Sign in to follow this  
J van E

Aerofly FS 2: the good, the bad and the ugly

Recommended Posts

Ok. So I finally had the time to do a proper flight in AFS2. Let me share with you the good, the bad and the ugly.

 

I decided to fly the route that Mitch suggested, Phoenix to Vegas. And there the first problem arose: there is no search function on the Navigation map, not for ICAO codes but also not for cities or airport names. So I had to Google for the places and also for what specific airport I should be looking at and after a while I found the proper airports. Not too good, in fact I found this a bit bad. What I did like was the ease with which you could select your runway and if it was the departure or destination. I do find it a bit odd (and slightly confusing at first) that you have two maps, one for Location and one for Navigation. I don't understand why they aren't combined. That would make the feature quite strong. And although the planning isn't too good the actual map and how you can use it to select a location, direction, altitude, etc. is pretty good. Anyway, the map shows VORs but you can't add them to your plan and when you select the destination runway it simply adds a FAF to the plan. Very simple but well, it does work. It's better than no getting no FAF at all and only a Direct to the airport.

 

So I set the time.Turns out it is UTC only... Bad. I find this very odd for a sim like this. Had to change the time again.

 

I decided to fly the Airbus because that is my favorite airliner and I know it from FSX/P3D so I know how to handle it. Started the flight and was greeted by mono sound. Yes, I am not kidding. MONO. Bad. (Maybe even ugly but well...) Truly amazing to hear mono sounds in such a new 'next gen' sim. I also quickly found out clicking on knobs etc. didn't give any sound. Odd.

 

Oh, almost forgot: loading times are TOTALLY AWESOME!!! GOOD! Very good! One of the best AFS2 features. I have to add the VC looked pretty nice too. I won't mind calling it good.

 

Well, I won't dive to deep into the systems because we all know everything is very basic. Still, I'd like to share some oddities. (Yes, 'odd' is a word that came to my mind often!) Like: you can turn off almost all buttons on the ELEC and FUEL overhead (the rest is inop apart from the lights) but... it doesn't have any effect: you can still fly! Odd. It would be better to not enable those buttons then.

 

Ok, take off. Some options could be set before take off, like Autobrakes (surprise!) and Ground spoilers (surprise!) and of course flaps. Even T.O. config worked! Surprise again! However, the throttle had no detents (didn't really surprise me). What I did find a bit odd but not surprising was that the throttle stayed in TOGA all the flight, at least after enabling A/THR. The latter only could be engaged after take off btw. All in all a bit of a mixed bag... Some good, some bad.

 

After take off I enabled the AP (and A/THR) but the plane wouldn't follow the flightplan. Odd. What did work, surprise, were managed and manual modes (forgot the right wording): pulling and pushing the knobs works and that's quite nice for such a basic plane. But well, as I said, pushing the HDG knob had no effect so I used the manual HDG option. However, after a few minutes the managed mode suddenly kicked in and the plane followed the flightplan. (Which you do not have to load btw: you set it up and it is automatically loaded in any plane you use. Easy.)

 

The MCDU showed a Take off page all the time: nothing you can do about that one. The choice is a bit odd though because it showed empty brackets for Vref etc. and you would never take off with a page in that state... I'd rather see a more generic page like navadate info: would also be fake but would make more sense. I won't call all this bad because we know AFS2 isn't a systems sim.

 

And now comes my first ugly... The weather system. Or lack of it. Apart from it being EXTREMELY basic (and by that I mean EXTREMELYYYYYYY basic) it looks like **** because it only shows cumulus in a VERY VERY VERY small circle around your plane. Everywhere around you you see blue skies up to the horizon and only a little group of cloud is flying along with your aircraft. I seriously cannot understand that those who do love AFS2 are NOT utterly annoyed by this. The circle is SO SMALL that when I reached my FL of 320 I couldn't even see clouds in front of me!!! And I had everything set to the max!!! Ridiculous. Again, ugly. I said elsewhere that I would be happy already if Orbx would release a photoreal region with 3D stuff everywhere but I take that back: I cannot be really happy with AFS2 until it gives me clouds up to the horizon (or where visibility ends) and a weather system (not necessarily real weather) is really needed too. The current system is UGLY.

 

Having said that: the view on the scenery was pretty nice... This is where photoreal shines. Well, at FL320 anyway. (More on that later.) Good! The white horizon and the odd blue of the sky were less stellar though but still, it was enjoyable! I can imagine people liking this a lot. Surely beats seeing repeated generic textures down there!

