I am really considering giving this a try based on your posts. I have version 1 which I like very much, but it is very limited. This seems to have far greater scope and some terrific scenery to explore, plus with Orbx onboard (assuming they stick with it) this has some great potential to become a major force in our little world. Your screens look great Ses, although I have some issue with the lighting on the clouds when the sun is low. Otherwise the visuals look great and that is the main consideration for me.

 

 

I've always thought that after releasing AF1, the developers took on board some of the criticism at the time (no worldwide coverage, no systems etc) and addressed them, laying out a new sim with the foundations for growth. Of course, some want that growth to have happened on day one, but catching up to the decades of development enjoyed by other sims right away was never a realistic scenario, especially for a small team.

 

Hopefully with the help of Orbx and possibly others, things will be accelerated quite a bit.

I've always thought that after releasing AF1, the developers took on board some of the criticism at the time (no worldwide coverage, no systems etc) and addressed them, laying out a new sim with the foundations for growth. Of course, some want that growth to have happened on day one, but catching up to the decades of development enjoyed by other sims right away was never a realistic scenario, especially for a small team.

 

Hopefully with the help of Orbx and possibly others, things will be accelerated quite a bit.

 

Looking fwd into it - specially now that ORBX will be more time available for AEFS2 :-)

Looking fwd into it - specially now that ORBX will be more time available for AEFS2 :-)

 

Not just Orbx. I think the comfy, decade-long status quo is about to get a much needed shakeup: http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/aerofly-flight-simulator-looking-for-developers.439052/#post-761698

People talk about additional regions for AeroFly FS2, but to be perfectly honest.....what I would like to see is IPACS concentrate on making the South Western USA region as detailed as possible. What I want to see are lots of realistic autogen trees and buildings (both in density and placement), an electricity pylon network with substations (I really enjoyed researching and adding these in the Flight Unlimited 3 San Francisco and Seattle high resolution scenery regions; thanks to Jon Point for his excellent 3D models), and plenty of 3D landmarks like bridges, sports stadiums, oil terminals, wind turbines, radio towers, fire lookout towers, water towers, and marinas. A solid ATC system is essential, together with realistic AI planes and flightplans (realistic in the sense of routes as opposed to exact copies of real world schedules). AeroFly FS2 seems to have plenty of power in reserve to handle these improvements and upgrades.

 

Like I keep saying, we do not need another global flight simulator. We need one that can render a large enough area (and the South Western USA region ticks that box as far as I am concerned) in superb detail. What we need is Flight Unlimited : The Next Generation :wink:

 

 

I think the comfy, decade-long status quo is about to get a much needed shakeup

 

With this, P3Dv4 and the new Dovetail sim we are being spoiled.

 

AF FS2 could end up top of the tree with the right people helping with development and support from 3rd parties.

While I applaud all the positive comments, and yes, I use it and like it, at THIS stage it is a ways away from shaking up the status quo. I wouldn't even consider it in the "immediate" future. Down the road? You bet! But I hardly see anyone ready to drop their P3D , FSX or XP on a full time basis. I don't say that as a negative, it's just a fact. it takes TIME to develop something like this but they sure appear to be on the right track, IMHO.

 

Vic

 

I am really considering giving this a try based on your posts. I have version 1 which I like very much, but it is very limited. This seems to have far greater scope and some terrific scenery to explore, plus with Orbx onboard (assuming they stick with it) this has some great potential to become a major force in our little world. Your screens look great Ses, although I have some issue with the lighting on the clouds when the sun is low. Otherwise the visuals look great and that is the main consideration for me.

 

Hi Novation,

 

Well, I can't speak for AF1, as I only entered the franchise at AF2, but having typed that,  AF2 and beyond, will be my chosen VFR flight simulator.  I realize, that I am not a deep-system cockpit flyer.  I frankly end up getting bored with all my attention in the cockpit, and end up shutting down whatever sim I am in.  

