Are there seasons?  also does it become repetitive just like fsx when you are way out away from cities?

No season but I am frankly impressed by the overall feeling.

Sun reflection is awesome and so are the clouds and sky env., the photo-scenery is great with high detailed mesh, planes are handling OK, the GUI is very clear and smart and the sim is soooo smooth!

There is a lot of potential in this FS for sure and I really do not regret the $$ spent.

Thanks Mitch!

For once, I totally agree with you! :-))

 

Happy new Year all.

Does AF have a plane which simulates avionics? Are they planning to add road traffic? Real weather? Night textures? 3d night lights? All these features could affect FPS. The potential is definitely there, hope they add these features soon.

Does AF have a plane which simulates avionics? Are they planning to add road traffic? Real weather? Night textures? 3d night lights? All these features could affect FPS.

 

All true, but I think it depends on the framerate budget. In no current sim, no matter how much I turn it down until i'm essentially flying over a flat plain do I find myself getting 500/600fps like I get in open areas in AF.

 

That's quite a budget to draw down, and I find that even over New York, I can achieve over 200fps, which even with DD's New York in FSX and everything else turned to a minimum gets me at most 30fps (New york has been a pet-peeve of mine since I was born there)

 

There's also the fact that as a modern program, and native 64bit, AF already pushes a lot more of the load to the GPU than our current sims, leaving the CPU open for other important tasks like potentially AI, and other types of traffic as well as systems modeling.

 

The real answer is that probably nobody knows, but my personal opinion is that at the very least it could match, and more likely exceed current sims if given the chance to reach its full potential.

 

Jv over at Orbx summed it up this way:

 

Having that much fps overhead allows for the introduction of new systems and tech and much more detailed and sophisticated regions and airports, which is where Orbx comes in.

 

 

 

also does it become repetitive just like fsx when you are way out away from cities?

 

It is never repetitive like FSX because it uses photoscenery instead of generic textures. The South Western USA region is probably large enough to explore for months in a small GA plane. I loaded my plane at several of the more remote airfields in this region, and from ground level some of these airfields look a bit basic. However, if you take off and start flying around, you don't need to get to any great altitude to appreciate the resolution and quality of the photorealistic terrain textures. I expect the larger airports and airfields in the more densely populated areas to be a real treat to visit.

There isn't really anything to do except cruise around/land/takeoff

 

for now, it's fun to tool around the sky but for any serious flying - no way. I like it for what it is and look forward to what it could be but P3D is still my choice for any serious aviation.

 

Is this a fun, good looking fly around the sky and look at photo scenery in certain areas in simple planes experience?  Sure!  Is it even remotely close to what FSX/P3D/XP simulate?  Nope.

 

I find it ironic that most of us in the flightsim community (myself included) seem to have the priorities reversed.

 

If you think about it, the most important thing (by large) in simulating flying should be the strict visual aspect of it: the realism of the scenery, the realism of the general lighting, the realism in the smoothness and fluidity of movements, etc.

 

Then, after that, the physical realism of the flight model; the realism of a living world with other simulated people moving in the air and on the ground.

 

And then, way down on the list after all those things, the simulation of complex systems.

 

Now, don't misundertand me. I'm the first to say that flying a procedurally realistic IFR approach, or mastering the complex systems of an airliner, can be very rewarding and "funny" (let's be serious, everyone does those things because deep down, they're "funny" things to do for a flight sim enthusiast, on the face of the self-important "serious" term that is often used here).

 

Imagine a reversed situation. Imagine there would be a hypothetical "Acme Flight Sim" capable of 100% visual realism and smoothness in VR, but extremely basic in systems simulation.

 

And then imagine a post like this: "Yes, P3D (or whatever else complex flight sim) is fun to tool around switching buttons and managing the FMC, but for any serious flying - no way. The poor visual realism and low FPS does not make it a serious simulator for me. Acme Flight Sim is my choice for any serious simulation of flying. P3D is not even remotely close to the realistic feeling of flight that Acme Flight Sim can give me."