 

The system behaved a but erratic during the flight: sometimes I got overspeed while still using autothrottle but all in all it went pretty well. Of course there was no TOD so I had to manually activate descent. That went quite okay, the plane even slowed down before reaching FL100. the LOC button didn't do anything (although the mouse went red over it) but APPR did work and quite fine too. I even let the plane fly on AP until the GS was intercepted. After turning the AP off I could keep on using A/THR which worked a bit but not completely so I turned that one off before touchdown. Flaps and gear I had to take care off on my own. Well, again, a mixed bag but that was to be expected.

 

O, one more bad. Vegas. It took me a while before I noticed I was almost near Vegas. It looked like nothing, really. From a distance it looked like some sort of greenish field in the desert. Only when I was almost there I noticed the ground textures showed buildings. There were no autogen buildings at all. What were there were trees. In the most odd places. I can't help it but this is not just bad, it is ugly. Not only should there be buildings but the trees should be properly positioned. There were everywhere, on (flat) houses, streets... very bad. No, very ugly. The heart of the city did show 3D buildings but frankly, having buildings only there makes the difference even bigger: those buildings stick out too much from a distance.

 

Anyway, when I had almost landed I could see buildings on the airport and parked planes: that was quite nice.

 

Another thing that was okay, let's call it good for now, was the lighting and shadows. No cloud shadows though, as far as I could see, but I disabled the clouds after a while because that circle of cumulus was absolutely horrendous... If you see a good looking AFS2 screenshot with clouds they simply did a good job on taking the shot with the clouds in the proper position and angle...

 

Final conclusion: even when I accept that this is not a sim with deep systems, which is fine with me, a few things that should be the selling point of AFS2 aren't quite there yet. I really hope that Orbx can do wonders in that regard (not so much with airports but with the photoreal regions JV talked about): that would really save AFS2. But it won't be enough: specially the weather needs serious attention, from iPacs or another developer. AI and ATC, which iPacs is thinking about, may be nice and all, but please, work on the weather first... And if you can't handle it, at least make the circle of clouds larger, preferably up to the horizon (in other words: get rid of that circle).

 

I can see myself doing occasional quick flights with the Airbus: it's quick, it's easy, it's fun. I can't see myself really enjoying GA that much because of the lack of 3D buildings and oddly placed trees. Flying low just doesn't cut it. It looks too bad. The circle of clouds doesn't help here either. However, in area's where there aren't much buildings, like the Grand canyon, it might work out okay so all is not lost.

 

AFS2 is nice for a quick flying fix. It is sorely missing key features which it should have out of the box but I am hopeful things will improve over time. It has some nice things going for it and well, it wasn't money spend extremely well but I also do not really regret the purchase. Mainly thanks to Orbx looking into things... It's an odd sim, that's for sure.

 

P.S. or Disclaimer: this is by no means a complete review. It is based on very short flights during the past few weeks in which I didn't have much time to try things and mainly on ONE >200nm flight I did this evening. But given the simplicity of the sim and the little amount of options etc. I think it is possible to give a good and honest review after using it not for too long. If I come up with other opinions during the coming days and weeks I will post them here. (Yes, I am indeed planning on flying in AFS2 more often.)

 

Addendum

Totally forgot one good: the performance. Although... it was good but 1. without vsync, so with tearing: vsync made things choppy, and 2. I mainly flew above empty photoreal.... But for now performance seems good (i7 4790K@4.5, GTX780, 16 GB RAM, 1920x1080 res) with everything completely maxed out.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Nice review. I was just thinking about giving FS2 a try once I have the new system ready. How about those GA flying experiences over their detailed scenery like switzland and NYC?

 

I flew the old Aerosoft version years ago and found its photoscenery although nice but not having a long lasting appeal to me. I quickly got bored with photosscenery without properly placed 3D objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jeroen for trying to sort things out. Not seeing that the type of flying that AFS2 encourages is for me but ESPECIALLY if weather engine is not real world.

 

Again, appreciate your attempts to balance the positive and otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The place where this would be of the most use is probably the Aerofly/Ipacs forum. In fact it's probably the most likely place for constructive criticism to have its maximum positive affect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice review. I was just thinking about giving FS2 a try once I have the new system ready. How about those GA flying experiences over their detailed scenery like switzland and NYC?

