Totally illegal I guess... but I want to try it with F-15 at 1300 knots tonight... 

 

I don't know why but everytime I fire up FS2 I just couldn't help to blast through the scenery at the fastest speed I can and enjoy the incredible sensation of ultra high speed. 

 

In P3D or XP11 I'm very patient and content with 100 knots in C172...

 

Well I guess that's b/c FS2 is the only thing that can let you go 1300 knots a few feet above ground with *120 fps* locked and at *max graphics*. 

 

 

with *120 fps* locked and at *max graphics*.

 

While I'm a fan of the sim, lets not get carried away. The demand it puts on your system is quite small compared to FSX and X-plane because:

 

1. No water (water is just 2d imagery) and that's a big save on resources.

2. Most of what you see is 2d imagery which isn't that demanding.

3. No automotive traffic or anything really. It's a static world for the most part.

4. Because this is all ortho imagery, the roads are in the image and the sim doesn't draw road and rail networks.

5. Not a hugh amount of 3d autogen. Most of the 3d objects are in populated areas.

6. System modeling is mostly not there.

7. Weather is very basic.

 

If and when we start to see addons (and I hope we do) I think we'll see some additional cost in resources.

@rcboffa,

       I agree that there will be additional resources required for all the improvements - but lets separate the additional CPU math computing required (complex aircraft systems(Autopilot, FMC,electrical/hydraulic,...) modeling, AI (planes, trains, automobiles, people?) kinematics, ATC, Multiplayer, etc) from the 3D graphics computing needed - most of which can be done inside the GPU anymore. From what I have seen in FS2, IPACS are clearly some of the best flight sim coders around and they really know how to utilize multiple CPUs (4,6,8) that we have nowdays. So if they continue to impress, they will nicely handle all the additional computing requirements without slowing our precious FPS from that aspect. Now for 3D graphics, I don't understand your #2 comment about " Most of what you see is 2d imagery which isn't that demanding". FS2 already has more than most in terms of city buildings, terrain, and default airport definition plus with complex aircraft, like the Airbus, shows plenty of objects in detail inside the cockpit - but certainly not at the PMDG level. I do agree that water and especially clouds will need some seriously optimized GPU shader coding which has already been done pretty well by P3D so FS2 can do it as well and the newest GPUs next year will help with that. Also, more buildings are needed away from major cities and airports - but that is more of a modeling issue from some sort of a database (OSM etc) and not really a performance issue. Weather can run as a separate process with FS2 just providing the 3D graphic objects. Possibly, some of these additions can be developed by  the current excellent developers that provide for P3d/FSX and Xplane. I'm a VR flyer and with FS2, for the first time, am getting the FPS required (>200) for fluid flight - I don't want to lose even 10%. (Call me optimistic)

 

Totally illegal I guess... but I want to try it with F-15 at 1300 knots tonight...

 

....and impossible. No aircraft can do 1300 knots at sea level.

Let's hope it's not also possible in AEFS 2 :-)

 

Ah! They do not yet model Mach effects either!

F-15 in FS2 does go 1300 knots at seal level. Probably a bug.. but the speed feels GOOOOOOOOD... 

 

I used to play Flanker 2 and later DCS, but I'm too old to have fun with those missiles anymore.

 

 

I don't understand your #2 comment about " Most of what you see is 2d imagery which isn't that demanding". FS2 already has more than most in terms of city buildings, terrain, and default airport definition

 

I think airports and big city centers seem to be very well detailed, but there is a lot of 2d area from what I see. I find that in X-plane, it's the opposite. The airports are often bare but you'll see hundreds of houses and buildings covering cities. If I turn that off in X-plane, I'll get extremely high frame rates. I'm guessing (so I'll have to test this out) that if I install a couple of high quality airports in X-plane, turn off 3d auto-gen and water detail (if I can), I would see some pretty awesome frame rates.

