Just flew AeroFly FS-2 OMG!

[Breeze 17]

My gawd...take off from KOAK...fly down to Monterrey ...and fly the approach over crystal clear and so immersion-loaded, land form....(the elevation terrain that we pay through the nose for, as 3rdP...is already here....mountains look fantastic...whether near Half Moon Bay...

 

Could someone post some screenshots of this area?  Since it's my backyard I would really be interested and appreciative of them.

 

Edit:  Maybe I should narrow this down a bit.  I'm particularly interested in Monterey, Monterey Bay, Moss Landing on Monterey Bay, Santa Cruz and Half Moon Bay.

[Korey Cokes 4]

The winner will be whoever nails large scale orthoimagery with autogen, that really is the world we live in, create a real world, the users and developers will follow

 

I do not see this OSM generated generic ticky-tacky sim-city stuff as all that realistic

[Pe11e 812]

Serious warning...

 

If you are very happy with either P3D or FSX...then do NOT purchase this sim.

 

Do NOT purchase the DLC of Switzerland or New York and area...this is the 'dark side', folks...this really is.....the dark side.   

 

That's all I'm gonna say.  I've been flying around Oakland, doing touch and go's...and I am ruined....

 

If you are happy with the status quo in your flight sims....don't download.  Don't install. Don't run.

 

You have been warned..... :wink:

 

I'm very happy with visuals in P3D (URP v1.0 Prologue incoming) but not so much regarding stability. Got Aerofly FS2 few months ago, did 3 flights, got bored and found myself running back to my P3D with wide open arms for a hug!  :smile: 

Immersion in Aerofly FS2 is not so good. I get the good visuals and photoreal, but the sounds, just nope. Modern flightsim title that uses all mono sounds is just wrong. Few times I thought that I didn't plugged properly my earphones.

When I enter P3D, and load A2A C172 or NGX with *cough* my soundpack, it is a completely different world of immersion, you are in the sim even without VR headset. Not to mention ATC, AI, complex weather, cloud shadows (Aerofly doesn't have that feature, not sure why), complex systems and study planes, unbeatable!

I'm seeing 200fps in Aerofly FS2 with GTX 1060, and found the number amazing, but to be honest that number is not relevant if I'm not enjoying.

 

But at the end I must agree, FS2 is the most promising sim out there. It just need a lot of work to be immersive and complex as P3D with mentioned addons, and that could take years.

 

Cheers

[HiFlyer 9,359]

It just need a lot of work to be immersive and complex as P3D with mentioned addons, and that could take years.

 

Of course, P3D took years to reach where it is, as well.

 

If we add in its FSX heritage, we're talking more than a decade.

 

At just a few months old, AF is a relative baby, so I'm willing to give it quite a bit of time and patience.

[Paraffin 2,197]

The winner will be whoever nails large scale orthoimagery with autogen, that really is the world we live in, create a real world, the users and developers will follow

 

I do not see this OSM generated generic ticky-tacky sim-city stuff as all that realistic

 

The advantage of OSM-generated scenery is that it's a reflection of the current real-world database, which is constantly updated. Better in Europe than USA, still sketchy in the rest of the world, but it's a free source of info for flight sim developers building autogen that reflects the real world. You can fly VFR in this kind of scenery because what you see is actually there in the real world, not a 5 or 10 year old photo. 

 

Generate terrain from orthophotos and that's just a historic snapshot. It doesn't change to reflect new construction, new roads, anything added after the photo was taken. Then you get conflicts where 3D autogen on top of orthophotos doesn't match, either in layout or colors.

 

My personal take on it, is that orthophotos served a purpose when computers weren't as powerful as they are now. We're at a point now where autogen may look a bit ticky-tacky, or Lego-like, but it's only really jarring when you fly over an area you know very well. And it's constantly improving. I just don't see a future for any sim that bases its primary scenery design on orthophotos. Just my opinion.

[HiFlyer 9,359]

See, the thing about "plausible" cities (so far) is that while they are cities, they're not particularly recognizable ones because generic cities ala' Xplane simply have little to no real life landmarks.

 

When I fly over a plausible version of New York, I see major buildings that honestly could be anywhere.

 

The only way I know its supposed to be New York (or wherever) is that I recognize the shape of the island.

 

This point isn't to denigrate OSM, which has a valuable place, but to point out that there's simply no perfect scenery solution, and that each comes with built-in compromises and weaknesses that can be overcome with diligence, but which will still have noticeable flaws for years to come.

 

Place an orthophoto below an Xplane city (I've done it) and you quickly see that much of the building placement is pretty much still imaginary. I myself tend not to "believe" in the "reality" of Xplane cities, whereas I accept high quality orthophotos (with autogen) very quickly.

 

I like Xplanes technology, but I've never believed it its world. I like Aeroflys world, but the technology is a WIP. (Hurry up orbx!)

 

So I'm not going to choose between them. HD's are cheap, after all, and my motherboard and case can fit eight of them!

[Paraffin 2,197]

Place an orthophoto below an Xplane city (I've done it) and you quickly see that much off the building placement is pretty much still imaginary. I myself tend not to "believe" in the "reality" of Xplane cities, whereas I accept high quality orthophotos (with autogen) very quickly.

 

Maybe we're back to what altitude we fly at?

 

I just don't understand how one can believe in a low-resolution, blurry orthophoto with squashed buildings when you get down low enough. I mean, look at this still frame below from the current Aerofly FS 2 promo video on their site. It's glaringly obvious where the paltry 3D objects are, and the rest is flattened, squashed buildings in an orthophoto:

 

 

 

 

This is the kind of thing we were putting up with 10 years ago. It requires a willing suspension of disbelief to think that's what the ground looks like in that image. Compare that to the XP11 shot in my earlier post. 

