+1 Alan!  I'll pay you a beer in the weekend :-)

So then you've got x-Plane. Currently at what is it - Version 11? I've had a few versions of it, including V10, but I've never really liked the GUI for it, frankly, I think MS got the GUI spot on with FS9/FSx. All the other flight sims out there (including Aerofly FS2) could learn a thing or two from the FS9/x GUI, as it is elegant in its simplicity yet comprehensive to let you set up pretty much any flight you like easily. Sure, they could adopt a similar GUI for x-plane (I wish they would). 

 

Well, they did, didn't they?  :smile:  

 

Have you looked at the new XP11 (currently in beta)? Completely new "user friendly" GUI, although I hope some of the deeper settings are restored for fine tuning.

That's not a failure of the sim though, it's a failure of one user's hardware setup. I get consistent 40+ fps using real weather in X-Plane.

 

Yup, and I was getting up to the same and higher on the initial version of Xp11, and that was consistent with the FPS of XP10 (And I tend to test over heavy areas like NY)

 

Then there was an update, and............

 

The real problem (for me) is in this day and age still thinking 30/fps is acceptable for what our current sims are pushing out to the screen. (and we are getting those frames on top of the line hardware, which is just sad)

What the developer says: "Our flight sim is strong for VFR flying."

 

What I hear: "Our flight sim has no built-in viable ATC, current Navaids, modern GPS gauges, AI Traffic and  weather/ atmospheric variability but we might eventually figure out how to do some of that."

What I hear: "Our flight sim has no built-in viable ATC, current Navaids, modern GPS gauges, AI Traffic and  weather/ atmospheric variability but we might eventually figure out how to do some of that."

 

And then there is reality, which is that Aerofly FS 2 has worldwide route planning, working ILS, worldwide VORs and NDBs as well as a working autopilot, and in fact its default aircraft have more functionality than default FSX aircraft.

 

And that's while still in early access.

 

Pointing out what it doesn't have is a fair, but honestly that sort of thing can go on indefinitely.

 

In fact, more than a decade on, and on Versions 10 and 11 respectively, we are still doing that in detail for FSX and XPlane 11. (no seasons, poor atc, etc)

 

My personal preference is to see the things it does have, is working on, and could eventually have, with support from the 3rd parties and the community.

With a flightsim community as enthusiastic and supportive as this, who needs enemies? :rolleyes:

I see you posted about RiftCat's VRidge on the Orbx forum. You all probably know by now that AFS2 in 2D doesn't convince me yet  :wink: but I am very curious about what it does in VR. I own a S6 and a Samsung Gear so this VRidge solution sounds interesting and might be interesting for others too.

 

https://riftcat.com/vridge

 

It connects your PC to your VR gear, probably at the cost of fps and quality (?) but at least it may give a taste of what AFS2 does in VR. So my first question (to everyone) is: has anyone ever tried this? You can try this for free and I will certainly give it a try! Unfortunately I don't expect being able to do so until after the weekend so if anyone else tried it or is willing to try it... let us know how it goes!

 

I can imagine AFS2 having more impact (on me) in VR than in 2D!

 

Update: spend two hours on installing all the needed software and all for nothing, really. Turns out the WiFi option sucks big time and USB tethering won't work with Gear VR. So I made a mess of my Windows 10 system and my Samsung S6 for nothing. Be warned. Probably not worth it on any portable device...

Update: spend two hours on installing all the needed software and all for nothing, really. Turns out the WiFi option sucks big time and USB tethering won't work with Gear VR. So I made a mess of my Windows 10 system and my Samsung S6 for nothing. Be warned. Probably not worth it on any portable device...

 

USB tethering a gear VR: http://oddsheepgames.com/?topic=gear-vr-usb

 

Sorry to hear you're having problems. In the end, for your case, it looks like if you're still interested it's going to require some extra work if Wi-Fi performance is unsatisfactory.

USB tethering a gear VR: http://oddsheepgames.com/?topic=gear-vr-usb

 

Sorry to hear you're having problems. In the end, for your case, it looks like if you're still interested it's going to require some extra work if Wi-Fi performance is unsatisfactory.

 

Thanks for the tip. I'll see if I can find such a cable. The only solution I found required the cutting of cables and soldering things... not my kind of thing. :wink:

 

JV on the Orbx forum:

 

"Just airports and surroundings to begin with, then regions."

 

Since they seem to simply port current products I was wondering: will they simply port regions to AFS2...? I think that would really be a bad thing: most people who like AFS2 like it because of the photoreal. I seriously can't imagine Orbx making their regions photoreal...! Maybe someone can ask this on the Orbx forum? (I can't because I am banned for a week.)

