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.

 

 

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?

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.    

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.

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.

Well.......... 

 

The forum was just full of ecstasy about Lionhearts Trinidad TB21 GT Turbo, and I think he's pretty well known...... http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/aerofly-fs-2-sdk.437762/

 

Looks like a Quickie in that thread, not a Trinidad

Looks like a Quickie in that thread, not a Trinidad

 

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 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. 

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.

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.