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

 

 

No, it doesn't hurt, and that wasn't my point either. But with an older system you will have bottlenecks that will hold your new GPU back, or in other words, you won't be able to use a modern GPU to its full potential with an older system. But it will be an improvement for sure. I moved from a GTX 580 to a 970, and the difference is huge on my ancient i7 2700K system. 

I have a different take on the whole ORBX Aero fly FS 2 issue. First JV floats bunch of ideas to see how the "community" would react. Predictably, XP users were divided over ORBX. Some were enthused and others were either neutral and even opposed. But in the end, the fact that XP has such a large number of freeware developers made JV realize that both the conversion issues and the competition were insurmountable barriers.

 

But here's where I go off the rails into sheer speculation. Out of the blue, JV embraces Aerofly. It is in a state comparable to XP from five years ago. It has no installed user base. On the surface it looks like just another niche sim crying out to be heard. But to JV it's a viable alternative market for people who think that FSX and P3d are worn out, old technology. And besides in contrast to XP, there's no army of freeware developers to cut into profits. He can even sell the sim via FTX Central. He may even buy it outright for all we know.

 

Besides, for those of you feeding the conspiracy theory of the JV AM hate theory this approach by ORBX fits right in as its a big thumb in the eye to XP.

You should be able to enjoy AFS2. Don't know about the NY DLC though: try the default scenery first, I'd say. NY (at least the inner city) is pretty heavy. I have a [email protected] and a GTX780, which is pretty old by now, and NY doesn't run well at all. That 1060 might help but then the CPU might hold you back. (Makes me wonder: is AFS2 a CPU or a GPU sim...? Or both?)

 

My guess is that AFS2 in its current state is more likely GPU (and possibly RAM) limited more than CPU limited.

 

The CPU in a flight sim usually gets bogged down when you ask it to draw more 3D objects than it can handle, or run too many complex plane systems in addition to the main flight model. Neither of which are happening now (except for maybe NYC) in the current sim, so an older CPU and a newer GPU should do okay. Obviously you'll want as much grunt in the GPU as you can afford for VR, especially if the scenery density ramps up. 

But here's where I go off the rails into sheer speculation. Out of the blue, JV embraces Aerofly. It is in a state comparable to XP from five years ago. It has no installed user base. On the surface it looks like just another niche sim crying out to be heard. But to JV it's a viable alternative market for people who think that FSX and P3d are worn out, old technology. And besides in contrast to XP, there's no army of freeware developers to cut into profits. He can even sell the sim via FTX Central. He may even buy it outright for all we know.

 

That may be part of it, but I've been thinking more about this and I have a theory for why X-Plane didn't work out for Orbx. It's all about DRM.

 

Orbx isn't going to sell scenery that isn't protected, and X-Plane has a completely open file structure for loading scenery. Payware aircraft can use DRM in X-Plane because plugins are loaded along with the model that can run an authorization, but scenery loading doesn't work like that. Orbx would have to do something drastic like write an outside shell program for loading X-Plane (which the users wouldn't tolerate), or convince Austin to include a DRM routine for scenery loading (good luck with that).

 

What does Aerofly have as enticement? It's on Steam, and it's already using the Steam DLC system for authorizing scenery add-ons. Orbx can let Steam run their DRM, or sell directly and work with Aerofly to integrate the authorizations.

 

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.  :smile:  It may also be about personalities, but this is a solid business reason to avoid X-Plane if you're a major scenery developer.

 

I don't think that will hold X-Plane back. It has an excellent OSM-based scenery engine for world building that can be adapted by users for orthophotos if needed, plenty of free user contributions for airports, and enough small indie developers like Beti-X to create a few "jewel box" GA airports within the current open scenery structure.

Interesting theories. However, the topics concerning XP and Orbx have all been locked by now... maybe we should keep this topic focused on AFS2. With a pinch of Orbx as long as it is AFS2 related. Just a suggestion to prevent this topic from being closed.

 

 

This thing right as it is...is so KILLER immersive...because of the quality of the graphics...the quality of the animation....and nothing out there can touch it right now...

 

Yes, graphics and animation contribute to immersion. But in my opinion, it's not a completely immersive experience without real-time weather, ATC, AI, worldwide coverage, all airports, and an A2A Accusim aircraft. It's a balance. Graphics and animation are only a fraction of the experience, despite being the most immediately gratifying.

 

As it stands now, I'd get bored in Aerofly after a few hours of drooling at beautiful scenery with incredible framerates.

 

I certainly look forward to what they produce over the next few years. I wish them luck. If they can meet my needs, I will consider moving to their platform. Simple as that.

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.

What I still can't figure out, is WHY oh WHY, must our community (well, some...) class this emergence as a 'competition' to either their FSX, P3D, or XP10/11 installation?

 

At least one person on AVSIM doesn't....and that is myself, and as I read through your posts, I believe that it is the same for you.   I do believe that I can speak for the both of us, or correct me if I am wrong...that we have added this wonderfully emerging VFR sim, to compliment our deep-use base flight simulation program(s), and not to be an either/or installation on our computer systems.  You and I will fly what flight sim, best suits our mood, and flight parameters on the occasion.