 

My love of flight, is the er...well...until they can have an affordable motion chair...(large smile), the visual experience.  I had a friend of many years, a corporate pilot, who regularly took me up for check flights in the company's King Air, and I have flown many right seat trips over Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, etc.  He was based out of Michigan, and quite frankly, you would not believe how fast you can traverse a state line, at 200 knots, real life!

 

Lots of flight checks, actually revolve around pressurization integrity.  Windows getting replaced, or re-set, etc...and we would go up for an hour or so.  I will never forget those experiences, and THAT is where my love of VFR....or  'the flight tourist' is founded. I can enjoy a flight merely as a right seat, or cabin passenger....just rotating, and watching the ground elements, get smaller, and smaller, as you gain altitude, is enough of a thrill for myself.  

 

And, yes...I have taken control (with him sitting, ready to re-gain control) of a real King Air...and they are an absolute Beaut.  I'm right there, in the moment, each and every time I take the King Air up in AeroFly 2, at 120 FPS!  I'm right there, in the moment, again, Novation!

 

So...that is why I went OMG!, when I took the King Air up for the first time at 120 FPS.  You see, I have never achieved that FPS constant, at any time, with either FSX/P3D, or XP10/11, even when taking the sim down to 'boring'.  This was/is a 'simulation/my system', first.  Modern non ESP or present XP engines, in play?

 

I also, (a first) have never had veritus-scenery (photo-scenery) before.  Never bought it for either FSX, or P3D.  I know that HL James has made it his 'view' of choice, but I did not follow that course.

 

Therefore, this (AeroFly2) is a first time experience, with horizon-to-horizion, coverage and viewmanship.

 

(Please forgive me, but I feel 'chatty' today...bear with me, lol....)

 

Only after having flown many, many hours now (I bought AF2, about a week ago now, or just before this thread creation....coming here to express my sheer amazement and joy, was probably one of the first things post-purchase and DLC download...), did I realize that I am totally...and no apologizes to anybody...deep-systems guys and gals, whatever...lol, a visual-orientated flight simulation enthusiast.  I want the senses, visual, perhaps physical (when affordable tech comes our way...), stimulated, much more so, than visual T-cross scanning and adjusting of in-flight main and sub-system panels.

 

So...(I know, there are a lot of 'So's' in this post today, ...) when I saw that, at least for now,   AeroFly 2 is a very strong visual-cue flight experience, I knew right then, that I was going to make this a major installation on my system, and financial support thereof.

 

Novation,  on that flight from the coast, to Redding, yesterday, in real time...(I was up for about 3 hours straight, and no crashes, no OOM's, just sheer FPS performance, never wavering, never dipping, just sheer FPS stability...)  I had more disbelief-head-shaking moments in that flight, than much looking into the past.  

 

Novation, the flight felt so real...I felt back in my right hand seat of my friend's company King Air. I felt 'we' were floating upon the air currents...and yes, there are winds aloft, and currents, thermals, present right now, modeled.  I felt right back there in that moment...and that was the 'sheer joy' I felt compelled to share with you all, in that Screen Shot Forum post.

 

I have no intention of adbandoning any of my other sims on my system at present,  FS9.9, P3D v3.4.5,XP 10 and 11 beta, and now AF2.  I deleted P3D v2.4 to gain the hard drive in anticipation of building my DLC content for AF2, as it becomes available, and for performance considerations.  The Velociraptor runs at 10,000 RPM, and is a great hard drive base for constant real and load of flight sim scenery files.  P3D and XP 10/11 also share one Velociraptor.

 

So..yeah..another 'so', if you are still with me here...is that AF2 and later versions, will become my VFR sim-of-choice, with all the others, as a general, do-all-expectation flight bases.