 

One other thing -- I haven't bought into the VR thing yet, I'm waiting for the 2nd gen headsets. But I recognize that this is a growing segment of the user base. Does anyone here think that flat low-resolution orthophotos are going to be good enough for the VR crowd? Or will they want to see something like that full 3D image I posted from XP11 earlier?

[HiFlyer 9,359]

I just don't understand how one can believe in a low-resolution, blurry orthophoto with squashed buildings when you get down low enough. I mean, look at this still frame below from the current Aerofly FS 2 promo video on their site. It's glaringly obvious where the paltry 3D objects are, and the rest is flattened, squashed buildings in an orthophoto:

 

Its perception, of course. I find Xplanes textures almost completely unbelievable. At least as unbelievable as Aeroflys Orthophotos at very low level. (there are always exceptions)

 

When I fly above Xplane I don't feel like I'm looking at a natural world because the textures the buildings are sitting on often seem just short of random to me and are very.... bland. With orthophotos I do, but at the cost that the resolution can be poor at low altitude. Again, compromises on both sides.

 

I've always had a love-hate relationship with orthophotos. They can be low quality once you're down in the weeds, and they historically have had very little Autogen in our legacy sims. (And what was there was most often almost laughably poorly placed)

 

Now Aerofly offers much higher (Orbx) quality Orthophotos in selected areas, and also has the potential to complete the missing link with autogen.... maybe even OSM or building footprint based. And do so fast enough for VR.

 

On the other hand Xplane has great Osm and lighting already, but for years I've looked at its textures and just gone.... Yuck. I thought MaxxXP was going to do something but the project seems to have been sidelined.

 

Technically Xplane is ahead, but I've never for a moment felt like I was flying in a natural world (except at night, which hides those textures) and the feeling must be fairly common considering how much "low resolution" photo scenery has been created to address the issue. And of Course, Orbx is causing excitement by offering to bring even more photo-scenery to that sim...........

 

But I doubt they can do much about the framerate.

 

Back and forth, back and forth.

 

No perfect sims.

 

I fly Xplane almost as a science project while I tweak this and that. I fly Aerofly for the sheer joy of looking out the window and... flying.

[Paraffin 2,197]

No perfect sims.

 

Agreed on that, anyway. All gripes aside, what we have now is amaaaazing, compared to where we started. In my case, on one of the early MSFS sims on the IBM PC in glorious CGA graphics. 

 

If we could see any of these screenshots, from any of these current sims back then, we wouldn't believe it could be done on a home computer. 

[jcomm 5,938]

I'm with the OP regarding the default open beta offer that AEFS2 provides.

 

I also like reading what I can of the configuration files, which shows very clear code and reveals to me a lot of potential should developers get really interested in it.

 

ORBX is, I believe Aerosoft too ( ? ), and LHC is yet another interested developer.

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Good quality, high resolution photoscenery with accurate autogen and lots of real world landmarks gets my vote every time. Generic scenery can look fairly good at times, but it can't match decent photographic images. I am not even going to waste my time arguing about "single moment snapshots", shadows, or lack of changing seasons. They are irrelevant to me when compared to the realism of the ground textures.

[Paraffin 2,197]

Good quality, high resolution photoscenery with accurate autogen and lots of real world landmarks gets my vote every time. Generic scenery can look fairly good at times, but it can't match decent photographic images. I am not even going to waste my time arguing about "single moment snapshots", shadows, or lack of changing seasons. They are irrelevant to me when compared to the realism of the ground textures.

 

Okay, but please take another look at the XP11 shot I posted earlier. That's autogen based on Open Street Map data, south of Seattle. That's what this area actually looks like! Those roads are where the real roads are, those buildings are roughly analogous to what's actually there. I know this because I live a couple hours away from Seattle and I've driven through this area. That bridge is in the right place. The cars are moving along the I5 Interstate (even more impressive at night).

 

It's not perfectly photorealistic; it needs more variety in house and building types, especially outside the USA. And I agree about landmarks. Seattle does at least have the Space Needle, but it could use more landmark buildings. Every major city could. But this represents my reality in the area I live in and fly over in a simulator. It's a darned sight more realistic than a flat photo when flying at low level.

[Christopher Low 5,353]

Note that I said "high resolution photoscenery with accurate autogen". That would remove the "flat" problem. I agree that your X-Plane 11 screenshot looks pretty good, but it is still artificial when compared to photographic images of the real world. I guess we all have different ideas of what "realism" means.

[tonywob 4,769]

I'm not a fan of autogen on generic textures either, but I also don't like flat orthos with no trees or buildings even more. As a GA flyer, having scenery that looks good at 2000ft is very important, and the only way I can achieve this is either via ORBX on P3D or generating orthos with 3D data in X-Plane myself. The ORBX approach still looks good in areas I don't know and despite the obvious problem such as roads going through textures, it looks better than unmatched autogen on generic textures, so no sim has got this quite right yet.

 

Aerofly is very much still a game for me at the moment. It's fun for a quick flight, but is not yet good enough as a serious flight simulator. It reminds me of the X-Plane mobile sim, which is good fun for a few minutes but it remains hard to keep interested. It really is no surprising it gets 100fps, since it is not simulating 3D roads, water, moving cars, autogen everywhere, etc. But it's a sim that is being actively developed and updated and a some point it's probably going to surprise us all.

[scotchegg 4,186]

Same here. Keeping a very close eye on its development, but need a few concerns addressed (which I'm sure they will be) before I buy.