Sign in to follow this  
J van E

Aerofly FS 2 has two drawbacks

Recommended Posts

Drawback 1

 

There isn't much to do about it on the various forums. Due to real life obligations I often spend more time on the various forums than I do actually flying. With FSX, P3D and XP11 this wasn't a problem at all: enough to talk about! I could enjoy myself online all day long. However, hardly anyone is talking about Aerofly FS 2 and that's a shame. Not only because it makes my days boring :wink: but also because it is worth being talked about.

 

Drawback 2

 

Smoothness is all that counts in flightsims. To me an fps above 20 in FSX/P3D/XP11 was quite nice already and when it was around 30 it was smooth to me. I was very happy that an fps 30 was smooth to me because usually fps didn't get much higher. However, you can throw all that 30 fps=smooth crap out of the window because I'm not buying it anymore... Boy, did I fool myself. Now I have experienced what REAL smoothness is in Aerofly FS 2 the other sims seriously don't cut it for me anymore... I started XP11 today and lowered really all kinds of settings and still it didn't become as utterly totally smooth as AFS2 is... which is a bummer because due to this my old sims can hardly satisfy me anymore now...! They look jerky and stuttering in comparison! The last few days I've only been flying the default Aerofly FS 2 Airbus in the southwest US and, yes, of course a lot of things are lacking but that smoothness... seriously... what a difference does it make. And despite its limitations it all looks beautiful, the sun is really shining out there, during descent the mountains glide by as if they are real... Screw that 30 fps=smooth... 120 fps: THAT'S smooth!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

I just discovered there is at least one place you can go 60fp in XP11 at max setting with nice scenery: LPMA. I downloaded the island scenery from X-plane.org.

 

I totally agree with you. The instance I hit full 60fps v-sync, I was into a different world - the real world. The glass smooth fps coupled with photo-real scenery + 3D autogen is incredible. 

 

But unless you have a 120fps monitor 60fps is as high as most people can experience. My old 4K TV supposedly can do 1080 at 120fps, but I haven't figured out how to make it do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish you the best of fun, and many hours of enjoyment in your new sim!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah J, im lovimg it too, so schmooooth!! And quick to load. I've barely flown any sims the last couple of yrs, but this sim has brought me back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't part of the high frames simply the lack of addon high end airports, aircraft, etc, etc.  If ( and I think its a big if) that all gets added we will probably just be back at the same place.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't part of the high frames simply the lack of addon high end airports, aircraft, etc, etc.  If ( and I think its a big if) that all gets added we will probably just be back at the same place.

take away traffic, atc, weather, ai, etc from fsx/p3d and xp11............and you get Aerofly FS3 with 1000fps   :smile:  :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't part of the high frames simply the lack of addon high end airports, aircraft, etc, etc.  If ( and I think its a big if) that all gets added we will probably just be back at the same place.

 

 

Thats what i was thinking today. After AF2 starts getting more integrated stuff will it start bogging down? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are probably some differences in efficiencies for the graphics engines employed by the various flight sims but they all have to contend with Windows and the associated video driver for the specific hardware. It's the addons and IQ settings that make a big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't part of the high frames simply the lack of addon high end airports, aircraft, etc, etc. 

 

 

Of course it is! You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. :wink: And I know things will change in the future. However, specially compared to FSX/P3D the core engine simply is more up to date and future proof. The way FSX/P3D for instance loads scenery simply sucks and that difference will stay. I also know the devs like to make all addons developed by others more a part of the core sim itself, intergrate them more tightly or so, and I think performance will benefit from that too. But apart from all that: the question is if everything that FSX/P3D/XP11 offer will ever be in Aerofly FS 2. One of the important things the devs wanted is a sim that you can quickly start, set up and fly in. It serves a different purpose than other sims. I don't need everything there is in other sims in AFS2. But we'll see how it all turns out! The fact that this is the newest flightsim engine around helps a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newest is not necessarily most advanced. I continue to shake my head at the comments about graphics engines because none of us has access to the actual code. It's a wonderful topic about which to speculate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newest is not necessarily most advanced. I continue to shake my head at the comments about graphics engines because none of us has access to the actual code. It's a wonderful topic about which to speculate.

 

 

You've got a point there.  :wink: Still, one of the AFS2 devs said 'I think the FSLabs A320 would run quite a bit smoother on the Aerofly FS 2 engine'. Which is of course interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thread Jeroen. And you are absolutely correct, framerate is everything. No exceptions. You can have all the addons and tweaks in the world with sliders maxed out to the right, but if you have a slideshow, it's all for nothing.

 

I'm going to be honest, I haven't tried AF2. I'm very interested in it though. I follow this forum quite a bit but I haven't posted in it until now. I love the fact that people are reporting that it runs smoother than P3D/FSX even on mediocre systems. There's only 2 things putting me off right now, and they are 1) the lack of places to fly and 2) the lack of addons. However, it's very early days yet and I'm sure this will improve in time. It looks like a sim with a promising future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the fact that people are reporting that it runs smoother than P3D/FSX even on mediocre systems. There's only 2 things putting me off right now, and they are 1) the lack of places to fly and 2) the lack of addons. However, it's very early days yet and I'm sure this will improve in time. It looks like a sim with a promising future.