 

Final typed thought to share with you, my friend...is that in my humble opinion,  AF2 gives me the greatest re-call of all the memories of my real-world interactions (and there were many flights over the years, until his retirement) in how things looked below us, at 5,500 feet and above, about how the plane moved, with the slightest (I would watch his hands and feet upon the flight controls) movement, or pressure point from his hands, or feet,...and I can, right now recreate that instantaneous smooth and creamy movement within AF2. I can NOT create this 'liquid' movement in any other sim, even FS9...it is that quick, the interaction between my Logitech Extreme, and AF2 control sub-routines.

 

I hope that I have shared greater insight, as to my OMG!  title, when first coming here after my initial Ultra Setting King  Air inaugural flight.

 

Novation...I was back in the co-pilot's seat with my dear friend, Bob...  It's too bad that he has passed on, for he would have LOVED  AF2...and I'll have to tell ya...you probably could not pull it out of his yoke-holding hands....  He was a consummate IFR corporate pilot, for over 24 years, but, (he always told me...) his true joy of flight, was taking a 2,800-3,500 foot flight either in the King Air, or a rented Cessna 182 and be, the visual aviation 'tourist'.  

 

I have to say, that that rubbed off on me, over the years...and for myself at least, as a flight sim enthsiast,  VISUAL content, is the apex of my enjoyment.  That's why I am so heavily invested within FSX (DX10) and P3D, in Orbx catalog.

 

If Orbx brings added visual highlights, to AF2, and I hope to see the beginning of that in this coming June, (hopefully)...I will keep stroking John V`s bank account, as I build up IPAC`s, Orbx, and other 3rdP content, within the AeroFly visual/graphics engine.  Absolutely.

 

AeroFly 2 and versions-beyond, is now my Default Sim.  Whenever Bob and I want to escape the realities of life...and take to the sky, over real veritus mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, citites, towns, villas...as we did in real life.  

 

"Bob...I'm about to take the AeroFly 2 King Air up for a spin..and oh...YOU get to sit in the right-hand seat on this one!"

 

Cheers, Novation, buy it...you will love it...

 

Mitch (and Bob)...he's giving you the thumb's up, from THE RIGHT HAND SEAT!   :wink: 

While I applaud all the positive comments, and yes, I use it and like it, at THIS stage it is a ways away from shaking up the status quo. I wouldn't even consider it in the "immediate" future. Down the road? You bet! But I hardly see anyone ready to drop their P3D , FSX or XP on a full time basis. I don't say that as a negative, it's just a fact. it takes TIME to develop something like this but they sure appear to be on the right track, IMHO.

 

Vic

 

For me, just finally having a modern, fast, natively 64bit engine available is a broadside across the bow. Getting recognition from a "large player" like Orbx also brings some needed credibility, at a time when it seemed to me almost as if the program was being dismissed out-of-hand from serious consideration on the various competing forums of a worldwide community that had/has become almost completely FSX-centric.

 

This thread is an exception to the general rule regarding coverage of Aerofly on the various forums. (Except the treads I myself started in just about every one I'm a member of....) 

 

Time? Yes Aerofly definitely needs that and I've said it repeatedly; but what it almost needed even more was to break through the benign neglect that might not even have given it a chance to prove itself.

 

It's on the radar, now.

at THIS stage

 

 

Well yes. I think the main benefit of the AF FS2 platform is the engine, which seems to have a lot of resources to spare. The potential IS there, but it will need help and support, and yes, time.

 

 

Cheers, Novation, buy it...you will love it...

 

 

I'm going to Mitch

 

I've always been a photscenery fan, so this is right up my street (although its its not currently on there ) even if it does have some limitations at this point in time. Virtual flying, unless you have a full motion simulator, is always going to be very far removed from the real thing, so its important to have that stimulation input from other sources, and that is mostly visual. This seems to deliver in spades in that regard, even if the systems and depth are lacking currently. As a pure VFR flier some considerations are less important for me than those who dig deep into FMC's etc, so I can far more easily make do than others.

