Just flew AeroFly FS-2 OMG!

[Chock 17,769]

Well, as far as real flying is concerned, in comparison to what I've experienced in Aerofly, I think the flight model is pretty good, the Cessna seemed pretty much like the real thing to me (inasmuch as a sim on a PC monitor can be), it was certainly bang on the money in terms of power settings for various phases of flight. My real world flying tends to be in gliders, and I can tell you that Aerofly is pretty well set up for that, i.e., the varios and stuff have decent option settings and there is lift simulated, although I did notice that the spoiler arm key was buggy and in fact the last time I tried it, I could not get the spoilers to close on any of the gliders despite trying to assign various keys and controller axis variations, which made flying the things impossible. Hopefully they will sort that out.

[hangar 661]

Good to know, Alan...thanks for that!

[HiFlyer 9,359]

Good to know, Alan...thanks for that!

 

I had not replied previously, once I heard of your decision, since I agree that arguing back and forth is probably kind of silly.

 

I would however point out that Steam has an excellent return policy, which is to say you have the opportunity to demo the planes yourselves, as long as your total use remains under two hours before your decision to return or keep the product.

 

There's no question that this is all very much a work in progress, and opinions will vary, but I think myself that the developers are working hard to bring us a worthwhile sim if they are given a chance, and that the voices of more technically oriented simmers could be of enormous aid in the process.

 

I suspect even an outspoken critic of the program like J van E might be a bit more sanguine now, after joining the forum and actual contact with the developers.

 

This is just a suggestion, because if we want to see something in this sim, what could be more productive than engaging with the people making it?

 

It may or may not be worth your while to give Aerofly a try, as long as you remember these are default planes you are testing, and not the latest A2A!  :smile:

[hangar 661]

 

 

There's no question that this is all very much a work in progress, and opinions will vary, but I think myself that the developers are working hard to bring us a worthwhile sim if they are given a chance, and that the voices of more technically oriented simmers could be of enormous aid in the process.

 

Thanks for your input, all well understood and nothing there to argue about, believe me.

 

It's just that the information you're providing is not what I'm interested in for right NOW. I'm not looking for opinion on who likes it or believes in the project or not, or for what the devs have in mind for the future and all, etc. All of that is well and good and can certainly be alot of fun discussing at times.

 

But right now, in this thread, I was just looking for facts about what the title is actually capable of doing right NOW out of the box far as real world aircraft simulation, whether it be including or excluding real weather conditions in the process, etc

 

OH, ALSO! Thanks for the heads-up regarding Steam's return policy...been assuming however, that with a title such as this which may be rather complex, that 2 hours just isn't enough to really evaluate it for me and then I'd get stuck (which is all too common an occurrence :-).

 

My plan was to take advantage of that policy  AFTER my research had provided some concrete video evidence of what this puppy can do today, right now. But I still haven't really found anything based on actual numbers...whether it be good or bad. Kinda weird actually... but all I've been able to hear about is opinions not based on anything real. Typically when a new aircraft gets released around here you hear all sorts of comparisons to real world numbers or real world behaviors, etc... but for some reason I'm not finding any of that type of discussion happening with Aerofly. Perhaps I've just missed it or perhaps it doesn't exist, I dunno?

 

That's why all I can do for right now is to continue looking and keeping an eye out, I suppose.

 

Thanks again for sharing what you know, guys... much appreciated as always.

 

Will keep an eye out here for more concrete answers... might be best to start a new & smaller thread though, heh :-)

[Guest]

But right now, in this thread, I was just looking for facts about what the title is actually capable of doing right NOW out of the box far as real world aircraft simulation, whether it be including or excluding real weather conditions in the process, etc

 

Probably not exactly what you are looking for but did you read my topic? http://www.avsim.com/topic/501370-aerofly-fs-2-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ Don't stop after my OP because later on I am becoming more optimistic.

 

 

 

I suspect even an outspoken critic of the program like J van E might be a bit more sanguine now, after joining the forum and actual contact with the developers.

 

You bet! (I had to look up what sanguine meant first LOL :wink: ) I am getting happier day by day, it seams. I probably am repeating myself but I love how extremely quickly you can get things done (starting the program, loading a different plane, changing location, etc.) and the smoothness... don't get me started...! I am fully enjoying the positive side of this sim and the negatives (which are there) are not of importance anymore (at this moment). The contact and help of one of the devs on the official forum did indeed help a lot in this regard!

 

Basic as it is, I am thoroughly enjoying the default Airbus. It's (still) basic and some functions aren't implemented exactly as they should be (yet!) but there is enough that does work to keep me entertained. The scenery looks great at FL320 when it is passing by buttersmooth. Never has such a smooth Airbus experience. Yes, a certainly am more sanguine now.

