What's so Special about Aerofly FS 2 ?...

[simmerhead 885]

Cool video!

 

Key to success will be adding some fidelity. Currently playability is limited. Flying in a dead world with aircraft without basic system simulation and flight dynamics will make it boring for most people pretty quickly - even those that just want to fly. If there is nothing happening, no FUN goals to achieve, it will be deleted from most players harddrives quickly. Most people don't have 100GB og harddrive space for something they never use.

[Murmur 3,941]

Don't get me wrong - I find the potential in Aerofly FS2 ex-aequo with DCS World and IL2 in as far as flight dynamics go, and with the advantage for me of being a civil sim,

 

Aerofly FS has very nice flight dynamics and its default aircrafts are better than MSFS or XP, but apparently they're not at an "engineering flight simulation" level.

 

For example, unless I missed it, looking at the SDK it doesn't seem to model the effect of rate of change of AoA on longitudinal dynamics (the same is true for X-Plane). This makes it troublesome to tune both short period frequency and damping at the same time. Of course 99,999% of users are (rightly so) not interested in this very marginal feature of the flight model, but from an engineering point of view it's something that is missing.

 

Also, IIRC they don't model compressible aerodynamics (subsonic and supersonic).

[jcomm 5,889]

Aerofly FS has very nice flight dynamics and its default aircrafts are better than MSFS or XP, but apparently they're not at an "engineering flight simulation" level.

 

For example, unless I missed it, looking at the SDK it doesn't seem to model the effect of rate of change of AoA on longitudinal dynamics (the same is true for X-Plane). This makes it troublesome to tune both short period frequency and damping at the same time. Of course 99,999% of users are (rightly so) not interested in this very marginal feature of the flight model, but from an engineering point of view it's something that is missing.

 

Also, IIRC they don't model compressible aerodynamics (subsonic and supersonic).

 

Yes, I got these and other ideas from a short hop into the "config" files (*).  Engine models also very limited ... But there's room for improvement. And yes they had acknowledged there being ( yet ) no transsonic or compressibility effects.

 

Excellent reference you made to those AoA effects, which appear to be modeled in DCS.

 

(*) You mean flow interference with fuselage and tail surfaces at higher AoA ?

[HiFlyer 9,343]

 IPACS Support

 

Mach "physics" is something we will consider in the future. We already bugged our main physics developer to add support for this. Wouldn't it be great one day to fly with the Concord in Aerofly FS?

[Murmur 3,941]

Yes I remember reading that some time ago. That's good. :smile:

[jymp 168]

Folks can like whatever sim they choose, but for me AFFS2 is by far the best looking sim, XP 11 P3D FSX whatever, the lighting, 3D planes, photorealistic scenery is almost perfect from Aerofly.

[rototom 198]

 

 

There is zero chance that in 2016 a regionally-limited flight simulator, perfect as it may be, becomes competitive with the major ones and attractive for a significant part of 3rd party developers.

 

This is actually amusing. Despite the fact that FSX/P3D gave you the whole world, most people have spend a fortune covering the whole world with ORBX and other scenery addons. You're going to pay for everything eventually. At this point you don't need the default scenery anymore. Simulator development should focus on core requirements that make it scalable and extendable with good performance. We really have to stop and think, old sims hold us back, so stop supporting the development of $150 addons for old clunky sims. I'm not going to buy an expensive sports car if all the roads are flooded with pot holes.

[Murmur 3,941]

This is actually amusing. Despite the fact that FSX/P3D gave you the whole world, most people have spend a fortune covering the whole world with ORBX and other scenery addons. You're going to pay for everything eventually. At this point you don't need the default scenery anymore. Simulator development should focus on core requirements that make it scalable and extendable with good performance. We really have to stop and think, old sims hold us back, so stop supporting the development of $150 addons for old clunky sims. I'm not going to buy an expensive sports car if all the roads are flooded with pot holes.

 

1) In my comment I made a lapsus, not thinking that AeroflyFS 2, differently from AeroflyFS 1, supports and models the whole earth (albeit at low res in the default scenery);

 

2) I'm not "supporting the development of $150 addons for old clunky sims"; infact, in X-Plane there are many freeware improvements and add-ons for scenery, so your comparison with FSX/P3D is limited;

 

3) A flight simulator _needs_ to model the whole earth and some kind of default scenery, if it wants to compete for serious market share; fortunately, AeroflyFS 2 does that.

[jkeye 150]

For VR flight which I use exclusively now

the smoothness and framerates and immersion are unmatched by any other existing sim.

Jay

[Christopher Low 5,332]

 

A flight simulator needs to model the whole earth and some kind of default scenery, if it wants to compete for serious market share

 

I don't agree with that. I suspect that there are a heck of a lot more flight simmers out there who just want to see incredibly realistic scenery in their flight simulator, and the only way that you are going to get that "out of the box" is if the developer concentrates on a smaller regional area with lots of detail (and the South Western USA region in AeroFly FS2 is easily large enough for that). Why does every flight simulator need to model the entire globe?. I see no logic in that statement at all.

[Murmur 3,941]

Why does every flight simulator need to model the entire globe?. I see no logic in that statement at all.

 

Because the majority of people in the flight sim community would not take into consideration a regional flight simulator. You might not agree with that, but that doesn't change reality. :smile:

[Guest]

Because the majority of people in the flight sim community would not take into consideration a regional flight simulator. You might not agree with that, but that doesn't change reality. :smile:

I also think it is a reality but it is an odd reality because that same majority mainly flies in regions. I don't need the entire world in my sim. I just need a few high quality regions. Even one would do. (And Aerofly does indeed cover the entire world but only in a rather useless manner.)

[Murmur 3,941]

I agree.

[jcomm 5,889]

I would be perfectly fine with just the Iberian Peninsula.

 

Last week I installed AEFS2, just the default USA and Switzerland. No high res pack.

 

If there was a high res pack for Iberian Peninsula, I would go for it only, even if it filled my SSD ...

 

After all, in ELITE, DCS, IL2 I fly single regions only, although I have the whole European regions for ELITE. When I was using other sims like FSX and X-Plane, and even Aerowinx PSX, I flew mainly only around Portugal because I really do not have the time, nor the patience to fly long range flights ....

 

But!  Night environment is lacking in AEFS2 - no lights other than in NY I believe, which I do not own.

 

Also, after a long while without playing it, the default C172 was a bit of a disappointment. The initial enthusiasm I felt when I first installed AEFS2 soon vanished as I started using most of the default aircraft and seeing how crudely their even most basic details are simulated, with the exceptions of the Extra 300, the gliders and somehow also the A320 even if far from being a precise FBW modelling ....

 

AEFS2 needs time, I know... and the potential is there, but it still lacks many many features that are standard in today's civil sims. They're coming along, I believe, and then, I will probably elect it as my civil sim :-)

[Guest]

Yes, it is a real shame the Dash has been postponed again...