Sign in to follow this  
motoadve

How can anyone complain?

Recommended Posts

Everyone wanted a next gen flightsim.

Its here its the start and only $50.

Is it finished? Not, but a good start.

I dont want to keep flying an old tech sim for 20 years, let the new one come alive!

Stop complaining , pay the $50 and see what the future will be like, no one is going to starve by spending $50.

Aerofly 2 has my support , feeling of flight is real good , which is important (real pilot here).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I fly FSX and P3D so I am definitely in the 20 year old sim camp, however, I do have one question.  Why is Aerofly the best option over XPlane ?  I thought XP was the new sim with 64 bit, great graphics, ongoing development, etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerofly 2 has my support , feeling of flight is real good

 

Aerofly 2 seems to be a replacement for MS Flight maybe.

 

But can it compete with FSX and P3D?

 

1. Is it 64 bit?

2. Is it as easy as P3D and FSX to add 3rd party addon sceneries?

3. Is it a globe with round earth topology?

4. Can we addon external weather, ATC, Airliners, Textures like REX etc ?

5. Does it make use of Multi core, multi Processor CPUs? 

6. IS it DX12?

7. Can we add UT AI traffic

8. Can it use FSUIPC for home cockpit?

9. Can we add EZDOK  (or does it come with its own stuff that we do not need EZDOK)

 

What is so good about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerofly 2 seems to be a replacement for MS Flight maybe.

 

But can it compete with FSX and P3D?

 

1. Is it 64 bit?

2. Is it as easy as P3D and FSX to add 3rd party addon sceneries?

3. Is it a globe with round earth topology?

4. Can we addon external weather, ATC, Airliners, Textures like REX etc ?

5. Does it make use of Multi core, multi Processor CPUs? 

6. IS it DX12?

7. Can we add UT AI traffic

8. Can it use FSUIPC for home cockpit?

9. Can we add EZDOK  (or does it come with its own stuff that we do not need EZDOK)

 

What is so good about it?

 

1) Yes, it's actually 64bit only, with no 32bit version available.

 

2) SDK Is available upon request, and at least one 3rd party has converted a plane. http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/aerofly-fs-2-sdk.437762/

 

3) Yes, its a globe. Part of the delay between FS1 and FS2 was changing the coordinate system to a fully round earth, as well as a lot of other things.

 

4) And that's part of the problem. How many years did it take for FSX to have those things? Aerofly is in early access, and has already been asked for everything under the sun. My reaction would be "dudes, are you serious? We've been out less than three months and are in early access! Ipacs answer is yup! Working on it! (Good for them)

 

I myself think its gonna be like feeding piranha! :wink:

 

5) Yes

 

6) Like X-plane, its OpenGL, and like Xplane, it's already on IOS and Android. A Mac version is planned.

 

7) See answer 4. Beyond that, Ipacs has expressed their willingness to work on AI, and has asked users on ideas of how to implement it. On another note, Pilotedge is working with them on ATC.

 

8) They have just completed support for saitek panels and the sim can send flight information to an external DLL or over a network connection. It can also receive new messages from the DLL or via network. Its currently not public yet. (I would point out that DTG sim will also not be using FSUIPC)

 

9) It uses its own camera mode internally, but has responded favorably to requests for other types of cameras views. Primarily Ipacs have been modifying cameras and views to deal with numerous requests from VR users. Here is one post on their forums about cameras and a reply from a developer: http://www.ipacs.de/forum/showthread.php/7477-This-is-how-I-d-like-to-see-aircraft-behave-in-FS2-external-views

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really impressed with AF2 (or should we call it FS2 or AFFS2?). How can we promote it more to the flight sim community?  I just posted in the P3D forum about how much better the VR experience is in FS2 (see-I mixed it up there) compared to FlyInside, as I've tried both.  There was an article in this month's PC Pilot, that's good. I'd love to see a developer add a core feature like real world weather (ATC too, although my hunch is that ipacs will add that themselves).  When that happens, it will show the enthusiasts that this is not just another Steam game but a flight sim platform for the future.

