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!

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

 

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:

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...!

 

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:

 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

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

 

I was wondering: do you have vsync enabled? I don't because it makes AFS2 stutter badly. TrackIR is indeed awesome in AFS2 but the terrible tearing spoils it a bit. Don't you have that?

I was wondering: do you have vsync enabled? I don't because it makes AFS2 stutter badly. TrackIR is indeed awesome in AFS2 but the terrible tearing spoils it a bit. Don't you have that?

 

Because I always use TrackIR (wouldn't use a sim that doesn't work with it), I always use vsync - I find it a 'must' because of the tearing.   But for me, AF2 is very smooth with vsync enabled.    Saying that, I may be using the vsync at the Nvidia Inspector level, rather than in AF2.    Can't remember - I'll have to check!

 

 

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.

 

Am I right in assuming that you are running 1920x1080 resolution? At this resolution and low settings I can have AI fly the default 747 over Los Angeles with ZL 16 photoscenery at 94fps in XP11. But of course fps is not everything, and every user has different visual perception.

 

Other question about Aerofly: Is it correct that except for the five or six cities in the Southwest and NYC there are no other populated cities? Many screen shots are gorgeous but they seem to concentrate on the higher res cities.

 

 

Am I right in assuming that you are running 1920x1080 resolution? At this resolution and low settings I can have AI fly the default 747 over Los Angeles with ZL 16 photoscenery at 94fps in XP11. But of course fps is not everything, and every user has different visual perception.

 

For myself I run on a 2K monitor and my tests are based on that. I also occasionally run 4K via dsr with very little FPS change.

 

 

 

Other question about Aerofly: Is it correct that except for the five or six cities in the Southwest and NYC there are no other populated cities? Many screen shots are gorgeous but they seem to concentrate on the higher res cities.

 

Yup, it's essentially enhanced photo scenery at this point. The big change will be when/if the Orbx regional sceneries arrive.........

 

And when other 3rd parties start digging in.

You guys got me, downloading this again now...... :rolleyes: