switches. (which I see some are already preemptively forgiving on other threads)

 

Eh.

 

I'm willing to wait and see what happens.

[jcomm 5,939]

BTW, is Aerofly v2 PC 32 or 64 bit ?

[Christopher Low 5,354]

Whilst I have no intention of purchasing the early access version, I will be watching rthe development of AeroFly FS2 with interest. My desire for a modern version of the Flight Unlimited series is very high, so I am hoping that the developer takes on board all sensible suggestions from the constructive criticism section of the flightsim community.

[HiFlyer 9,361]

BTW, is Aerofly v2 PC 32 or 64 bit ?

 

Its 64bit. They've stated they don't believe 32bit makes any sense.

[JimmiG 244]

Just been playing around with this a bit yesterday and today.

There's definitely potential, although at the current time, the majority of simmers will probably find it too bare bones.

 

Graphics / Engine.

Aerofly FS 1 was groundbreaking for its time due to the use of dynamic shadows, HDR lighting etc.These days, XP and P3D (and to some extend even FSX DX10) have this. Still, AFS 2 has a solid graphics/lighting engine. It also runs at 60 FPS constantly which certainly helps. The loading times are between 1 and 5 seconds from an SSD. Since it is the year 2016, the sim is 64-bit as you would expect.

 

The aircraft look fine - not $50 payware quality, but they all have functioning cockpits and decent texturing. There's a decent selection of planes, although I would have liked some more GA twins and singles rather than fighters and aerobatic aircraft.

 

Scenery:

It uses satellite imagery combined with manually placed autogen around major cities/airports. Many large/medium sized airports are modeled, but most smaller fields are not.

One major issue is that the resolution of the satellite imagery quickly deteriorates away from major cities and airports. Sometimes, it looks like the original Fly! from the 1990's. The idea is that you will take off from one modeled airport, climb to 10,000 feet and then descend and land at your destination. No sightseeing. Technically the whole world is already available, but airports and high-resolution areas are only available in the southwestern US.

 

Weather

Pretty simple - just one visibility layer, one cumulus layer, one cirrus layer. No precipitation, but good wind/turbulence modeling (again, a solid 60 FPS helps here). The clouds look quite good and "puffy".

 

Systems / Interface

AFS 1 didn't have a single clickable knob or button in the cockpit. AFS 2 has working lighting, VOR, NDB, ILS and auto pilot. There doesn't seem to be a proper GPS being simulated, just a moving map. I would at least have liked a Direct To mode.

 

The user interface is clearly lifted straight from the mobile version. If you click the "?" in the Navigation screen, it even tells you to "tap" things. With a computer, we call it "clicking". There are other instances of HUGE buttons and sliders (adapted for touch on a 7" screen). Nothing wrong with using the mobile version as a basis, but they're going to have to re-design these screens. The Navigation screen in particular is extremely clunky to use.

 

The controls need some work. Mixture, differential braking and reverse thrust don't even seem to be implemented. There's no repeat function for the trim so you have to keep clicking the button about 100 times to get the right setting (or assign it to a keyboard key, where repeat works). The viewpoint is often too far back, making the instruments too small to read. There's no way to move the viewpoint forward, only zoom, which affects the FOV.

 

The price is definitely an issue. Early Access or not, I don't see how they think this is worth $50. It's closer to Flight School in its scope, and that sells for $15. This has more aircraft, but Flight School has the entire world, ATC, more detailed systems etc. Maybe it will be worth $50 in 2 years time, when it has more detailed modeling, more scenery, working ATC and AI traffic etc., but if they want to get people on board to provide feedback now, they will have to drop the price by at least half.

[barrel_owl 304]

Great review, JimmiG.

What about flight dynamics?

[dtrjones 356]

Give what a chance? It is what it is.

 

I'm sure enough people saw the current direction and decided it's not for them.

 

I understand your feelings and I'm sure some people made a mistake thinking this was something more like FSX.

 

I don't think it's fair to say "Give what a chance?". Many people will enjoy what it has to offer and some even prefer the megascenery packs in FSX to autogen objects. To be fair North California and Nevada look amazing in photographic scenery. IPACS have ambitions to make this more functionally rich but it may not happen for this release. That doesn't mean some will still not get enjoyment from the package as I'm sure there is fun to be had.

[Montie 124]

I do not see the price tag as an issue. This price tag might even insure that people buying into it sees it as an investment/commitment to a project, rather selling at a lower price tag and risk people just shelving the game and not go through with feedback.

[HiFlyer 9,361]

I think of all the flightsim related stuff like meshes, landclass products, Ai products, cloud and water products etc that I've purchased over the years, 85% of which I eventually warehoused, probably never to be used again, and can't see why I would suddenly be risk-shy with shelling out $50 for something different.

 

Heck, I put away P3D a long time ago and just this week finally got around to installing the latest version, which I'll probably only toy with because a full install of all addons and etc to get it up to snuff is so long and painful that I wanna cry just thinking about it.

 

Something I can just load up and fly that looks and acts good right from the start (no tweaking!) sounds pretty tasty at this juncture in sim-life.