 

Still, AF2 may not need the support of flight sim enthusiasts to be successful and grow.  If it can continue with VR and other features that appeal to the masses (where's Slopey? We need AH2 for AF2!), it can grow its market share I think.  Then the developers will jump on board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerofly 2 seems to be a replacement for MS Flight maybe.

 

But can it compete with FSX and P3D?

 

1. Is it 64 bit?

2. Is it as easy as P3D and FSX to add 3rd party addon sceneries?

3. Is it a globe with round earth topology?

4. Can we addon external weather, ATC, Airliners, Textures like REX etc ?

5. Does it make use of Multi core, multi Processor CPUs? 

6. IS it DX12?

7. Can we add UT AI traffic

8. Can it use FSUIPC for home cockpit?

9. Can we add EZDOK  (or does it come with its own stuff that we do not need EZDOK)

 

What is so good about it?

 

I have a slightly different take on things. 

 

1. Is it 64 bit?

Yes

2. Is it as easy as P3D and FSX to add 3rd party addon sceneries?

It is easier than P3D but uses a similar tech to DTG direct scenery in FSX Steam in that it uses Steam to install sceneries. 

3. Is it a globe with round earth topology?

Yes, but most of the world isnt modeled. Only the South West US and Switzerland. Even in these areas, its not complete as many airports are not modeled at all. So you have most of the world that isn't usable. At its current pace, you will have to pay for the world one piece at a time. 

4. Can we addon external weather, ATC, Airliners, Textures like REX etc ?

Not at this time. They opened up an SDK for 3PD's but so far no notable ones have jumped on board.

5. Does it make use of Multi core, multi Processor CPUs? 

So far it is an amazing performer, but you have to recognize that in most of the coverage area its just flat photoreal. No way of telling how it performs with more fleshed out autogen. 

6. IS it DX12?

No. And I dont see this as a bad thing as DX12 is still only limited to Windows 10 and has its own restrictions. 

7. Can we add UT AI traffic

No. At this time there is no AI traffic at all and the liveries that exist are woefully outdated. 

8. Can it use FSUIPC for home cockpit?

No. At this time is doesnt have a competitor to Simconnect which would allow this customization. But the dev has been adding support for some basic Saitek hardware. 

9. Can we add EZDOK  (or does it come with its own stuff that we do not need EZDOK)

No. Again, the SDK may allow this, but the current camera system is severely limited.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've decided to jump on board. Currently waiting for the thing to download which will take about three hours.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange that no-one has asked how good the flight models are.

That, for me, is more important than most other things.

All these things...

 

1. Is it 64 bit? ----- NOT the holy grail

2. Is it as easy as P3D and FSX to add 3rd party addon sceneries? --- We are used to that, so addin to FSX & P3d have become 2nd nature!

3. Is it a globe with round earth topology? This matters, because?

4. Can we addon external weather, ATC, Airliners, Textures like REX etc ? 

5. Does it make use of Multi core, multi Processor CPUs? Does this make us fly better?

6. IS it DX12? Windows 10 only! & this matters because?

7. Can we add UT AI traffic UT is certainly not the Holy Grail, & I'm sure Aerofly is not compatible!

8. Can it use FSUIPC for home cockpit? FSUIPC not compatible!

9. Can we add EZDOK  (or does it come with its own stuff that we do not need EZDOK)

 

 

IMHO, it is irrelevant & useless to compare with FSX or P3D.

Aerofly, as we know, is a totally different sim, with no compatibility with anything else, & is unfinished at this stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


trange that no-one has asked how good the flight models are.
That, for me, is more important than most other things.

 

I'm not a real world pilot, but the ones who have tried it report that AF2 has the best flight modeling of any sim's default planes.  Of course, systems are somewhat limited, but that will come.  For instance, there is a mod now that allows a cold and dark start of the C172.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


For instance, there is a mod now that allows a cold and dark start of the C172.