 

I flew the old Aerosoft version years ago and found its photoscenery although nice but not having a long lasting appeal to me. I quickly got bored with photosscenery without properly placed 3D objects.

Let me start by saying I do like photoscenery but ONLY with autogen, buildings etc. on it. I simply rather see what is (or was) actually down there then generic textures repeated all over the place. I hated photoreal in FSX and also P3D because the available photoreal addons were without 3D on it and that just looks odd to me. Some people love it, though. But I can't stand it. I never get the idea I am flying over a city when it is flat. Mountains etc. can look awesome though.

 

Now, Aerofly FS 2 sits a bit in between. It is an attempt to create a sim that is fully photoreal but also has 3D things on it. However, as you have read, the 3D stuff is lacking right now. This means that low and slow GA is a no go for me because when you go low and slow you really see the missing autogen, only flat buildings there, and how badly the trees are placed. At FL320 you won't notice that. Unfortunately this also goes (IMHO) for the detailed DLC. It simply isn't detailed enough. Switzerland is sort of the same as the default scenery: most places are without 3D. And New York has a detailed inner city around Manhattan but 1. there still are a lot of missing buildings, 2. trees are still randomly placed and 3. the biggest part of the DLC, so outside of Manhattan, has no 3D buildings at all and just randomly placed trees. I have seen entire suburbs being covered with trees.

 

So GA in the detailed DLC's can be nice around Swiss mountains (no buildings there) but that's about it. I really do not enjoy NY: not suited for GA nor airliners. Only Manhattan is okay but that's not enough for me.

 

Obviously this is my personal opinion.

The place where this would be of the most use is probably the Aerofly/Ipacs forum. In fact it's probably the most likely place for constructive criticism to have its maximum positive affect.

Good one. I just registered over there and will post this there too once I have access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh, the quality of NY DLC seems quite disappointing as you said. The inner city does look very good base on the videos made by Rob and other's. 

 

It seems so far Ortho4XP + XP11 is the best solution for photoscenery + 3D autogens. I'm actually reconfiguring my computers and severs at home for the purpose build a pipeline that I will be able to make and enjoy TBs of Ortho4XP tiles in the coming months.. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh, the quality of NY DLC seems quite disappointing as you said. The inner city does look very good base on the videos made by Rob and other's.

 

It seems so far Ortho4XP + XP11 is the best solution for photoscenery + 3D autogens. I'm actually reconfiguring my computers and severs at home for the purpose build a pipeline that I will be able to make and enjoy TBs of Ortho4XP tiles in the coming months..

 

Yes, the inner city does look good, but what you buy is a large area with quite a few airports: the inner city is just a few percent of the entire area (maybe even some 3% or so?). The rest of the area is nothing but flat photoreal textures with trees placed on it at random (well, apart from the airports). And they sell it as a detailed AREA, not just Manhattan. I took of from an airport in the north thinking it was in the middle of a forest: while climbing I noticed the textures around me showed buildings but they were covered by trees. So yes, the inner city looks good (though still lacking buildings and showing odd trees) but the DLC as a whole, the entire area, looks bad. Ask Rob to create a video of the DLC area outside of the inner city. ;)

 

XP and ortho is indeed a good way to go but 1. it takes time and effort (I like an out of the box solution, 2. you have to be lucky finding a proper source, 3. even a proper source need work to (color etc.), 4. AFS2 performance compared to XP is very good (but that may change), 5. AFS2 only takes second to load... well, AFS2 simply has some nice things going for it but, truth be told, I won't defend it over XP because XP is still my main sim right now. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Jeroen's review... For some reason AEFS2 and XP11 are out of my disk for a while, awaiting better days...

 

I do have hope on both, but I still find FSX, for instance, much more complete / plausible in so many aspects, although I no longer use it either, that, actually hope is my only feeling for those sims right now....

 

AEFS2 lacks in systems, weather, AI what XP11 lacks in consistente flight Dynamics. AEFS2 lacks even more in at least having the right hooks for developing complex systems right now...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J van E, thank your for your review!!! 

 

I'll be honest here - Aerofly is not a flight simulator (at its current stage) but simply a GAME! The truth hurts but c'est la vie... With more than 10 years in FSX, and another 10 years in sim before FSX, I'll just quote one of the FS gurus who I do support in his particular definition of a game vs. simulator:

 

 

"A game has a predefined scenery area map and does not alter render elements based on real world. While a simulator in many ways is loading up the entire world when you boot it and what you see on the screen will change in identical flights even with identical weather, traffic and scenery settings. As such a game can be benchmarked, Microsoft Flight Simulator can not."