 

EDIT

 

Testing the lights. The cockpit really looks very good!

 

 

Smooooooooth view out of the window. Loving the light and the shadows.

 

 

My goodness, I am beginning to sound like Mitch...!

[FlyIce 354]

I need to blame you for my soon to be gone $60 plus $20 DLCs plus the time I'm going to spend on FS2...

 

I loaded XP11 beta 5 on my shining new 7700K + Titan Pascal and it still runs like a crap. I have to find sth else to fly before XP11 finally fixes their beta. 

 

P3D needs a long and dreadful installation of everything and I don't really like its graphics any more after XP11, making the installation efforts even more unattractive. I may just as well sit and wait for the P3D v4 64bit to spend my labor.

 

So seems AF FS2 is a good choice to fill the gap..

[hangar 661]

 

 

Probably not exactly what you are looking for but did you read my topic? http://www.avsim.com...d-and-the-ugly/ Don't stop after my OP because later on I am becoming more optimistic.

 

No I haven't yet...thank you so much, will check it out!

[Guest]

I need to blame you for my soon to be gone $60 plus $20 DLCs plus the time I'm going to spend on FS2...

 

I loaded XP11 beta 5 on my shining new 7700K + Titan Pascal and it still runs like a crap. I have to find sth else to fly before XP11 finally fixes their beta.

 

P3D needs a long and dreadful installation of everything and I don't really like its graphics any more after XP11, making the installation efforts even more unattractive. I may just as well sit and wait for the P3D v4 64bit to spend my labor.

 

So seems AF FS2 is a good choice to fill the gap..

LOL

 

I have to say I also sort of fled to AFS2 because my other sims were lacking in various departments. Everytime I start them up I think 'Nah, let's go to AFS2'. I just can't get bothered anymore with the performance problems alone already.

 

BTW I would wait with buying the DLC until you decided if you actually like AFS2. Yes, I am a lot more positive now but I still think the NY DLC is mostly crap and Switzerland can be okay in places but it's different too. Afaik it is the old scenery from AFS1 and well, maybe it is too colorful in places and they used some technique to make forests look like forests that's different from the default US region. Looks a bit like another sim to me. I myself only fly in the default US right now. In fact I refunded the DLC...!

 

Scenery wise the sim, so also the default region, is still lacking a lot: IMHO it really needs Orbx (and other devs) to make it shine but until then it can be quite enjoyable anyway.

[hangar 661]

Jeroen...I did just read your post..thanks so much again...it actually does contain alot more of the sort of thing I was looking for, so much appreciated. I feel I have a much better understanding now of what Aerofly currently has on offer.

 

BTW - It was an interesting read and I find myself trying to read in-between the lines so to speak :-) Sounds as if you are using it/liking it more because you're tired of dealing with the same old issues that simming has been known for,  rather than because you feel it currently has so much to offer.

 

What you seem to like best about it is that a flight can be started and flown very quickly & easily without any fuss and without performance concerns...while I can understand this 110%, it doesn't really mean that you are happily satisfied with the Aerofly software...all it really means is that you are truly sick and tired of dealing with performance issues and other hassles of the older software...again completely understandable.

 

Thanks again, I appreciate all that time you took out in sharing your own experience with it. I may try it soon, but it doesn't sound like it will remain on my HD for all too long, in it's current form. That doesn't mean, however, that it never will :-)

[jjjallen 37]

I loaded XP11 beta 5 on my shining new 7700K + Titan Pascal and it still runs like a crap. I have to find sth else to fly before XP11 finally fixes their beta. 

LOL - I never could get any version to run correctly and it only takes a few minutes before its uninstalled.  I don't have the XP gene.

 

Cheers

jja

[FlyIce 354]

To be fair though, XP11 beta 2 runs great even on my 2500K + 980 and hooked me to XP11 pretty much instantly. If I started XP11 with beta3 or beta 5, I most likely had given up already. 

 

XP11 plus Ortho4XP scenery is heavenly, when I was in beta 2. Now with beta5 the fps is hell. Hard to believe LR could screw so much in performance from beta 2 to beta 5.  

[Guest]

Jeroen...I did just read your post..thanks so much again...it actually does contain alot more of the sort of thing I was looking for, so much appreciated. I feel I have a much better understanding now of what Aerofly currently has on offer.

 

BTW - It was an interesting read and I find myself trying to read in-between the lines so to speak :-) Sounds as if you are using it/liking it more because you're tired of dealing with the same old issues that simming has been known for, rather than because you feel it currently has so much to offer.