 

AeroFly FS2 blows the others out of the water, for VFR immersion. I don't have VR gear yet, but even in 2D (conventional usage) it blows anything away for having felt I have flown a real flight,  have charged down towards the earth at breakneck speeds in an aerobatic sled, like nothing else,  can thunder down the runway in a military sled, with such realism of momentum, without the slightest hesitation of the animation....and when I pull away at high G's...there is NOTHING else like the climb-out, than this sim at 120 FPS visually renders you. Nothing else!

 

So, if I want great VFR above photo-real scenery, horizon to horizon towards the four corners of the rendered world, if I want to thunder down the runway in either a military, or commercial sled...at real-world visual sensation, then I will tap the start button on AFFS2 as even, as it is, let alone anything else that will be added in the 'deep' zone later, towards RTM.

 

If I want 'deep', in ATC, A.I, or cockpit/flight navigation/ cockpit panel 'physical interaction', and 3rP weather engines, ...I only have to tap the button for FSX/P3D,and XP10/11.

 

I see this, and I do believe that WE both see this, HiFlyer, as no flight simulator base competition, but as a flight simulator that speaks to an aspect of our enjoyments and interests, and therefore, was purchased by the both of us, to speak to those very interests.  

 

Folks, just a simple statement,....if you have not already purchased this flight simulator to ADD to your choices, then again, in my personal estimation, you are truly, truly missing out on a wonderful flight simulation hobby experience of use.  

 

As always in anything, personal observation, made by actual use and already 30 plus (and steadily climbing) hours of enjoyment thereof.

 

Cheers,

 

Ses

 

 

Yes, graphics and animation contribute to immersion. But in my opinion, it's not a completely immersive experience without real-time weather, ATC, AI, worldwide coverage, all airports, and an A2A Accusim aircraft. It's a balance. Graphics and animation are only a fraction of the experience, despite being the most immediately gratifying.

 

I'd actually carry it a step further and say that key factors in an immersive sim are as individual as the ways we each enjoy simulation.  I wrote and subsequently deleted a long post on this - deleted as I don't want to sidetrack the discussion - but I'll at least add a simple example.  One of the things which helps drive an immersive experience for me is the extent to which I can fly without having to use the mouse or keyboard, yet I realize that for others, this wouldn't even make their top ten list.

 

I'll stick to my hope that this sim continues to evolve as I like the basics that are presented thus far, but there are many key elements in the product as it exists today which prevent that complete immersive experience for me.  None of which means I dismiss the experiences of others who are so avidly enjoying what's there today or that I'm dismissing the sim itself.  Anything but.

 

Scott

What I still can't figure out, is WHY oh WHY, must our community (well, some...) class this emergence as a 'competition' to either their FSX, P3D, or XP10/11 installation?

 

I think the simplest subset of an explanation as that many people don't or at least don't like to divide their attention between sims. Or, they have only one particular way they like to sim and no other. For them there might be no "supplementary" or "additional" sims, only ones that compete for their attention, which they prefer to remain undivided.

 

All fine, by me.

 

Where I jump off the bus is when that personal preference then extends to putting down (using various community code words like "game") the desire of others to experience simming in a manner perhaps not supported by a particular subset of more systems driven enthusiasts. (or vice versa)

 

Too small a niche as it is to then begin dividing ourselves into cliques. :American Flag:

If you want good atc fly on pilotedge which is has coverage of the AF2 area so perfect match honestly.

If you want good atc fly on pilotedge which is has coverage of the AF2 area so perfect match honestly.

 

Speaking of that...... http://forums.pilotedge.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6275

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....

 

From a maximization standpoint, AF2 isn't doing a lot in its currant state - but could be.  Clouds are not too bad if done right like in AF2 and a realtime Wx engine should not be a problem unless written badly. Here again If the SDK is good enough we should be ok.

 

Cheers

jja                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

What I still can't figure out, is WHY oh WHY, must our community (well, some...) class this emergence as a 'competition' to either their FSX, P3D, or XP10/11 installation?

 

...

 

Uhm... Quite frankly, didn't you start this comparisson/competition yourself?

You stated (in your first post, actually), that this sim was blowing everything else away, and that you would be replacing P3D with it.

 

Just saying...

Oops!

When this early-access gem gets fleshed out, with weather, ATC...well...bye-bye FSX and P3D...bye-bye...

 

To be fair, he also clearly said when it's fleshed out, which is an indeterminate time period in the future; and his subsequent posts have mostly stressed its value as a supplementary sim, strong for VFR and VR.

From a maximization standpoint, AF2 isn't doing a lot in its currant state - but could be.  Clouds are not too bad if done right like in AF2 and a realtime Wx engine should not be a problem unless written badly. Here again If the SDK is good enough we should be ok.

 

Cheers

jja

 

I don't think the weather system has anything to do with the SDK...? There aren't any realtime weather systems yet in AFS2 and the current SDK is only for scenery afaik. The devs said in an interview that a real time weather system is a daunting task and they aren't even thinking about it right now. I think this is one of the things they hope a third party will develop. Just as with all other sims iPacs mainly lays the foundation: others have to build on it. A good SDK is important, yes, but it should offer enough to cover every part of the sim, I guess.