 

Again, it's not that I dislike eye-candy in FS (being a low-flyer myself) but as far as I understand, Aerofly has a huuuuuge mileage to cover before being qualified as a standalone flight simulator. With all due respect to Orbx, it's not about Orbx but Aerofly which must comply to certain simulation standards before Orbx steps in.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That definition is pure nonesense. A simulator is still a simulator, even if it just has a small predefined scenery area map. You could in fact probably make a much more realistic flight simulator if you restricted the graphics to a small predefined scenery area map and put more focus on the physics of flight, systems and weather.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You CAN add VORs to the flightplan, just click on it and it ask if you want to add it to the flightplan. It's not perfect, but you CAN add them and waypoints and ndb's as well.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks J van E,

 

I was on the nit of purchasing this 'simulator'...

 

However based on your observations and review here - I won't - or at least hold off! Based on the weather (or missing weather implementation) and quirkiness of the aircrafts, I'll pass on this one... at least for now and foreseeable future. 

 

Interesting review and observations, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J van E, thank your for your review!!! 

 

I'll be honest here - Aerofly is not a flight simulator (at its current stage) but simply a GAME! The truth hurts but c'est la vie... With more than 10 years in FSX, and another 10 years in sim before FSX, I'll just quote one of the FS gurus who I do support in his particular definition of a game vs. simulator:

 

 

 

Again, it's not that I dislike eye-candy in FS (being a low-flyer myself) but as far as I understand, Aerofly has a huuuuuge mileage to cover before being qualified as a standalone flight simulator. With all due respect to Orbx, it's not about Orbx but Aerofly which must comply to certain simulation standards before Orbx steps in.

 

 

You are welcome. But, I'll also be honest here,  :wink: I also don't agree with that definition of a sim. As simmerhead said, having the entire world modeled doesn't make something a sim, and secondly I am not sure what is meant with 'will change in identical flights even with identical weather, traffic and scenery settings'... Does FSX or P3D do that...? Anyway, AFS2 certainly simulate certain aspects of flying so to me it is a sim. 

 

BTW I didn't mean to start yet another sim vs game discussion btw so maybe we should leave it at this as far as this is concerned: call it what you want but let's not get into it again.  :wink:

 

 

You CAN add VORs to the flightplan, just click on it and it ask if you want to add it to the flightplan. It's not perfect, but you CAN add them and waypoints and ndb's as well.

 

 

Ah, cool to know! Thanks! I suppose it simply adds it to the plan in a logical spot? I will give this a try this evening.

 

 

 

at least for now and foreseeable future.

 

Yes, although I expected that some people might hold of a purchase based on my findings, I do hope that those who do AT LEAST keep a close eye on it because I do think AFS2 can become interesting! To some it already is: it just depends on what you like or want in a sim. But let me make it clear once more than I am not putting ASF2 down: I will keep on using it for specific purposes and I do hope and kind of expect it will become a better sim in various ways in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. or Disclaimer: this is by no means a complete review. It is based on very short flights during the past few weeks in which I didn't have much time to try things and mainly on ONE >200nm flight I did this evening.

 

Yes. An important reminder: This review shows signs of limited experience using Aerofly FS2.

 

 

That definition is pure nonesense

 

Agree.

oxforddictionaries, quote: "Flight simulator: A machine designed to resemble an aircraft's cockpit, with computer-generated images that mimic the pilot's view and the aircraft's motion, used for training pilots."

 

 

What does this pilot do in this video, that you can not do in Aerofly FS2?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx Jeroen, your review saved me some euro. We'll see in future, right now it looks like a slower development team even compared with slow XP development time.

If AFS2 only strong point is FPS I have little envy with my current XP10 around 30-40 with great photoreal and detailed OSM buildoings.

Who knows in six months, although I'm a no VR guy, easy prone to nausea so no way to enjoy VR in the future anf this looks the best AFS2 perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You CAN add VORs to the flightplan, just click on it and it ask if you want to add it to the flightplan. It's not perfect, but you CAN add them and waypoints and ndb's as well.

 

And there you have the nub of the difficulty of most reviews to date. Most especially on Youtube, what you end up seeing is people who have been trained by years and years of how FSX/P3D etc does things and are slightly lost in Aerofly, most often deciding that XY or Z is not possible, or doesn't work, when in fact it simply works in a way they aren't accustomed to. In a lot of vids, the reviewer essentially stumbles through the video, declaring this or that is missing, unavailable, inop etc.