 

What you seem to like best about it is that a flight can be started and flown very quickly & easily without any fuss and without performance concerns...while I can understand this 110%, it doesn't really mean that you are happily satisfied with the Aerofly software...all it really means is that you are truly sick and tired of dealing with performance issues and other hassles of the older software...again completely understandable.

 

Thanks again, I appreciate all that time you took out in sharing your own experience with it. I may try it soon, but it doesn't sound like it will remain on my HD for all too long, in it's current form. That doesn't mean, however, that it never will :-)

 

You are very welcome. :wink:

 

What you say is kind of right but not entirely. :wink: I understand what you read between the lines and yes, the issues with other sims did indeed help to make me give Aerofly SF 2 a few more tries (otherwise I might have given up on AFS2 already) but at this moment I am certainly not using AFS2 just because of the issues the other sim have: I actually like the experience I am having more than the experience other sims give me, despite AFS2's shortcomings. Because of those shortcomings I do give my others sims a try every now and then but pretty quickly the shortcomings of THOSE sims drive my back again to AFS2 LOL

 

I definitely am happily satisfied with the Aerofly software! But that doesn't mean I am totally satisfied because obviously a LOT is missing in AFS2 (compared to other sims, that is).

 

Could well be that I repeated the same lines a bit too often, about performance, how quick everything works, etc. but that alone wouldn't satisfy me. I couldn't care less about all that if the experience was crap. Yes, I am missing a lot of things but what Aerofly DOES offer, it does very well. If I look past the issues in other sims and compare the actual flying itself and the looking-out-of-the-window (which for me is the reason why I keep on flying: the idea of being somewhere else) AFS2 delivers the goods. In spades. (And in specific area's and circumstances.) Due to the excellent performance and all that AFS2 does well it surpasses the other sims for me right now. What I 'seem to like best' is 'best' because it leads to a very enjoyable experience and that is what I actually like best!

 

While I am typing this I am really looking forward to the coming weekend in which I can do a bit more flying in AFS2: I wouldn't have that excited feeling if the software didn't actually satisfy me. :wink:

 

Of course this is very personal: it could well be the shortcomings of AFS2 will drive someone else to P3D or XP. :wink: As it is now I simply ENJOY AFS2 the most and hopefully my posts will help others to find the sim they enjoy the most too. Also take note that it could well be that after a while I really may feel the need to dive into deeper systems and fire up P3D to fly my Airbus there. I simply like to do what I enjoy the most at THIS moment. I feel no need to choose a sim and stick with only that one, even if I am getting bored with it. And btw even in P3D itself I often switched from system driver airliners to GA to trikes to VOR flying etc. In the end I am simply trying to have some fun and I will use any sim that suits my needs at any moment.

[Christopher Low 5,353]

I am currently enjoying landing approaches in the Learjet 45 at all of the runways and all of the airfields/airports in the South Western USA region. This plane seems to handle nicely in the air (although I have no idea how accurate it is), touchdown feels nice enough, and the sound of the thrust reversers is good (a very important feature for me)! However, I noticed that the plane "wobbles" slightly when it rolls to a stop. I have reported this on the IPACS forum, and the developer has commented that this issue will be addressed. It seems to suggest that the inertia is incorrect at very low speeds, since that "wobble" gives me the impression that the plane has no weight when it is standing still. I also noted the lack of nosegear compression on touchdown (and also under braking), but again this is something that will be corrected.

 

As for Jeroen's comments about the New York area, I tend to agree. I purchased it automatically with the simulator itself, but it is a much smaller area than the South Western USA region, and it seems like Manhattan and the surroundings are the only part of this region that are modelled in any great detail. It certainly looks very nice, but (on a personal level) I would prefer IPACS (and third party developers) to concentrate on "fleshing out" the South Western USA region to as high a level of detail as possible.

[Guest]

 

 

I would prefer IPACS (and third party developers) to concentrate on "fleshing out" the South Western USA region to as high a level of detail as possible.

 

And I tend to agree with this.  :wink: It's fine it IPACS or any dev chooses another (interesting) region as long as it has 'high a level of detail as possible'. I am happy to have read on the IPACS forum that adding more detail to the current default aircrafts has more priority than creating even more (incomplete) planes: I would like it if they did the same with the scenery: improve on what is there already. Of course I do understand the need for additional DLC for further funding of the sim... it must be a hard balancing act.

[torium 207]

I would prefer IPACS (and third party developers) to concentrate on "fleshing out" the South Western USA region to as high a level of detail as possible.

And - "I would prefer IPACS (and third party developers) to concentrate on "fleshing out" the - North Western - more specifically: Alaska, Britisk Columbia and Norway. These areas are not so demanding in terms of big cities (smaller number of 3D objects). 

Nice relaxation flying over wetlands, forests and between mountains etc.. Already dreaming.