Just flew AeroFly FS-2 OMG!

[jjjallen 37]

Does this Sim take advantages of SLI?

 

I have a pair of 970's

 

Thanks Michael Moe

 

Seems to work great 1070 x 2.  No muss no fuss just enable in the NVidia CP.

 

Regards

 jja

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

Only thing i would like to see like in x-Plane is real lights, not textures. Dynamic lights casting their light on objects, that's it.

[jjjallen 37]

If I could get a Hi-Fi / Rex Soft Clouds combo I would be happy.  The HI-FI Wx theme in FSX would be all I need.  No need for realtime.

 

Cheers

jja

[Paraffin 2,197]

Only thing i would like to see like in x-Plane is real lights, not textures. Dynamic lights casting their light on objects, that's it.

 

That might be possible around major airports, but I don't think you'll get the kind of worldwide street and building lights, car lights etc. you see in X-Plane in a sim this heavily focused on orthophotos. The whole point of X-Plane's nighttime environment is that you only see what is actually lit by individual sources. It doesn't blend well with night-lit orthophotos, especially at ground level.

 

Maybe Aerofly doesn't need it. The sim pilots interested in IFR/night flying already have good options for doing that. It may not be essential for the target market Aerofly is shooting for.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

My final two thoughts upon my use and sheer enjoyment of this flight sim, as is, and expected into the future, with updates, tweaking, etc by IPACS and 3rP involvement, is this quite frankly;

 

Until this sim, I have never had the ability to run a sim at as close to the realities of flying in the real world, and not by computer simulation of it, to produce an emotional response that you are truly in the aircraft of choice, and truly, flying over California, Nevada, Arizona.

 

This one does.

 

Secondly, that I have never had a sim that would produce a constant, non fluctuating FPS count, that is more than twice my monitor's actual ability to refresh the screen, therefore, knowing that there would be no technological lag of visual refresh to myself, to be situation-aware, and to translate that into finite and minute control of the aircraft in flight, or more critically, in cross wind, fly an accurate approach.

 

I thought, about the absolute OPTIMAL FPS, that should/must be maintained, so the tech before your eyes, will not filter/restrict true animation experience.  That of course as anybody would already know, this is not new breaking news...is 60 FPS, for most monitors in use, is 60 Mhz.

 

So, I had always thought, that if you got 25-30 FPS in your flight sim, that would be just fine.  What more could you really realize in visuals anyways...and oh...a lot of folks talk about that movies are shot at 30 FPS, blah, blah.

 

I found out, by actual use, not theory, not personal opinions of others, not conjecture...is that you DO need to maintain 60 FPS and not drop one FPS below that.  The difference between seeing visuals refresh at 30 times per second, and at true vsync 60 times screen refresh passes, is quite apparent in the animation input/output, how much control you actually are inputting to your simulated aircraft...and that I needed much more practice, at 60 FPS constant...important, constant, than I ever did even if I could maintain 30 FPS in a sim platform. 

 

There is such an amazing difference in the control of the aircraft, which is so apparent, in a hand-flown approach in either a G.A., or Big Iron simulation. How apparent, was in the capability of AF 2 to have approach aid green boxes that will align you (they do not control or influence YOUR control...) to the center line of the runway.  

 

In flying many AF2 hand-flown approaches in the 737 and varied G.A....60 FPS showed me, that I needed to gain the 'feel' of my Logitech Extreme stick, for I had so much more visual input now happening, and the ability to merely and barely move any of the axis of my stick, and effect movement control through all the control axis of flight.

 

I then flew an approach in P3D and XP11 of which I can at most generate a not-constant...it fluctuates...33 FPS at the most, but always fluctuates by the second, to a lower FPS count.  I flew approaches as I had always known...and saw immediatly the effect of half the visual screen update, or lower....sluggish control of the aircraft.  Also, that you can NOT see how badly you flew the approach because the screen is only updating at half the actual full ability of it to refresh.

 

On my first few flights inside the green approach/descent guide boxes, I was frankly, all over the place...and could not (this is with wind...cross wind...) keep a steady dead center 'bead' within the box. I had wind at about 70 percent of the slider max.  

 

I then immediately flew a similar scenario with P3D, at 33 FPS, and had no problem 'visualizing ' the plane to the numbers. The control was more 'coarse'...and forgiving, quite frankly.

 

As a result of those 60 FPS constant, or higher, if I choose to allow them higher in AF2, I have become a much better pilot, in hand-flown, and not system-control axis flight.  I now take great satisfaction, in keeping the plane in dead-center of those guide boxes as I shoot through them, in cross-wind, to the numbers.  I take great pleasure in that now.  I am a better pilot.  

 

So, does really, being able on your system, to generate a constant (no dips below) 60 FPS, or higher rise, important?  You bet it does.  Ignorance of this is not bliss.  Unless you can experience the true difference of full 60 Mhz visuals...(60 FPS or higher), then you are not getting every visual frame refresh, that your monitor is capable (in tech) to give you. 

