I focus on supporting all of the flights sims and their developers. I never understand why people feel the need to spread hate and negativity towards one sim or the other. The more good options we have the better it is for everybody. 

Jeff

57 minutes ago, BEARlyThereCDN said:

I'm going to sit on the sidelines and watch how both AFS2 and FSW develop.

Yup. Despite some obvious invitations to step in and defend the honor of Aerofly FS 2, I'm going to decline and stay in the car where it's safe.

3 hours ago, Chock said:

Undeniably looks good, and of course you'll not have to worry about waiting for clearance to get on that beautiful runway for a couple of reasons. First up, you won't need to call for clearance because well, ATC are apparently all dead, presumably killed by vampires or some such since nobody is moving about during daylight (or night for that matter) and second, as you've surmised; you've evidently woken up 28 days after some kind of vampiric/zombie apocalypse, thus explaining why you are literally the only thing moving in the entire world, which is handy for VFR really, since you won't actually have to look out for any other traffic at all.

Don't get me wrong, Aerofly has plenty of good points and it is still technically not the release version, so like everyone else, I remain hopeful of what is to come for sure, but when a flight sim makes X-Plane's appallingly bad ATC look good by comparison, then one can safely say it's a long way from banging that final nail into any other sim' s coffin for anything other than a quick blast around the sky.

"Fair enough, Chock". I guess, we'll all see what in the coming few months, IPAC's have up their collective sleeves.... :)

Yup. as I say, I think it's a definite contender if they can get some decent ATC in there, some traffic, some more complex avionics, and weather would be nice too. What is not in doubt is its frame rates. Sure they'll drop if other stuff is added, but they have a lot of room to play with when most people can easily get well over 100 fps on it with everything maxed out. Even if all that stuff is added, I sincerely doubt it would turn it into a slideshow when it presently runs like the proverbial clappers.

41 minutes ago, Chock said:

Even if all that stuff is added, I sincerely doubt it would turn it into a slideshow when it presently runs like the proverbial clappers.

 

Just since it's relevant, I will add these recent comments from JAN (an aerofly developer) regarding framerates.

Quote

 

Hey guys, just to clear a few things up:

"Concerns about the performance with more systems?" No, I don't think so... From my point of view, more systems won't affect the performance that much if at all.

If you are using the CPU to its full potential it can do a lot of things very quickly (3.400.000.000 things second! per core...). And Aerofly has an engine that is very powerful, using multicore, 64bit...

I've been adding thousands of small systems in the past year now, and I've not had an issue with CPU performance even once. The frame rate stayed at 60FPS since the graphics is running on another thread and mainly on the graphics card anyway - so rendering will still be very smooth even if theoretically we somehow managed to bring the physics engine to its limits.

Then the physics would probably just get less accurate if we had to slow it down... That shouldn't affect the framerate at all though; it does in other simulators but it shouldn't. But I doubt we'll ever get to the limits of the physics engine, even if we add study level system depth.

 

 

25 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Concerns about the performance with more systems?" No, I don't think so... From my point of view, more systems won't affect the performance that much if at all.

I have read something very similar by Jarrad Marshall on the Orbx forum that more or less confirms this statement. People who are actually working on Aerofly FS2 share the same view: while more addons will certainly decrease performance, they are very unlikely to seriously jeopardize the user experience.