I guess we'll kindly have to ask our beloved addon-developers to contribute.

 

*Cough* Drzewiecki Design.......... *Cough Cough*  :ph34r:

 

Megascenery *ACHOO!*

*Cough* Drzewiecki Design.......... *Cough Cough*  :ph34r:

 

Yeah, maybe they could steal some more texture work from Vidan. 

Drzewiecki would be a good start indeed, even more as they already develop for several sims in parallel.

 

Maybe I will brave and just ask them ... to show there's a need.

 

DD Greater New York for AeroflyFS2 ... loving it.

 

Kind regards, Michael

Not sure but maybe I am missing something here. Is there any improvement to the avionics yet? If not, why does anyone care about additional sceneries? Unless you want to fly VFR only.

Even running this on my iPad was fun. I'll have to get the PC version next

Unless you want to fly VFR only.

That's what I do. Michael

 

 

That's what I do. Michael

 

Understand that this makes a few things easier but I have a hard time understanding why someone wanted to use advanced aircraft without AP/NAV. Flying around just for the fun of doing it is fine and I am doing this quite often. Yet, the absence of reasonable systems was the reason why I returned Aerofly. 

Why would we want MegaScenery Earth when they do such a bad job with coastlines and watermasking in FSX/P3D?

Understand that this makes a few things easier but I have a hard time understanding why someone wanted to use advanced aircraft without AP/NAV. Flying around just for the fun of doing it is fine and I am doing this quite often. Yet, the absence of reasonable systems was the reason why I returned Aerofly. 

 

This is early access and we should give them some time. There have been some improvements in your department, at least for the C172 by one of the associated developers

 

http://www.aerofly-sim.de/download/download-aeroflyfs2/af2_c172_download

 

And on Megascenery: Megascenery Earth Germany is just horrible and was one of my worst FS investments. Hard color transitions between tiles, Extended cloud fields South of Munich -  I definitely don't want this in AeroflyFS.

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

 

There have been some improvements in your department, at least for the C172 by one of the associated developers

 

Thank you for the heads up. This seems to point to the right direction. I agree that Aerofly deserves the benefit of the doubt and I seriously consider buying it again. My major concern is that they may be tempted to get stuck in an endless loop of visual DLC's. I'd say that starting off with so many aircraft and little systems was not the best strategy. But happy to see people move in and improve the aircraft.

 

 

I'd say that starting off with so many aircraft and little systems was not the best strategy.

 

Hey Hans, this philosophy sells content, "systems" sells far less content than visuals ... just the reality of the market.  So you entice more customers with visuals in the hope you get enough revenue to start building more complex systems support.  It's not a bad thing.  If they started the other way around "systems" first then "visuals" second, the project wouldn't get very far.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I'd say that starting off with so many aircraft and little systems was not the best strategy. But happy to see people move in and improve the aircraft.

 

This is exactly what you got when you bought your FSX and/or P3D version. In principle, a full worldwide simulator, actually something you would ever hardly use "as it is". There is not one single base aircraft there with in-depth systems, not to talk about sceneries, airports and all the rest.

 

In-depth systems require a lot of work and inevitably raise the cost of the base package. IPACS made a smart move weeks ago when they released an SDK. Now whether this will come to a development or not is uncertain. Much will depend on third party interest and the number of buyers.

Hey Hans, this philosophy sells content, "systems" sells far less content than visuals ... just the reality of the market.  So you entice more customers with visuals in the hope you get enough revenue to start building more complex systems support.  It's not a bad thing.  If they started the other way around "systems" first then "visuals" second, the project wouldn't get very far.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Makes sense and as I said I am willing to give it another try. After all, we are not shy of shelling money are we?

This is exactly what you got when you bought your FSX and/or P3D version. In principle, a full worldwide simulator, actually something you would ever hardly use "as it is". There is not one single base aircraft there with in-depth systems, not to talk about sceneries, airports and all the rest.

 

In-depth systems require a lot of work and inevitably raise the cost of the base package. IPACS made a smart move weeks ago when they released an SDK. Now whether this will come to a development or not is uncertain. Much will depend on third party interest and the number of buyers.

 

Not sure that I can agree on your first premise. A working GPS and map was always part of FSX/Prepar3D. And even more in XP where it's upgradeable with new data. But I do agree that it might be too much asked for a new player in the market.

 

Still, I believe the next step should not be another scenery DLC but an aircraft update. At least to make me curious and my wallet ready. 

Still, I believe the next step should not be another scenery DLC but an aircraft update. At least to make me curious and my wallet ready.

 

Users were requesting the scenery from Aerofly 1 be transferred over, and Ipacs was gracious enough to comply. It was one of the main things people had been asking for, since many people were not necessarily interested in flying only in the US.

 

In fact there are very strong calls for European coverage.

Can someone please show other areas like Oceania... NZ ... Australia..... South East Asia..... Pacific Islands like Fiji ... Tahiti etc... just curious as to what they look like, i`m def going to buy this.!!