 

Sometimes they are right, and it's something that will have to come in a future update.

 

Much too often they are wrong, and for that reason I've been hoping that the developers will provide an instructional video of a flight from start to finish, showing the systems as they're intended to be used at this point. If this happens, I suspect it will most likely come after the release of the Q400, which will have increased system's functionality, though it should be noted that even now many of the current planes have the same or more functionality as default FSX.

 

We'll see in future, right now it looks like a slower development team even compared with slow XP development time.

 

I've been keeping track the last few months, keeping people up to date. Honestly I think they've been pretty aggressive.  :wink:

 

I also hope reading through that thread might provide a few surprises for those who might be new to Aerofly FS 2 and have not really been aware of what's been happening and how quickly.

 

http://www.avsim.com/topic/492465-aerofly-fs-2-update-thread/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the reviewers are stumbling through the videos, one can only imagine how noobs and average users will fare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the reviewers are stumbling through the videos, one can only imagine how noobs and average users will fare.

 

The noobs and average users likely don't have years of habits to unlearn, though.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this pilot do in this video, that you can not do in Aerofly FS2?

 

Well, I don't have the time to watch that video now but I have a lot of experience with the Aerosoft Airbus (it is BY FAR my favorite airliner) and if you read my OP you can see what you CAN do. Everything else you can NOT do. Things that can be clicked and often have an effect: 

 

- OVERHEAD: EXT LT (all switches), INT LT (only DOME. I think) and as said most buttons on ELEC and FUEL work too but they don't have any effect.

 

- MCP: these all work, yes, seriously, apart from LOC (during my first flight) and I haven't tried SPD MACH and EXPED. 

 

- PEDESTAL: the FMC/FMS/MCDU (pick the one you prefer) is completely dead: it's simply shows a stuck and incompleted TAKE OFF page. I haven't checked all buttons here but at least some of the radio knobs work, the transponder works, radar tilt works (that really surprised me), you can set the squawk and I do think the LT knobs work... ENG related stuff is INOP. Ground spoiler works but not the speed brake. Flaps work, parking brake... haven't tried that one. Trim works too btw but the throttle can't be set with the mouse: if you hover the mouse over the throttle and use it, the trim changes. And as said, the throttle has no detents.

 

So well, that's about it, I think. You could say that the plane can be flown using AP but a bit like you would fly GA. It is fun though, I have to say, for casual short flights.

 

 

And there you have the nub of the difficulty of most reviews to date. Most especially on Youtube, what you end up seeing is people who have been trained by years and years of how FSX/P3D etc does things and are slightly lost in Aerofly, most often deciding that XY or Z is not possible, or doesn't work, when in fact it simply works in a way they aren't accustomed to. In a lot of vids, the reviewer essentially stumbles through the video, declaring this or that is missing, unavailable, inop etc.

 

Sometimes they are right, and it's something that will have to come in a future update.

 

Much too often they are wrong, and for that reason I've been hoping that the developers will provide an instructional video of a flight from start to finish, showing the systems as they're intended to be used at this point. If this happens, I suspect it will most likely come after the release of the Q400, which will have increased system's functionality, though it should be noted that even now many of the current planes have the same or more functionality as default FSX.

 

True, you tend to try things in a specific way. However, the Help option is very basic, just showing a few onscreen pointers, and I didn't see how I could get it done. Hence my totally wrong assumption it couldn't be done.  :wink: My review is rather basic and quick and based on just a few flights but I find the comparison with a YouTube review offending. Just kidding.  :wink: Although I have to say I kinda hate YouTube 'reviews' where indeed people often have NO CLUE AT ALL what they are doing and just pull this and turn that and mumble and snore and giggle... yikes. But I also dislike instructional video's: I myself prefer a detailed manual in which you can SEARCH for things and which you can put on your lap or show on an iPad while flying: I like that a 1000 times more than instructional video's of which you usually forget almost everything after a few minutes and there is no way to search for a specific option.

 

BTW Providing instructional video's for all AFS2 planes can be a bit too much... I think manuals (pdf or at least a help file) really are the way to go.

 

 

I've been keeping track the last few months, keeping people up to date. Honestly I think they've been pretty aggressive. 

