Just flew AeroFly FS-2 OMG!

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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

 

I also said in that same post:

 

 

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.

 

I would also point out that due to the very large size of the game (90+ GB) It can take people several days to download, or they may decide to download at another time, like over the weekend, so again, final numbers TBD.

 

By the way, the developer says that considering the fluctuations possible on titles under 30,000 the most accurate number to look for on such titles would be for (Owners) and for (Players total)

 

Developer: IPACS Publisher: IPACS 

Genre: Indie, Simulation, Early Access

Languages: English, German, French

Tags: Early Access (52), Simulation (47), Flight (29), Indie (27), Realistic (20), Open World (19), VR (7)

Category: Single-player, Partial Controller Support

Release date: May 19, 2016 

Price: $49.99 

Score rank: 41% Userscore: 76% Old userscore: 76% 

Owners: 19,248 ± 13,335

Players in the last 2 weeks: 4,812 ± 6,667 (25%)

Players total: 19,248 ± 13,335 (100%)

Peak concurrent players yesterday: 59

Playtime in the last 2 weeks: 00:21 (average) 00:21 (median) 

Playtime total: 04:54 (average) 07:03 (median) 

[Sethos 4,304]

I also said in that same post:

 

 

I would also point out that due to the very large size of the game (90+ GB) It can take people several days to download, or they may decide to download at another time, like over the weekend, so again, final numbers TBD.

 

Again, no other source backs up your claim. Plus, over 17.000 new players and all of them collectively spends days downloading, not even a small percentage has started the game yet? Think we're back to your source numbers being very, very inaccurate. A niche game like that, that's been seeing a tiny but steady increase in player numbers, does not suddenly gain 150% new players within a week when there's no sale, no reason for it to actually happen and no player activity numbers that back it up. That's when you should probably go "maybe there's another explanation".

 

But if you genuinely believe that's the case, then I can't do much about it.

[philmurfin 73]

It should at least be showing one extra user, me!

I have been into simming right through from FS4, I thought what I have now in XP11 with Photoscenerey and acurately placed buildings was going to be the ultimate, but now I think Aerofly could well change things? There's still a good way to go I can't yet fly over my own house in Aerofly as I can in XP11, but it may well happen soon. I hope this sim does well, it deserves to!

Phil

[Christopher Low 5,341]

I don't really care how many people have purchased AeroFly FS2, so long as it's enough to keep the developers busy with upgrades and improvements.

[hangar 661]

Enough already with the "my penis is bigger than yours" banter, sheesh you guys are killin' a perfectly good thread that's already way too big to follow as it is.

 

Anyone with a pilot's license fly this thing yet, that would like to contribute any thoughts pertaining to how good it's flight modeling might be?

[Sethos 4,304]

By the way, the developer says that considering the fluctuations possible on titles under 30,000 the most accurate number to look for on such titles would be for (Owners) and for (Players total)

 

Developer: IPACS Publisher: IPACS 

Genre: Indie, Simulation, Early Access

Languages: English, German, French

Tags: Early Access (52), Simulation (47), Flight (29), Indie (27), Realistic (20), Open World (19), VR (7)

Category: Single-player, Partial Controller Support

Release date: May 19, 2016 

Price: $49.99 

Score rank: 41% Userscore: 76% Old userscore: 76% 

Owners: 19,248 ± 13,335

Players in the last 2 weeks: 4,812 ± 6,667 (25%)

Players total: 19,248 ± 13,335 (100%)

Peak concurrent players yesterday: 59

Playtime in the last 2 weeks: 00:21 (average) 00:21 (median) 

Playtime total: 04:54 (average) 07:03 (median) 

 

And it already changed completely. Look at the owners numbers you posted initially. 

 

 

And now

 

 

Chart also just dropped from 29.500 to 19.200. So 10.000 players just refunded the game in a day? Those numbers are worthless

[HiFlyer 9,343]

150% new players within a week when there's no sale, no reason for it to actually happen and no player activity numbers that back it up. That's when you should probably go "maybe there's another explanation".

 

Myself, I would think that maybe the Orbx announcement combined with that very large thread that was on hanger chat for a while may have spurred a surge of interest, but who knows? Again, final numbers to be determined.

Enough already with the "my penis is bigger than yours" banter, sheesh you guys are killin' a perfectly good thread that's already way too big to follow as it is.

 

Anyone with a pilot's license fly this thing yet, that would like to contribute any thoughts pertaining to how good it's flight modeling might be?

 

Actually, my original post was simply to show that the last few weeks had possibly caused greater sales. My second post regarding that subject was to caution that the exact numbers were uncertain.

 

Anyone with a pilot's license fly this thing yet, that would like to contribute any thoughts pertaining to how good it's flight modeling might be?

 

Opinions vary, so far, from some who say the flight models are crap, to others who say they use it for practice of their real life planes. The cessna generally gets high marks.

[hangar 661]

Actually, my original post was simply to show that the last few weeks had possibly caused greater sales.

 

No offense intended regarding your curiosity about sales numbers but, other than 3rd party developers, who really cares?

 

I mean, I was attracted to this thread to learn about the new sim and how well it depicts flight and other info related to what customers are usually interested in discussing about something like this....not how many others are buying it...I can't base my buying decisions on how many sales they're getting.

 

Again, not to step on toes...but in such a long winded thread there's much more meaningful info to explore about the title than it's sales numbers.