 

So, glad that I purchased a sim that allows on my system, not only great visuals, but can give me every last drop of visual monitor refresh, that my tech allows for.  It is a world of difference, in your ability to minutely have the ability to make changes in your flight axis, up,down, left, or right of the glide path.

 

I simply can not generate 60 constant on any other sim I own, (FS9 excepted) with the level of simulation visuals that suspend disbelief that what you are seeing is not synthetic representations of the real world.

 

60 FPS, absolutely matters, to have available for visual screen refresh.  Absolutely.  Seen with my own eyes, and hand-eye/flight stick interaction.

 

Over and out.  For those that choose to try something new, experience something new, cool..for those that pass on by, cool as well. Doesn't affect my pleasure in this new platform, by any means, and I have no business to try and convince anybody  to move out beyond their flight simulation comfort zone, and experience for themselves, AeroFly 2.  

 

Cheers, and good flying to whatever fuels your plane...

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Well it seems more than a few are finding it in their comfort zone

 

[MarkSC 122]

Wow, can that be right? That large of a jump in one week?

[simmerhead 885]

The importance of FPS is underrated, but when you fly Prepar3D or FSX you have to lie to yourself to cope with all the shortcomings of the simulator.

 

It is a paradox of course. Our simulators and addons have never been better, yet we keep focusing on the faults. But hey, if we weren't biologically wired that way we would still be living in caves...

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Wow, can that be right? That large of a jump in one week?

 

To be fair, I've been researching Steamspy the last few months as I've followed the numbers, and the Steamspy developer has admitted that the numbers can be "wildly inaccurate" in any title with less than 30,000 users, so I take it all with a grain of salt (up or down) until the magic number is well and truly passed. 

 

The only thing that can be said with certainty is that the title has been subject to a growth spurt, final numbers to be determined.

[Sethos 4,336]

The steamcharts don't seem to be backing up that data. 

[HiFlyer 9,359]

The steamcharts don't seem to be backing up that data. 

 

Could you link that? The only Steamcharts I know of only give current player numbers online simultaneously on a given day, not numbers of copies purchased.

[hangar 661]

I have a request....

 

... for those who may have flown one of the included Aerofly2 aircraft types in real life, I would be very interested if some of you could offer some true insight into the accuracy of the flight modeling for some or any of the included aircraft here.

 

I did a search for flight modeling in the topic but nothing detailed came up other than folks mentioning how smooth it fly's.

 

This thread has tons of opinions regarding the graphics and which scenery looks best at which altitude, etc...but I don't see any real discussion about the accuracy of the flight modeling.

 

...so, would love to hear from some licensed pilots at least.

[Sethos 4,336]

Could you link that? The only Steamcharts I know of only give current player numbers online simultaneously on a given day, not numbers of copies purchased.

 

They show amount of active players, its gain etc. 

 

http://steamcharts.com/app/434030

 

If there was such a massive influx of players, it would also be seen on the steamcharts on the gains. It certainly does not reflect that whatsoever. Unless of course thousands and thousands of people just bought it, without actually starting it, which would seem odd.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

They show amount of active players, its gain etc. 

 

http://steamcharts.com/app/434030

 

If there was such a massive influx of players, it would also be seen on the steamcharts on the gains. It certainly does not reflect that whatsoever. Unless of course thousands and thousands of people just bought it, without actually starting it, which would seem odd.

 

Doesn't necessarily follow though.

 

Again, this is only showing how many people are playing simultaneously at any one time, (which has gone up) but it's (deliberately by Steam) not an indicator of very much else. For instance, out of the nearly hundred thousand people who have purchased Xplane10, you hardly ever see more than 200 on simultaneously at any given time, which kind of puts Aeroflys 79 into a slightly different perspective.

 

We'll have to see, with time.

[Sethos 4,336]

Doesn't necessarily follow though.

 

Again, this is only showing how many people are playing simultaneously at any one time, (which has gone up) but it's (deliberately by Steam) not an indicator of very much else. For instance, out of the nearly hundred thousand people who have purchased Xplane10, you hardly ever see more than 200 on simultaneously at any given time, which kind of puts Aeroflys 79 into a slightly different perspective.

 

We'll have to see, with time.

 

But you just stated the source is wildly inaccurate below 30.000. So your logics dictate, that the number of owners would go from around 12.000, to over 29.000 in a span of a week? a few days? and it wouldn't even register on the very accurate source that shows you how many players are playing it on average, peak players and overall gain? That would mean the game just saw an influx over 150% new players and basically no one actually started the game, at all. Unless there's some dodgy buying going on backstage, logic should quickly tell you that number you posted certainly falls under the "probably not accurate in the slightest" category.

 

When all the numbers actually add up and go hand in hand, then we'll talk