 

Yes, we also have that mod in FS2004.

Now, I wonder how their C172 compares with the FS2004 or RealAir C172, the FSX version & the A2A C172?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we also have that mod in FS2004.

Now, I wonder how their C172 compares with the FS2004 or RealAir C172, the FSX version & the A2A C172?

I'll let pilots speak to the flight dynamics, but the reviews I've seen say better than FSX/P3D as far as capturing the true feeling of flight, turbulence, less "on rails", etc.  It's not fair to compare to A2A and other add-ons. The only fair comparison is to default planes.  For the variety and quality, AF2 is unsurpassed imo.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how real pilots, who are used to seats of their pants flying, with 360deg views, feedback with all their movements & controls, can compare real life flying to a static seat, a couple of 2 dimensional screens & possibly a gaming joystick or yoke (obviously not with the same scale of movement as the real thing)

 

However, having saying that, we had real pilots flying our Avro Shackleton & our AerMacchi MB326 sims, & they actually braced themselves on touchdown, even though our sims are static. Yes, our sims were tweaked with real pilot input when developed, & they do fly by the numbers, but what is happening with the pilots is more immersion, nor realism.

 

So, it is not wrong to compare quality between the sims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the flight model (real pilot)

I can clearly rmember after my first flight lesson landing thinking how terrible was the landing modeled in FSX compared to the real thing, I was very dissapointed at FSX.

 

Just tried X Plane

Aerofly and Prepar 3D

Same airport and the 172 SP 

 

Its about being immersive.

For an unfinished prduct its pretty good I will put Aerofly just a bit below A2A 172 for Prepar 3D which I think its real good, and X Plane 10 third place.

 

So it has a great future I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pointing out that the developer was well known, in response to your statement that no developers of note had jumped on board.

 

http://www.lionheartcreations.com/Q200.html

 

I dont know if I would call them well known. They make oddball GA aircraft, except the Lear that they made, I tried that Blade plane once and it was pretty horrible. Regardless, I guess its better than nothing. Would be more excited to see bigger names show some interest. But as he stated in that thread, the aircraft tools are non-existent at this time, so it may be a little while until devs can really get a feel of what is possible to develop in this platform. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if I would call them well known. They make oddball GA aircraft, except the Lear that they made, I tried that Blade plane once and it was pretty horrible. Regardless, I guess its better than nothing. Would be more excited to see bigger names show some interest. But as he stated in that thread, the aircraft tools are non-existent at this time, so it may be a little while until devs can really get a feel of what is possible to develop in this platform. 

 

I'd say pretty well known. Bill's been around a long time, and has developed some really decent aircraft. His Quest Kodiak used to be a very common recommendation in those 'What bush plane should I get?' threads. But, yes, he's perhaps not as well publicized as some of the larger developers.

 

Also, I'd be hesitant in calling either a Piper Pacer and Fairchild 24 oddball! :smile:  Some pretty classic GA there. Both of them are excellent releases, by the way - simple aircraft that are well done.

 

If he maintains his interest in AeroFly and manages to port any of his older releases, I'd jump on board pretty quick. My lack of doing so thus far is that simply I can't bring myself to get excited about any of the aircraft currently included with the sim. I thought about buying it just to show support, but it's kind of priced beyond my threshold of purchasing just for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say pretty well known. Bill's been around a long time, and has developed some really decent aircraft. His Quest Kodiak used to be a very common recommendation in those 'What bush plane should I get?' threads. But, yes, he's perhaps not as well publicized as some of the larger developers.

 

I know they have been around for a while. But I dont think anyone would put them in the ranks of A2A, PMDG, Majestic, Milviz, Aerosoft, RealAir, etc. If they aren't a top 5 dev, it would take a little more to make me jump head first into it. 

 

Regardless, I own AF2, enjoy it (especially in VR), and look forward to its future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this