 

For this hobby I cannot remember a time when there has been more options available, although some may not like that fact (those who will only support one platform) it IS a great time to be a simmer. At least five civilian sims all at the same time is quite something is it not?

 

And it must be said your enthusiasm is inspiring Ses and long may it continue

People talk about additional regions for AeroFly FS2, but to be perfectly honest.....what I would like to see is IPACS concentrate on making the South Western USA region as detailed as possible. What I want to see are lots of realistic autogen trees and buildings (both in density and placement), an electricity pylon network with substations (I really enjoyed researching and adding these in the Flight Unlimited 3 San Francisco and Seattle high resolution scenery regions; thanks to Jon Point for his excellent 3D models), and plenty of 3D landmarks like bridges, sports stadiums, oil terminals, wind turbines, radio towers, fire lookout towers, water towers, and marinas. A solid ATC system is essential, together with realistic AI planes and flightplans (realistic in the sense of routes as opposed to exact copies of real world schedules). AeroFly FS2 seems to have plenty of power in reserve to handle these improvements and upgrades.

 

Like I keep saying, we do not need another global flight simulator. We need one that can render a large enough area (and the South Western USA region ticks that box as far as I am concerned) in superb detail. What we need is Flight Unlimited : The Next Generation :wink:

 

Fully agreed. Instead of creating new regions I'd like the devs to complete the existing ones: there really are way to many places where there is only flat photoreal and no 3D objects at all. This is my biggest problem with AFS2 right now. Even the so called highly detailed parts within regions, which are usually quite small, have lots of open spaces where you see buildings in the textures but absolutely nothing on it. Also the placement of trees really needs a manual 2nd round.

When I took of from an airport north of NY, so within the region, I thought I was in the middle of a huge forest. But when I got into the air I noticed the textures all around me showed buildings everywhere, as far as the eye could see, but everything, up to the roads, were covered with randomly placed trees. It seriously looks awful. Even the roads within Manhattan had trees on them. And even there you can see empty spaces.

 

Frankly and to be honest, I myself don't even need ATC and AI, and I could even do without deeper systems, but in order to make the world around me believable they really need to look at adding autogen, landmarks, etc. Heck, even around huge aiports, the big hubs, I saw only autogen trees in the city and all buildings were flat. This simply doesn't look right, certainly not during landing but also when cruising at 4500 ft.

 

I also have no problem at all with not having the entire world. As I posted before (maybe elsewhere) I spend years in a single FTX region. But at least that region was realistically filled with buildings and trees.

 

Again, this is really ALL I want and then AFS2 would be perfect for VFR sightseeing flights.

 

P.S. Well... I'd like to add I also am not too happy with the coloring of a lot of the NY DLC... a bit too red or something? And higher res photoreal would be nice though LOL but all that becomes a lot less important if the world is reallistically filled with 3D stuff! :wink:

 

But well, for me even one flat little shed on a mountain in Switzerland spoils it already so maybe I am a bit more sensitive to this than others.

 

EDIT

Oh, sorry, one more thing: the small circle of clouds around the aircraft is also something I'd like to see improved. Afaik there is no way yet to tweak this...? Seeing just a few puffs of cumulus near my Cessna doesn't look to realistic. :wink: But sorry, now I'm becoming too negative again. If the autogen gets fixed I'd be a happy camper already LOL

 

 

Also the placement of trees really needs a manual 2nd round.

 

A manual second pass sounds like a very good idea for this product. Autogen is just that 'auto' but some human input is needed to make things 'right'. I'll put up with a few miss-placed trees and buildings, but a 'clean-up' is a very important part of building a believable world.

 

A manual second pass sounds like a very good idea for this product. Autogen is just that 'auto' but some human input is needed to make things 'right'. I'll put up with a few miss-placed trees and buildings, but a 'clean-up' is a very important part of building a believable world.

