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

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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/

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

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

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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

[jlund 380]

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.

[Christopher Low 5,332]

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.

[torium 207]

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: 

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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.

[Guest]

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....

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Honestly, I think it will be very interesting to come back after two or three years and look at these threads with the benefit of hindsight. By then, Ipacs will have likely succeeded or failed, but I myself think they will surprise many!

[torium 207]

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

Yes, you are right of course.

But I refer to what a pilot actually do in a particular video. He does not need all the buttons (for example in Aerofly FS2 A320 the copilot loading flight plans into the FMC). 

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

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.

Yep. do that all the time...

[Ce_Zeta 13]

Thanks for the review.

You wrote all info I was seeking.

[Johan_Dees 84]

Thanks Jeroen.

 

You told me what I was suspecting. Most video's show only the best parts, the good and not the ugly.

 

Also, the talk about systems (by others) is irrelevant.

First AF2 needs to be a solid base. A world, good weather, AI engine, navigation system.

If that is rock solid and we still have 120 fps, then with an accessable engine it can replace the other sims (maybe)

 

In the meantime its just a toy.

 

And I don't give a rat's &@($* if one call it a simulator or a game. I cant believe people are putting time in such a discussion.

 

Its all in the eyes of the beholder anyway's.