 

I repeat again, for me there's nothing wrong with being entertained shooting IFR approaches or managing complex aircrafts (I find it interesting too).

 

What I find disconcerting is that most people here consider those things as "more serious", or "more simulating", when compared to the "look and feel" aspect, that is instead considered as something that should be of way less importance for a "true" or "serious" flight simmer.

 

But they don't seem to understand that not only the two things are different and unrelated, but, if any, the "look and feel" aspect is indeed THE most important thing if one would have to objectively evaluate the capability of a flight sim to reproduce the actual, real feeling of flight.

 

To make my point, let me make an extreme example: flight simmer A is flying a very detailed simulation of a complex aircraft, with mediocre visuals, on a 2D monitor. Flight simmer B is flying an extremely simple (systems wise) aircraft, but using a flight simulator capable of 100% realistic visuals, at 100FPS, in VR.

 

Which one between the two simmers had experienced a closer feeling to what a real flying would have been like, in terms of overall sensations? Which one had done a more "realistic", or "serious", recreation of a flight? I'd say there's not even comparison between the two, although the first simmer might have enjoyed the simulation as much as the second one.

 

But this labeling that a "true" or "serious" simulations should only be the one focusing on complex systems modeling, I find it ridiculous.

Bravo, Murmur. One of the better posts in recent times.

I find it ironic that most of us in the flightsim community (myself included) seem to have the priorities reversed.

 

If you think about it, the most important thing (by large) in simulating flying should be the strict visual aspect of it: the realism of the scenery, the realism of the general lighting, the realism in the smoothness and fluidity of movements, etc.

 

Then, after that, the physical realism of the flight model; the realism of a living world with other simulated people moving in the air and on the ground.

 

And then, way down on the list after all those things, the simulation of complex systems.

 

Now, don't misundertand me. I'm the first to say that flying a procedurally realistic IFR approach, or mastering the complex systems of an airliner, can be very rewarding and "funny" (let's be serious, everyone does those things because deep down, they're "funny" things to do for a flight sim enthusiast, on the face of the self-important "serious" term that is often used here).

 

Imagine a reversed situation. Imagine there would be a hypothetical "Acme Flight Sim" capable of 100% visual realism and smoothness in VR, but extremely basic in systems simulation.

 

And then imagine a post like this: "Yes, P3D (or whatever else complex flight sim) is fun to tool around switching buttons and managing the FMC, but for any serious flying - no way. The poor visual realism and low FPS does not make it a serious simulator for me. Acme Flight Sim is my choice for any serious simulation of flying. P3D is not even remotely close to the realistic feeling of flight that Acme Flight Sim can give me."

 

I repeat again, for me there's nothing wrong with being entertained shooting IFR approaches or managing complex aircrafts (I find it interesting too).

 

What I find disconcerting is that most people here consider those things as "more serious", or "more simulating", when compared to the "look and feel" aspect, that is instead considered as something that should be of way less importance for a "true" or "serious" flight simmer.

 

But they don't seem to understand that not only the two things are different and unrelated, but, if any, the "look and feel" aspect is indeed THE most important thing if one would have to objectively evaluate the capability of a flight sim to reproduce the actual, real feeling of flight.

 

To make my point, let me make an extreme example: flight simmer A is flying a very detailed simulation of a complex aircraft, with mediocre visuals, on a 2D monitor. Flight simmer B is flying an extremely simple (systems wise) aircraft, but using a flight simulator capable of 100% realistic visuals, at 100FPS, in VR.

 

Which one between the two simmers had experienced a closer feeling to what a real flying would have been like, in terms of overall sensations? Which one had done a more "realistic", or "serious", recreation of a flight? I'd say there's not even comparison between the two, although the first simmer might have enjoyed the simulation as much as the second one.

