AeroFly FS 2, Lots of potential here

[HiFlyer 9,358]

P.S. In addition to the above: I am also a bit anxious to buy AFS2 just to support it because I have the idea not much was done with the first AFS version... Everyone who bought that one to 'support it' ended up having to buy AFS2. (And having to pay once more to get the AFS1 scenery into AFS2 as DLC... which I personally found quite odd!) I simply do wonder if AFS2 will evolve a lot before AFS3 will be released. I might be totally mistaken of course but well... just an additional thought.

 

I think the nearly frantic pace of updates and the unprecedented level of communication (Ipacs has previously appeared curiously inattentive in previous years as far as communicating with customers) speaks to a very determined drive both to succeed and to open a dialogue with the simulation, VR and other communities. I believe there have been 3 published updates in the last two weeks alone, A massive change from how the original Aerofly was handled.

 

Jcomms initial reaction was to return the product, but eventually he decided to engage the developers instead, and I think he's been rewarded and encouraged by their response.

 

I hope they reach a point where you find your concerns addressed as well.

[Guest]

Good to hear about that positive change, HiFlyer!

[HiFlyer 9,358]

Good to hear about that positive change, HiFlyer!

 

As you know, I actually have a thread keeping track, since things were moving so fast. And even that thread is incomplete, since there have been a number of unannounced patches and updates. http://www.avsim.com/topic/492465-aerofly-fs-2-update-thread/

 

There is also this from the developers. http://www.avsim.com/topic/494786-apparently-we-can-add-full-systems-modeling-to-aerofly-2-planes-ourselves/

[barrel_owl 304]

The key turning point for Aerofly FS2 will be if and when a major and respected developer will decide to create a quality addon. This itself might boost sales and probably convince the most skeptical minds.
If and when, of course.

[jcomm 5,916]

Appart from being 64 bit and very smooth on my old rig, even if without AI, or detailled weather or ATC, AEFS2 has the receipt for succes also in it's base flight dynamics model, and being opened to devs for further improvement is another great advantage.

[Murmur 3,941]

1) Has to have World coverage

2) Has to have exact Sun and Moon ephemeris and daylight rendering ( civil dusk and dawn twilights at least, even better is maritime...)

3) Has to have good navaid coverage Worldwide

 

Presently only 3 sims classify for me according to this basic requisites - FSX, P3D and ELITE. I am using only my good old ELITE, now in version 8.6 r50 and beta testing v9 :-)

 

And FlightGear, that is remarkable accurate in a lot of its features (no surprising, being an academic product) and having e.g. in addition:

 

1) air density depending on humidity

 

2) accurate instrumentations, e.g. the altimeter gives the same readings as the real one if there's a temperature deviation _OR_ if an erroneous QNH/QFE is set (something not true in FSX/P3D, don't know about Elite)

 

3) the most powerful and versatile flight model of them all (although it's hard to find good flight models, due to less developers compared to payware flight sims)

 

If it had the rendering engine of P3D, X-Plane, or AFS2, it would be the only flight sim I'd use

 

[jcomm 5,916]

And FlightGear, that is remarkable accurate in a lot of its features (no surprising, being an academic product) and having e.g. in addition:

 

1) air density depending on humidity

 

2) accurate instrumentations, e.g. the altimeter gives the same readings as the real one if there's a temperature deviation _OR_ if an erroneous QNH/QFE is set (something not true in FSX/P3D, don't know about Elite)

 

3) the most powerful and versatile flight model of them all (although it's hard to find good flight models, due to less developers compared to payware flight sims)

 

If it had the rendering engine of P3D, X-Plane, or AFS2, it would be the only flight sim I'd use

 

Very true about almost everything less proper daylight :-(

 

I found, to my dismay, this week, that just like X-Plane at least the present nightly version of FG fails miserably to reproduce proper daylight at the beginning / end of the day.

 

Tested at LPPT, at the beginning of civil twilight when it's still plenty of twilight to delay, for more than 30 min the automatic turn on of street lights, and it's already pitch dark in X-Plane, Aerowinx PSX and Flight Gear :-(

 

But I fully agree regarding the remaining items Murmur pointed out about Flight Gear.