 

 

Indeed. Here is an example from one of their own promotion screenshots showing what I think is currently wrong: hardly any buildings, while this is around an airport (!), and in front of the plane you see some random trees where clearly buildings and even roads can be seen in the textures. There is no way on earth this scene can give me the impression I am really there. When I see this I can only think: I am playing a computergame. And I can't imagine anyone thinking this looks real. But maybe that's just me LOL

 

Anyway, if iPacs fixes this, AFS2 is great and I won't even complain about systems and what not. Well, for now LOL

 

EDIT

Luckily it is of course possible to actually see some great scenery in AFS2! Specially above area's with no cities and buildings things can look great. But the same can be said of any other sim with photoreal added.

 

 

Not just Orbx. I think the comfy, decade-long status quo is about to get a much needed shakeup: http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/aerofly-flight-simulator-looking-for-developers.439052/#post-761698

You inspire me!          :wink:

 

I've been using 3ds max professionally for about 10 years - and has previously helped with freeware for FSX (buildings, etc.). But there are many factors to take into consideration. For example: Minimal use of surfaces, and so on (using tricks to create a complex impression with minimal loss of fps).

Is there a tutorial that shows the process step by step?

You inspire me!          :wink:

 

I've been using 3ds max professionally for about 10 years - and has previously helped with freeware for FSX (buildings, etc.). But there are many factors to take into consideration. For example: Minimal use of surfaces, and so on (using tricks to create a complex impression with minimal loss of fps).

Is there a tutorial that shows the process step by step?

 

Ipacs has released a public sdk and it does have instructional materials and examples, including a functioning plane which you can get into the sim with little effort. (even I did it) Also, Ipacs has just recently opened a developer subforum. (I suspect it had something to do with Murmur)  :smile:

 

Beyond that, Lionheart is very into getting his planes into the sim, and has done some preliminary work and started a thread.

 

Lionheart Thread: http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/aerofly-fs-2-sdk.437762/

 

Ipacs developer subforum: http://www.ipacs.de/forum/forumdisplay.php/45-Aerofly-FS-2-Flight-Simulator-Developers

 

Dear Aerofly users,

 

We have finally made our SDK for Aerofly FS 2 publicly available. If you are interested,

please visit the following website to download the installer:

 

https://www.aerofly.com/aerofly_fs_2/sdk/

 

The download is free, all we require is an Email for registration so we can inform you,

if a new version comes out that might be incompatible to previous versions.

 

The SDK features a complete model of the Robin DR400 airplane, complete with all sources.

It should show you all the various aspects required to get an airplane into Aerofly FS 2.

 

Using this SDK you can currently do the following:

• Create your own airplane
• Model your own airport or scenery objects
• Read simulation data from Aerofly and send commands back in using a Windows DLL

Besides the actual SDK you will need either 3D Studio Max 2012 or newer or Maxon

Cinema 4D 17 or newer if you plan on creating your own airplane or scenery.

 

None of the tools are required however to get the sample Robin DR400 airplane

into Aerofly FS 2.

 

Please consider this SDK as a work in progress. We might add more features to it in the future, for example for adding your own aerial images or elevation data or to even add code to program your own cockpit displays. We also might add support for other modelling tools like AC3D.

 

Veteran flyers are going to want to duplicate or better their flight sim experience - just human nature.  To get the ball rolling, Aerofly released a passable sim that will not fulfill their needs. 

 

Sounds like the IPACS team needs some funds injection to move forward.  This can be helped by our positive feedback / support in addition to actual investor support and this is the hard nut to crack.

 

The savior then is DLC.  All that is needed is a good API with some low-level stuff for performance reasons.  This is where the architecture needs to be sound.  Fortunately today there are more coding patterns and tools that you can shake a stick at.

 

This is also the juncture where most projects fail or succeed. What needs to be done and is the funding / ROI there?  Again - is the project at a point where it can be supported by DLC which requires a sound API.  If it is then they did a good job.

 

Cheers

jja