I think airports and big city centers seem to be very well detailed, but there is a lot of 2d area from what I see. I find that in X-plane, it's the opposite. The airports are often bare but you'll see hundreds of houses and buildings covering cities. If I turn that off in X-plane, I'll get extremely high frame rates. I'm guessing (so I'll have to test this out) that if I install a couple of high quality airports in X-plane, turn off 3d auto-gen and water detail (if I can), I would see some pretty awesome frame rates.

 

Well, guess again. I tested this a week or so ago and XP11 fps didn't come close to AFS2. With every setting as low as possible in XP11 it didn't even get near fps in AFS2 with all settings ultra in a heavy airport. I posted a screenshot of it somewhere.

Well yesterday I was flying over Crete orthophoto L17 full of trees and with roads crowded with traffic at 90-120 FPS. But didn't try in a fighter, only C172. Honestly I don't see the point to use a fighter outside a mil sim like DCS. Anyway the New York movie is quite impressive but what to do after a couple of flights between skyscrapers. Most of Aerofly FS2 steam buyers should think the same looking at user stats (but maybe it's the same for any other sim out there since we have no stats for Prepare or Xplane).

 

I don't waste 50 euro to feel the thrill of a run at 200 FPS when AF2 doesn't have the same stuff I currently miss in XP, that is a good offline ATC+AI. Who knows, maybe in a year or more...

If I turn that off in X-plane, I'll get extremely high frame rates. I'm guessing (so I'll have to test this out) that if I install a couple of high quality airports in X-plane, turn off 3d auto-gen and water detail (if I can), I would see some pretty awesome frame rates.

 

Unfortunately not. Except for the ground textures, I do kind of like X Plane, especially now with the changes in Xplane 11, but what you mentioned is actually one of the first experiments I tried, and I've repeated it several times with various resolutions, AA settings, etc.

 

Even with nothing at all running but Drzewiecki Designs New York, you don't get those types of framerates. Fortunately for Xplane, 30fps can be very smooth, but I do wonder sometimes if it will be able to keep up in the age of VR, when 90fps is the minimum recommended for an HMD.

 

Flyinside is doing wonders in that regard, but ASW/ATW can only go so far in making lower framerates appear smoother.

 

Users of Aerofly know that with an equivalent machine, over a similarly barren landscape as what you see when turning Xplane to absolute minimum, you can get 600fps or more, which is why I think that even with its weaker systems depth, Aerofly will likely be the sim for VR for quite a while into the foreseeable future, which is one of the reasons I think Orbx has hopped on board. VFR/VR. (Definitely not systems depth)

 

If they can succeed in filling out the world, and still keep VR acceptable framerates, I think people will come. We'll have to see.

 

All the above isn't a dig at Xplane, though I suspect some will see it as such, but simply the reality of a modern sim being able to offload a lot of the graphics burden to the GPU, freeing up the CPU to do other things, like the tasty systems modeling that some prioritize over other concerns. P3D is even now in the process of converting ESP to hand off more of that burden to the GPU, with good results, and I'm sure Xplane is doing the same.

 

Right now Aerofly does have an inside track on higher fps though, in that it's been designed from the ground up to take best advantage of modern hardware, which takes me back to what JV said on the Orbx forum: 

 

Having that much fps overhead allows for the introduction of new systems and tech and much more detailed and sophisticated regions and airports, which is where Orbx comes in.

 

Thanks, good info..

 

On another note, I will say that I was impressed with the hardware detection. The fact that my Saitek radio panel worked and was recognized by the sim is attention to detail. Always nice when you don't have to rely on 3rd party drivers.

 

Nice! Looks quite realistic compared to videos of real spins.

10 $ this will make Jcomm reinstall AFS2 (for some weeks).

He already has, in preparation for Innsbruck. 

I just thought this vid was a good shot across the bow for those simply assuming that Aeroflys flight modeling is nonexistent just because they heard somebody somewhere say that.

Which reminds me: I should install that plane: seems a great plane to explore LOWI with. Pity AFS2 doesn't have a trike yet.