It will be interesting to check out framerates in the dense scenery areas with cumulus clouds switched off....

 

. Looking forward to the results.

 

 

Thanks,Jim

I didn't realise the cpu would hold the 1060 card back I'm running a 760 card just now maybe best to put the upgrade on hold until I can afford a new cpu as well, but I will try out afs2 still.

 

Thanks,Jim

 

 

Well, I am not sure about it but it seems kinda logical. I personally always only update everything, really, because if you don't either the CPU or GPU is bound to hold the other back. The 1060 isn't the fastest card available but I can imagine that the i5-4670k would hold it back a little. I think a 1080 would certainly not be able to use its full potential. Of course all this also depends on the resolution you are using.

 

 

I have not tried flying over New York city yet, but framerates on my i5 4690k @ 4.4Ghz/2GB GTX 770/16GB Hyper X Fury DDR3-1600 RAM powered PC have been super smooth so far. However, this is with cumulus clouds at average density, and cirrus clouds at Ultra density. If I max out cumulus clouds, I get stutters when looking to the side. It will be interesting to check out framerates in the dense scenery areas with cumulus clouds switched off....

 

 

If you max out clouds, it still is in a small circle around you, right? It is a bit worrying that clouds at max bring stutters already. I have to say that apart from NY there are more area's that give me not too good performance. It certainly isn't smooth everywhere on my PC. Hopefully this has to do with the early access and my slightly old PC. Might be something PC specific though because most people are raving about high fps and a gigantic overhead.

I also get stutters if I enable Vsync in the Graphics Option menu, but these vanish when I switch back to 120fps.

What people often forget is that hardware architecture gets upgraded, increasing data bandwidth and making processes more efficient. It's not all about the GHz. Putting a modern GPU on an older system will often hold the new GPU back since the CPU and chipset architecture, memory bandwidth etc. can't keep up.

I also get stutters if I enable Vsync in the Graphics Option menu, but these vanish when I switch back to 120fps.

 

 

Yes, but then you (or at least I) get tearing... Specially noticable when you use TrackIR like I do.

JV on Orbx forum:

 

"We're supporting AFS2 not because it is a deep system sim with tubeliners/ATC/FMCs and all the hard core stuff. That's not the target market. The market is for the 15-30 minute casual flyer who just wants a great experience and a quick fix. And AFS2 is the best VR experience of any sim, probably of any VR game in the world right now, nothing comes close."

 

I wonder if this is also the target market according to iPacs? Or is this just JV's idea? What the exact target market is, may be of great importance when it comes to developing the sim. You'd think JV should know what the 'official' target market is.

Time will show. Realistically AFS2 will never replace FSX or X-Plane.

...

JV on Orbx forum:

 

"We're supporting AFS2 not because it is a deep system sim with tubeliners/ATC/FMCs and all the hard core stuff. That's not the target market. The market is for the 15-30 minute casual flyer who just wants a great experience and a quick fix. And AFS2 is the best VR experience of any sim, probably of any VR game in the world right now, nothing comes close."

 

 

...

 

 

Well... if that's indeed the target market, indeed I'll pass!

Quite frankly, I think I'll have the same pleasure of flying around in the built-in Flight Simulator in Google Earth. Although the physics is inaccurate...  

Hmmmmmmmmn......

 

Wonder what the "Target Market" Of FSX was originally, with its flour-bag dropping missions, flying through hoops, chasing flying saucers......

 

All of which would probably get it insta-stamped as a "game" by the very audience that loves it now. 

 

The fact is, like anything of this type, where it all ends up will probably be in response to unknown future market forces, whichever way those winds and 3rd parties eventually decide to blow.

 

Follow the money.

 

I wonder if this is also the target market according to iPacs? Or is this just JV's idea? What the exact target market is, may be of great importance when it comes to developing the sim. You'd think JV should know what the 'official' target market is.

 

I'm hoping that this is simply either 1) JV's personal opinion, or 2) a statement simply reflecting the current state of the product - in which case it's a fairly accurate assessment of the release as it currently exists.

 

I still have hopes that this could evolve into something which appeals both to the casual "15-20 minute flyer" and to the more hard core if a solid 3rd party infrastructure could develop.  Not the least bit concerned at this stage about the rudimentary nature of the current default planes, as they're, well, default planes in an early release product.  If the recently released SDK is solid, and if external developers are encouraged, and if the core sim continues to evolve, this could be something special.

 

In any event, when Orbx releases their Chicago product I'm sure I'll jump in - with appropriate expectations for the product as it is today.  As a native Chicagoan, there's no way I could resist having "15-20 minutes" of fun, buzzing over a detailed version of my favorite city.  Wonder if there'll be a game going on at Wrigley... :wink:

 

Scott

Personally, I couldn't give a damn if the "hard core" systems analysts stay away from AeroFly FS2. I am looking for a flight simulator with knockout visuals, decent flight dynamics, and a realistic ATC controlled environment. I don't need to learn how to become a real 737 pilot to enjoy myself in a flight simulator. What I need is to be able to look out of the window at any time, and go.....WOW!!

What people often forget is that hardware architecture gets upgraded, increasing data bandwidth and making processes more efficient. It's not all about the GHz. Putting a modern GPU on an older system will often hold the new GPU back since the CPU and chipset architecture, memory bandwidth etc. can't keep up.

 

Every system is different. For person A, the CPU might be the bottleneck, but for person B, the GPU might be. I have an older system (i7 2600K, GTX 670), and my CPU doesn't have any issues doing what it needs to do. I could use a GPU with more shaders though.That seems to be what's holding me back.

Every system is different. For person A, the CPU might be the bottleneck, but for person B, the GPU might be. I have an older system (i7 2600K, GTX 670), and my CPU doesn't have any issues doing what it needs to do. I could use a GPU with more shaders though.That seems to be what's holding me back.

 

Indeed, but don't see how your comment relates to my comment?  

I suppose putting in a better GPU with more shaders doesn't hurt, because the CPU isn't the bottleneck. . At least for me.

Personally, I couldn't give a damn if the "hard core" systems analysts stay away from AeroFly FS2. I am looking for a flight simulator with knockout visuals, decent flight dynamics, and a realistic ATC controlled environment. I don't need to learn how to become a real 737 pilot to enjoy myself in a flight simulator. What I need is to be able to look out of the window at any time, and go.....WOW!!

Agreed. At this moment. As I said earlier I would be quite happy already if the scenery was WOW at any time (which it isn't yet): if that happens any deeper system would be a bonus but certainly not mandatory for me.

A handful of runways appear to be tilted "side to side". The runway at KIFP Laughlin Bullhead in particular appears to be quite significantly sloped in this fashion. Is that a realistic rendition of the real world airport, or an issue with the simulator?