Isn't orbx already primarily photoreal, blended onto landclass?

Isn't orbx already primarily photoreal, blended onto landclass?

 

With photoreal I mean (and I presume(d) most do) that the textures on the ground replicate what actually is there in real life. Orbx uses photo's for the textures in their regions, in fact so does FSX and any sim out there, but those photo's are repeated all over the place according to the landclass. You have for instance a specific photo of a farm and wherever there is a farm you might see that same photo being used. Of course the developers are smart enough to use quite a few photo's of various farms but if you fly high and watch well you can see EVERYTHING being repeated. All ground textures are generic, meaning they are used everywhere if needed. Orbx regions also work this way: they have regional but still generic textures. This means that what you see down there during a flight is NOT what you would see down there in real life. You won't be able to see your own house. The roads down there however are in their correct position: it is vector data being projected upon the textures. This is why the roads never ever align with what you see in the ground textures (roads running though houses etc.).

 

Photoreal scenery as in AFS2 has NO repetition of textures at ALL. Every single pixel is unique and shows what really is down there (at the moment the original pictures were taken). You will be able to see your house. (Totally flat, maybe, but that's another story LOL) You will also see all roads in their correct position because of course they are part of the photo's. (Unfortunately this also means you can see cars baked into the roads. Maybe someday AFS2 will get vector roads upon the textures on which virtual cars can drive.)

 

Orbx regions are around 4 to 6 GB big when you download them. If they would contain photoreal images, the downloads would be something like 100 GB.

 

Orbx airports usually contain photoreal area's, mainly around the airport but lately also in a larger area around it. But the airports only cover a small area so this isn't a problem. Orbx airports may fit well into the AFS2 world since that world is also photoreal. They probably need some color adjusting but not much more. Porting them should be fairly easy.

 

Porting Orbx regions to AFS2 just like that, with generic (though regional) textures would totally KILL one of the strongest points of AFS2: that what you see down there is real. If Orbx is planning to do this, they won't be doing AFS2 any good... they would degrade it to FSX levels. And I don't think anyone wants that.

 

So it would be nice if someone could ask JV if they plan on porting the regions just as they are or if they will create photoreal regions which are AFS2 worthy.

FTX landclass regions in AeroFly FS2 would be rubbish. We really do not want that. What we want is accurate autogen on photoscenery. Nothing less will do.

FTX landclass regions in AeroFly FS2 would be rubbish. We really do not want that. What we want is accurate autogen on photoscenery. Nothing less will do.

 

I think people have been missing something. From my perspective, Orbx has been increasingly using high resolution photoreal, and then very carefully blending them into landclass, and have been doing so for years. If you look at this video of Palms Springs carefully, you'll see vast swaths of it are photoreal, including miles of desert and mountain areas. You can even see how things get blurry as you get lower.

 

I suspect they'll be literally parachuting this stuff nearly as-is into Aerofly, and glad not to have to do the extra work to blend it into cut-and-paste landclass.

 

Might even be a factor in the decision about X-plane, since blending this stuff seamlessly would probably be considerably more work.

 

KPSP is not a region. As I said the Orbx airport addons contain more and more photoreal. They began with adding a nearby mountain as photoreal and later on a compete village and so on. That KPSP video mainly shows a small area around the airport: the helicopter flies a long time but actually never leaves the vicinity of the airport. Maybe it has more photoreal outside of it, I don't know, but it would still only cover a small area compared to a region. A full region with photoreal would be a 100 GB download. At least. FTX Norway would take quite a few 100 GB (at a good resolution). I really doubt Orbx is going to do that. They would have to redo the entire region on a scale they never did before... while they say P3D will stay their main sim! AFS2 is a project on the side so I don't see this happening. A possibility would be completely new smaller regions, somewhere between the size of an airport and a (small) region. But whatever it will be, please don't let it be FSX scenery.

Maybe it has more photoreal outside of it, I don't know, but it would still only cover a small area compared to a region. A full region with photoreal would be a 100 GB download. At least.

 

I'm not at all so sure. I suspect it's going to be mid resolution coverage with "oasis" of higher resolution towns, cities, airports and points of interest. There are probably several ways of cutting down the size.

 

I would point out that so far, several states worth of scenery (including the country of switzerland) has come to just about 100gb altogether, so more than that for just one region seems an excessive estimate. Plus, I suspect being a "summer-sim" that wont have to include several different seasons of textures will also help keep sizes down.

 

Of course, the only way for us to really find out is to wait and see.

 

(On the other hand, dang, I was so far off about DTG using the FLIGHT engine, who the heck knows?)