 

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more fair comparison than with PMDG at this point in Aeroflys development would probably be an FSX default plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of things that AF2 CAN'T do, but it is pretty useful anyway. With the Airbus and the Boeings you CAN make a full flight from A to B and do an autoland (just take a look at the youtube videos out there). I was also very hesitant to buy it because of the lack of depth, i.e you can''t do a start up from cold and dark (allthough there is a mod out for the Cessna 172 so you can do it). But now I enjoy being able to take a quick flight from A to B without any "nonsense". I'm pretty sure we will see a great future for AF2, especially now that ORBX have decided to support it, and I'm sure other companies will join in eventually. I DON'T have any connection to Ipac whatsoever, just think we shall support a potentionally great flightsim, which I think it can be.

 

"A more fair comparison than with PMDG at this point in Aeroflys development would probably be an FSX default plane."

 

Excactly, when FSX came out none of the default tubeliners had any advanced working systems, and look where it is today.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of your comments in the opening post, Jeroen. The only one where I diverge from your opinion is in the "flat" photoscenery. Whilst I would prefer to see 3D buildings and other structures on top of the photoscenery images, I can enjoy the photoscenery itself down to quite low altitudes (less than 500 feet). However, I completely agree with you regarding the trees. They are scattered all over the place in a very haphazard (and totally unconvincing) fashion.This needs to be sorted out in a future update.

 

I am confident that IPACS (with the help of third parties) will address most (if not all) of the issues that you have mentioned in your opening post. I will certainly be shouting for what I would like to see, because AeroFly FS2 really does have the potential to become the best looking (and most atmospheric) flight simulator on the PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there you have the nub of the difficulty of most reviews to date. Most especially on Youtube,......

 

Much too often they are wrong,.....

 

Spot on!

 

 

I've been keeping track the last few months, keeping people up to date.

 

Thank you so much for all info. Just continue what you’re doing now.   :smile: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Providing instructional video's for all AFS2 planes can be a bit too much... I think manuals (pdf or at least a help file) really are the way to go

 

I think it's an organic process. Once a authoritative video is out there to establish the basics of Aerofly use.... Then comes the flood of videos from users, which is the same process we have on all the other sims.

 

As for manuals. Ipacs has been not so good with this, as it seems I have to provide a link for their manual 5 times a week. It should be much more front and center after the download.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more fair comparison than with PMDG at this point in Aeroflys development would probably be an FSX default plane.

 

Agreed. Although I didn't compare anything with anything: I mainly posted my observations flying the default Airbus and tried to show what it does and doesn't. I didn't post what I did to say 'See, the systems suck compared to the Aerosoft Airbus'  :wink: but I did want to make clear what one could expect from a default airliner. And I have to say that I was surprised to see for instance the MCP almost completely working.

 

But now I enjoy being able to take a quick flight from A to B without any "nonsense".

 

Me too! Lately I don't have much time to fly and AFS2 is perfect for the kind of flying I am able to do now. I am also quite happy with a few of the functions (I like the AFS2 map and the way you can plan a flight a lot), the speed at which you can be up and running, etc. And after the latest XP betas I am VERY HAPPY with AFS2 performance... As (I think) HiFlyer posted somewhere: no tweaks, just flying!

 

 

I agree with most of your comments in the opening post, Jeroen. The only one where I diverge from your opinion is in the "flat" photoscenery. Whilst I would prefer to see 3D buildings and other structures on top of the photoscenery images, I can enjoy the photoscenery itself down to quite low altitudes (less than 500 feet). 

 

 

Yes, this is a very personal thing: I myself can't stand it but I know others can!  :wink:

 

 

 

I am confident that IPACS (with the help of third parties) will address most (if not all) of the issues that you have mentioned in your opening post. I will certainly be shouting for what I would like to see, because AeroFly FS2 really does have the potential to become the best looking (and most atmospheric) flight simulator on the PC.

 

 

+1 I have been waiting all day to post my findings in the iPacs forum but I still don't have access. I also want this sim to succeed!

 

 

I think it's an organic process. Once a authoritative video is out there to establish the basics of Aerofly use.... Then comes the flood of videos from users, which is the same process we have on all the other sims.

 

As for manuals. Ipacs has been not so good with this, as it seems I have to provide a link for their manual 5 times a week.

 

 

Yes, video's can work or do work for some. I simply like manuals. I'm old.  :wink:

 

Yes LOL I have seen your links! Still, the manual still is a bit too basic imho. But well, early acces, work in progress etc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this