 

As others have hinted already: the two things that put you off right now are the same two things that may perhaps stop things from running smooth... :wink: But I'd like to look at if from the positive side (unlike I did in the beginning LOL) and I also think it is a sim with a promising future. Right now I am flying from KPHX to KLAX in the Airbus (in managed mode) and the world looks beautiful down there (not so amazing with photoreal at FL360). As I said elsewhere, the default planes at least LOOK awesome (unlike some default planes in other sims), And with LiveATC in the background it kinda feels okay to me for now.  :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an FS9 dinosaur AF2 looks good enough to me. Better then the others.

Much better.

 

It just needs, canned atc, weather and seasons, and it will be a winner to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take away traffic, atc, weather, ai, etc from fsx/p3d and xp11............and you get Aerofly FS3 with 1000fps   :smile:  :P

 

I decided to give this a try. Fired up XP11 (don't have P3D installed right now) and turned ALL graphic options down to the lowest possible. Really everything. I parked a default Boeing on KLAX. This resulted in an almost empty world. Fps was around 55 to 60 on my PC but... looking around with Track IR still felt sluggisch. Tearing was terrible and it was a big jaggy edged mess. So I set everything to Medium (of course shadows still off, no AI, no clouds, etc.) and fps was around 35. And still it looked terrible.

 

In AFS2 I can park my Boeing on KLAX with settings maxed out all the way, detailed airport, parked planes, shadows, the lot, and still fps won't drop below 120 on my PC.

 

So... I don't think you are right with your assumption. :smile: :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparison with default scenery and planes. It is an animated gif so obviously the colors are a bit odd an grainy. But I think that we can conclude that with similar settings and options AFS2 performs better. (And looks better too but that's another story and very personal.) Of course XP11 isn't optimized yet but even if it was you can't say that turning off all settings in XP11 or P3D will equal AFS2 because fps in AFS2 stays better and that's with maximum settings...!

 

31974744650_020577b224_o.gif

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to give this a try. Fired up XP11 (don't have P3D installed right now) and turned ALL graphic options down to the lowest possible. Really everything. I parked a default Boeing on KLAX. This resulted in an almost empty world. Fps was around 55 to 60 on my PC but... looking around with Track IR still felt sluggisch. Tearing was terrible and it was a big jaggy edged mess. So I set everything to Medium (of course shadows still off, no AI, no clouds, etc.) and fps was around 35. And still it looked terrible.

 

In AFS2 I can park my Boeing on KLAX with settings maxed out all the way, detailed airport, parked planes, shadows, the lot, and still fps won't drop below 120 on my PC.

 

So... I don't think you are right with your assumption. :smile: :P

 

I've actually done this experiment multiple times over the last few months. I kept hearing that if you turned down (name a sim here) to match Aerofly, you would also get phenomenal FPS, and this was usually said with a lot of confidence.

 

Actually trying it turned to be pretty revealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I look at it, there's a simulator, and then there's real life.

 

Real life runs so smooth that it doesn't have a framerate. Technically eyes don't capture in frames per second, but rather with light.

 

Anything simulated like a game or a movie is supposed to invoke a dream like state where it's kind of blurry, or not as smooth as real life.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've actually done this experiment multiple times over the last few months. I kept hearing that if you turned down (name a sim here) to match Aerofly, you would also get phenomenal FPS, and this was usually said with a lot of confidence.

 

Actually trying it turned to be pretty revealing.

Revealing indeed. I expected the assumption to be wrong but I didn't expect it was THIS wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revealing indeed. I expected the assumption to be wrong but I didn't expect it was THIS wrong!

 

I kind of did. If you also play modern games, you get a pretty good idea of what todays graphics cards can potentially do as opposed to what they actually do in our legacy sims. The gap is pretty enormous, and I think it's actually growing.

 

How many posts have we seen where someone buys the latest and greatest graphics card for (place name of sim here) and rather than increased FPS, he or she is given mostly the opportunity for higher resolutions and maybe turning up certain special effects?

 

Or current sims are CPU based, the world is increasingly GPU based, and I think in things like Outerra and Aerofly, we're simply seeing some of the implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True... but of course most people then come with the 'entire world' mantra and that you can't compare flightsims with regular games which only have a small gaming world. Turns out that's wrong. It is true when it comes to how much detail you can put into a flightsim f you want to cover the entire world but it is nonsense when it comes to performance. If a flightsim performs bad its graphic engine is simply outdated or sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Aerofly have 800 different types of scenery objects rendered at any one time with autogen scenery unique to the area you fly in? If not, maybe that's why it performs better. Instead of rendering 800 types of scenery objects unique to each area, it renders a small handful and reaps the performance benefits.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post.  Although some of what makes AF2 so smooth may not be down to pure FPS, but rather how the sim handles vsync, redrawing, and TrackIR integration.    One of the things that made me move back from P3D to FSX was that (despite healthy FPS) I just could not get TrackIR to run as smoothly with P3D.   Speculating, I think this related to how P3D operates in 'pseudo full screen' and how that relates to vsync operation.

 

TrackIR use is the best I've seen in any software, in AF2.

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