 

...such as it's flight modeling...which has gotten zero attention here as far as anything concrete or detailed.

 

It's 25 flippin' pages about graphics, lol. I mean thank goodness someone in the thread at least mentioned that the sounds are less than stellar...that's good to know!

 

...so, what else is good or bad about it (other than graphics/scenery).

 

Also, in addition to it's flight modeling, why not talk more in depth about it's available navigation systems and what instrumentation can be used and what can not be used here?

 

...would just like to see this discussion get back on track is all, to keep it more useful.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

No offense intended regarding your curiosity about sales numbers but, other than 3rd party developers, who really cares?

 

But that's exactly the point. Without adequate sales, there are no third parties, so it's not irrelevant to point out that there appear to be enough sales to make supporting the sim a more viable option. Or to raise the possibility that the publicity of the last few weeks is having a positive affect, and may be beneficial for the future of the sim. The post was deliberate: I don't usually speak (well, mostly not) without trying to think it out from beginning to end, as to what I intend to convey and why, first.

[torium 207]

 

 

Anyone with a pilot's license fly this thing yet, that would like to contribute any thoughts pertaining to how good it's flight modeling might be?

From Steam forum, quote:

- " I actually had the opportunity to fly a Cessna a couple times from a local airfield. Flying the Cessna in this sim feels exactly like that. Simply amazing."

 

[hangar 661]

That's not even close to being a licensed pilot, but thank you just the same for that feedback.

 

Through some more research I have already found out what I needed to know and have decided to move on from this title. From what I was able to ascertain, from reliable sources, there is more arcade in this title than reality.

 

It's strong point seems to be creating beautiful views with a feeling of flight, but NOT simulating a real aircraft with accurate real world physics. Looks like a fabulous scenery simulator but that's not all I'm currently looking for in a new sim.

 

... will keep an eye out in case it becomes a serious contender for flight modeling & atmospherics  in the near future.

[torium 207]

From what I was able to ascertain, from reliable sources, there is more arcade in this title than reality.

Reliable sources? Who?

 

From Steam forum, quote:

- "Is Aerofly 2 a simulator or more like an arcade game?

Aerofly 2 puts its focus on extremly realisitic flight physics. All aircraft flies extremly close to their real counterparts. So in this respect its not an arcade flight simulator!"

 

"There are many pilots on here in the forum, and i'm one of them. The physics are IMO as close as you can get and the feel of the aliplanes are pretty close to what I have flown in real life."

 

 

It's strong point seems to be creating beautiful views with a feeling of flight, but NOT simulating a real aircraft with accurate real world physics.

From developer, quote:

 

- "Marc and I are in the flight simulator business now for over 18 years. We always liked programming and we were interested in physics, which is a good combination for developing flight simulators. I myself started programming at the age of 9 with the legendary TRS-80. We founded our company IPACS back in 1998 while studying physics at the university of Tübingen. We then decided to turn our hobby, flying radio controlled airplanes, helicopters and computer programming, into a living. Our physics background and the following doctoral degree in physics really helped us to create our first R/C flight simulator.

With the current version of Aerofly FS 2 you get very realistic flight dynamics."

 

Listen to HiFlyer: - "Opinions vary, so far, from some who say the flight models are crap, to others who say they use it for practice of their real life planes."  

[Christopher Low 5,341]

Some people simply are not prepar3d to believe that any other flight simulator can be as realistic as the one that they have chosen for entertai.......sorry, I mean professional flight training.

[Murmur 3,941]

From what I was able to ascertain, from reliable sources, there is more arcade in this title than reality.

 

It's strong point seems to be creating beautiful views with a feeling of flight, but NOT simulating a real aircraft with accurate real world physics.

What reliable sources?

 

I had a look at the flight model structure (SDK) for Aerofly FS 2, and apparently it is capable of reproducing realistic flight models, at least for GA aircrafts. It is a sort of blade element flight model, with additional variables to account for phenomena like propwash, control effectiveness, etc.

 

Of course, I presume that (as _ANY_ other flight simulator out there) creating a realistic flight model requires a capable and experienced designer.

 

That being said, AFAIK AeroflyFS 2 does not model compressible aerodynamics (so no accurate airliners), but developers said it's a planned feature. Also, I don't know any details on how it models atmosphere. But the flight model per se seems quite powerful.

[hangar 661]

Tell you what guys... instead of arguing on a forum about who said what, etc. and why you should believe person x over person y, why not just post your own personal but detailed video/data findings about the software then? (no one seems to be doing this)

 

In my own personal case, I am merely going by what was told to me by a couple of old colleagues of mine that I've stayed in touch with over the years from my old training days at FlightSafety KLGA, one of which is now a professional pilot and the other an engineer. Now, you can't blame someone for taking the word of 2 professionals that they've personally known for nearly 20 years over some printed words on an internet web page.

 

There's really no need to waste any time and patience arguing about this. If you feel the information that I've been given is not accurate and I should discount it then please, by all means, show me the numbers and proof in a video that you've either discovered or made yourself. I am more than willing to reconsider my own personal position about it if/when the data presented to me shows otherwise.

 

I've already stated earlier that I "will keep an eye out in case it becomes a serious contender for flight modeling & atmospherics  in the near future".

 

... but mere words, arguments and claims on a page don't suffice, obviously. Lets actually see some good numbers inside some good flight videos proving that it does this NOW. I've tried searching on Youtube for such proof and have not yet found anything detailed in this regard.

 

The search continues...