 

But this labeling that a "true" or "serious" simulations should only be the one focusing on complex systems modeling, I find it ridiculous.

Sounds like Grand Theft Auto 5 is right up your alley then! Minimal to no systems to worry about, but absolutely gorgeous and smooth graphics in a fully modelled 3D living world! It even includes "flying lessons"! :-)

 

Edit: Give me Sim A in your example if I must choose just one. As a real life pilot and plane owner, nothing on a home Sim is actually like real life flying. Just too many sensations can't be physically simulated. But we all still love it.

Sounds like Grand Theft Auto 5 is right up your alley then! Minimal to no systems to worry about, but absolutely gorgeous and smooth graphics in a fully modelled 3D living world! It even includes "flying lessons"! :-)

You ended with a smiley, yes, but still, this totally misses the point that Murmur is making. But I think and hope you know that. Murmur is right and what he says is the reason I posted earlier on that it was a bit arrogant (also of me) to not call AFS2 a sim. Which doesn't mean I think is it a GOOD sim but that's another story.

Well he is quite right, i prefer visuals 1st (because I have played the DOS based flight sims and lot many games on the green monitor like Test Drive and it was wow at that time) now technology has evolved 100 folds so why not have visuals and then get the flight dynamics / systems. It's always a slight compromise  you get some and some you don't.  One thing we will never be satisfied and that drives us more. 

Well he is quite right, i prefer visuals 1st (because I have played the DOS based flight sims and lot many games on the green monitor like Test Drive and it was wow at that time) now technology has evolved 100 folds so why not have visuals and then get the flight dynamics / systems. It's always a slight compromise you get some and some you don't. One thing we will never be satisfied and that drives us more.

 

Same here. Visuals come before system depth for me. And I think this is the case for most simmers, even though some or most may say no to that. Even LM (P3D) sort of says how important visuals are because almost everything they have done with P3D had to do with visuals. (I can't come up with something that actually had to do with systems.) If systems are all you care about you would still be happy with green monitors or just flat 2D panels. I choose my sim based on how it looks and after that I start looking at the systems. (In the end it IS of course nice if you have something to do while you are enjoying the scenery... )

 

It is never repetitive like FSX because it uses photoscenery instead of generic textures. The South Western USA region is probably large enough to explore for months in a small GA plane. I loaded my plane at several of the more remote airfields in this region, and from ground level some of these airfields look a bit basic. However, if you take off and start flying around, you don't need to get to any great altitude to appreciate the resolution and quality of the photorealistic terrain textures. I expect the larger airports and airfields in the more densely populated areas to be a real treat to visit.

Take note though that AFS2 comes with only one region to fly above. DLC is available for two more regions, one quite big (Switzerland), and one smaller (NY). Outside of these three regions there isn't much to see (apart from very low res photoreal). The included region and Switzerland are indeed big enough to keep you busy with GA for a while. I myself spend (literally) years in one Orbx FTX region (PNW in FSX and Norway in P3D) so if you like the included region you should be able to keep yourself entertained for quite a while: I think the area in the US is about as large as an Orbx FTX region. But outside of these regions there is nothing to do (yet).

I used the Flight Unlimited 3 Seattle region (plus the FU2 San Francisco scenery) exclusively between 1999 and 2008, so I think I can handle being restricted to the much, much larger South Western USA region in AeroFly FS2. In fact, there was a time when I hoped that we would be able to extend the San Francisco region in FU3 so that we could fly to airports like Sacramento International and Stockton Metropolitan. Well, it looks like I am about to get the chance to do just that....and a lot more :wink:

What I find disconcerting is that most people here consider those things as "more serious", or "more simulating", when compared to the "look and feel" aspect, that is instead considered as something that should be of way less importance for a "true" or "serious" flight simmer.

 

But they don't seem to understand that not only the two things are different and unrelated, but, if any, the "look and feel" aspect is indeed THE most important thing if one would have to objectively evaluate the capability of a flight sim to reproduce the actual, real feeling of flight.