 

As far as AEFS2 goes, I've been told that for now they do not simulate Moon phase, but ephemeris are being calculated. From the tests I run, and since there is presently no way to set the date ( only time of day, UTC, but which day ? ), I can't really tell for sure if it is correctly modelled. I tried advancing time through various days until the end of the month, and there's a jump in the Sun and Moon positions suggesting it's done only for a single month of the year ( probably June or July 2016 ? )...

 

Tested with ENSO, and used this:

 

"Not a way that easily translates into code, but I can show pictures of outside lighting here at LPPT, during civil twilight and how it is depicted in elite ifr.

 

I will post some shots taken from elite ifr at ENBO at the times of civil twilight, rise and sunset...

 

EDIT: according to ( http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/norway/bodo ) and for today September 6, 2016, we have

 

Civil Twilight: 02:51 - 03:50 UTC  and 18:08 - 19:07 UTC 

 

In ELITE v8.6, rw 07 on the first two shots for "dawn" civil twilight, and rw 25 for dusk civil twilight we have:

 

http://www.fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/GS5g  ( ENBOrw07-06SET16-0251UTC )

http://www.fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/GS5l  ( ENBOrw07-06SET16-0350UTC )

http://www.fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/GS5n  ( ENBOrw25-06SET16-1808 UTC)

http://www.fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/GS51 ( ENBOrw25-06SET16-1907UTC )"

[chelmo 42]

Well, I too have also requested a refund.

 

Clearly there is potential here. But it is not until you don't have things you take for granted, basically all the signs that you are part of a wider living world, that you realise how much they are an essential ingredient. My P3D is working extremely well (touch wood) so with limited simming time available the fact is I won't be using this. And I've also realised just why I ditched photo scenery from my old FSX install.

 

But I will continue to follow developments and may come back when it has more to offer.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

Photo scenery is not for everyone :-)

[Guest]

I do like photoreal, it is more realistic than generic textures, but ONLY with accurately placed autogen/3D objects on it. I do remember reading about the AFS2 devs looking at OpenStreetMap to automatically place autogen? That might make AFS2 a lot more interesting for me. I have no real problems with having only one season to fly in.

[MarkSC 122]

I do like photoreal, it is more realistic than generic textures, but ONLY with accurately placed autogen/3D objects on it. I do remember reading about the AFS2 devs looking at OpenStreetMap to automatically place autogen? That might make AFS2 a lot more interesting for me. I have no real problems with having only one season to fly in.

 

The devs have announced a scenery SDK (available on request while being tested) and will undoubtedly soon release it publicly so Steam Workshop and other outlets will be an option.  That will allow anyone who can use 3D Max (and possibly other 3D design tools) to add airports and autogen to their hearts' content.

[NATK50 8]

The devs have announced a scenery SDK (available on request while being tested) and will undoubtedly soon release it publicly so Steam Workshop and other outlets will be an option.  That will allow anyone who can use 3D Max (and possibly other 3D design tools) to add airports and autogen to their hearts' content.

So if companies like FlyTampa, Aerosoft etc. are still having their "what ever 3D Design Tool" ressources of their already released airports/scenerys, so they should be able to convert to Aerofly FS2 Format through the SDK of Aerofly?

[MarkSC 122]

So if companies like FlyTampa, Aerosoft etc. are still having their "what ever 3D Design Tool" ressources of their already released airports/scenerys, so they should be able to convert to Aerofly FS2 Format through the SDK of Aerofly?

I'm not a designer, but I would think it would be relatively easy for those who use 3Ds Max, which is most professionals. Here is what ipacs says:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/434030/discussions/0/351660338685554098/

[MarkSC 122]

A little evidence of how supportive these developers (IPACS) are: TrackHat was not working with AF2, even though AF2 does work with TrackIR.  Within a week of letting them know that on their forum, they contacted the developer of TrackHat, who released an update to OpenTrack that fixed the issue. Nice work by both developers!  

[HiFlyer 9,358]

A little evidence of how supportive these developers (IPACS) are: TrackHat was not working with AF2, even though AF2 does work with TrackIR.  Within a week of letting them know that on their forum, they contacted the developer of TrackHat, who released an update to OpenTrack that fixed the issue. Nice work by both developers!  

 

Yeah, I noticed that, and its not the only example. They really are trying hard.