Quote from the aerosoft steam community.

 

"We have already spent some time developing several systems. If you take a look at the Cessna 172 for example, almost all switches in the cockpit work (apart from the intercom and engine-cut off). You can even set the battery master off to kill all electronics or turn them off individually. People usually compare our default simulator with the payware add-ons that came 10 years after the initial release of FSX. Of course we don't have all that yet but I think we have quite a number of switches in the cockpits that do the appropriate thing. Autobrakes, autospoilers, LNAV, VNAV, cockpit lighting, external lights, thats most of the things that you see when you prepare the aircraft from a taxi to a takeoff state or from cruise to landing and so on.

 

I've spend the past seven years with the Aerofly RC and FS series and I can assure you, as a developer in the IPACS team, that in the Aerofly FS 2 almost every system could be implemented right now. The aircraft definition files can be edited with a text-editor and there is nothing really stopping you from implementing your own systems into existing default aircraft or with the release of the SDK, with your own aircraft. We just lack the man-power to simply throw out an update that adds every imaginable system there is. But I can't see a reason why it should not be possible to add increadible complex systems to the sim.

 

The SDK for the scenery is already out for evaluation, aircraft SDK is being prepared right now. With the project included in the SDK thrid party developers can connect to the simulator and read and write data to the core physics simulation. With this its possible to implement any feature that you see in other simulators.

There are a few things that we would like to implement ourselves first, so that not every third party development team has to redo the programming of complex physics elements such as hydraulics"

 

 

 

 

Alright Avsim let's get out there and get some stuff woriking!

The system depth is really the only thing holding me back from purchasing this. So, if there's a way to get the aircraft more realistic, I'll probably bite the bullet and get it! It's only a matter of time I suppose!

I don't care if the systems are not yet fully added. This sim is light-years ahead of any other flight simulator in terms of performance that it just doesn't matter for me. Nothing 'feels' as fluid as a sim that runs smoothly. Trust me, the moment you load this thing in game you'll see what I'm talking about. 

 

Quality addons from a2a simulations and PMDG would be incredible. 

 

 But taking a glider along the Alps beats anything flight wise I've ever experienced in a desktop sim. I 'feel' like I'm flying something no other sim ever did for me.

I do enjoy this sim, but am hoping for 3rd party developers to jump in with more detailed aircraft and airports.  Would also like to see more autogen around the airports approach and departure paths to add to the immersion.

@Z06z33,

     I was encouraged by IPACS Support to change the controller input to an "exponential" equation instead of linear so I could have more movement around center with less control surface (elevator) deflection and so I modified the tmd file like you mentioned. Of course, I looked around to see if I could decode other areas. It would really help to know the general layout and structure along with what functions/math we could add - a simple two page help file might be good to start with. I suppose this concept is a dual edged sword - particularly if you try to share modifications with other FS2 users. Also, anytime Aerofly makes a change to the tmd file, we users would have to redo our changes and hope we don't undo something that was improved or fixed. Still, it could be really fun if we turn certain features into a group development effort.

 

Thanks for a great sim - especially in VR

 

Dave