 

(snip)

 

But this labeling that a "true" or "serious" simulations should only be the one focusing on complex systems modeling, I find it ridiculous.

 

Let me begin by saying I agree with the overall sentiment here. I have always valued fast frame rates and the smooth feeling of bouyancy in the air, combined with realistic world modeling (including weather) over deep systems modeling. It's also probably a result of the real-world flights I've had as a commercial aerial photographer in various light planes and helicopters. I'd rather fly simpler GA planes and helicopters at low altitude and enjoy the scenery.

 

I do enjoy some deep systems once in a while in things like the X-Trident Bell 412, but even that doesn't get into all the minutiae of an airliner's systems. I fly the 412 because it gets me low and slow into interesting areas. The feeling of flight is just amazing in a good light GA plane or helicopter model with a fast frame rate over visually impressive scenery. That's what keeps me in this hobby.

 

However, it's not quite as simple a binary choice between preferring deep systems vs. "100% realistic visuals," because we can still differ in the personal interpretation of what "realistic visuals" actually means in practice.

 

For me, that doesn't include blurry textures at ground level, squashed buildings, and unrealistic lighting. Right now, Aerofly FS 2 doesn't even come close to satisfying what I look for in a realistic simulation, in both low-level resolution and weather modeling. I wouldn't go as far as calling it "not serious," but it's not serious enough for me in that respect. It's nothing to do with the lack of deep systems modeling.

 

So I guess we're back to "you can't satisfy everyone."  :smile:

I don't disagree with what Murmur is saying, I do believe that he has missed the point of SOME of the other posts however.

 

A "sim" is different things to different people. I tend to fly more IFR so I'm ot even seeing any scenery except for the airport and the clouds, so I could care less for the visuals. But when I just want to jump in an a/c and go fly and do some low and slow sightseeing I am now a "different" simmer. The person who only flies detailed complex systems, etc is just a credible and the low and slow sightseer. Then you have the real world pilots who just want to stay sharp, etc. None of these are "ridiculous".

 

My comments are observations not criticisms. If someone is NOT interested in scenery  etc, they should know what they are getting. It's called an informed decision.

 

Vic

It's called an informed decision.

I would only question how many times people have to be reminded. Even the videos I posted with people using the available systems should be informative as to what the current limitations are, and informed decision also includes a potential buyer doing due diligence, especially when the purchase price is apparently prohibitive.

 

Right now it's getting to the point as if I went onto the Xplane forum and (to help informed decision) reminded people every 6th post that there are no seasons, yet.

 

As an aside, there is an ongoing discussion on the Ipacs forum regarding a tutorial (possibly a video) using all the currently available systems on an example flight. Hopefully this might help people see what's what, and I'm encouraging them to get it done.

 

Beyond that, I guess I've gotten sensitive. I feel like i've seen this all before, beginning with FLIGHT.......

 

The "Is it a real sim" debate, just makes me go "Aigghhhhh!"

 

We recently went through a variation of this on the Steam forums with other FSX users, eventually leading to this plea from Aerofly:

ipacs aerofly [developer] Sep 20, 2016 @ 2:31am

 

Please everybody, stick to the initial topic. Do not post graphic issues here, open a new thread for this.

 

Is Aerofly a simulator or a game? Well it really depends on what people expect from a flight simulator. As it stands now Aerofly implements basic cockpit functionality for operating the auto pilot and navigational instruments, some airplanes already feature more simulated stuff. This will improve over time as we continuously update Aerofly FS 2.

 

Yes, Aerofly does not allow turning engines on and off and adjust mixture, but like we previously said, it is something we intend to add. But we need time for this, it's not implemented in a few weeks. Early Access is a great possibility for us to offer you a product while it's still being developed further. So if you buy Aerofly now, keep in mind its a work in progress, that's what Early Access is all about.