How are the flight models? ground handling?

[cckeating 1]

Hi all, considering giving this one a whirl, but what I'm afraid of is a "Google Earth flight simulator" - you know just a scenery simulator.

How are the flight models and the feeling of flight? 

I've seen references to flight unlimited 3 - which is a great compliment - to this day that simulator gave me the most believable feeling of flight I've ever experienced in a sim. And it also modeling ground handling very well, requiring opposite aileron in a crosswind, which I don't think I've experienced since. How is Aerofly in this regard?

 

Thanks.

[jcomm 5,930]

The default aircraft have, IMO, very acceptable flight models. I particularly like the feel of the Airbus A320, which is usually represented in an overdone FBW mode by the other sims I've used.

The ASG-29 is also very well done. The EXTRA 300 great in aerobatics too.

The Warbirds ( ww2 ) specially the Corsair are very superficial though, with practically no noticeable effects from that powerful engine and big prop ahead, but all of this is configurable in the "aircraft.cfg" of AEF2, which, btw, when opened for inspection / editing, reveal excellent potential, and I'm actually one who likes to find some similarities in IPACS's approach to fdm to that of FU3, which was also one of my preferred flightsims ever.

So, to sum up, you wont be disappointed. Beware though that presently systems modelling is very basic. No fuel systems simulated by default, no detailed simulation of the reciprocating engines, for instance in as far as mixture and it's adjustments by leaning goes, etc... But at one of the dev's site you can already find a very nice update for the default C172, which shows the potential, and although not simulating ( yet ) the complexities of leaning, allows for mixture to be cut and the engine stopped, and other subtleties :-)

 

https://www.aerofly-sim.de/download/download-aeroflyfs2/af2_c172_download

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Also. The superb smoothness of the sim helps to make he flying seem more like real life.

[Chock 17,769]

Generally speaking the flight models are okay, however, the F4U Corsair's flight model is not very good at all, which is disappointing since the real aeroplane is an interesting and challenging aircraft to fly and land, necessitating a curved approach owing to the very long nose obstructing forward visibility of a runway or aircraft carrier deck.

As you may know, the Corsair had (at the time its prototype was built in the early 1940s) the most powerful radial engine ever put into a single-engined aircraft (the engine was rated at about 2,000 hp), and that big engine was linked to a huge propeller which was 13 feet in diameter, so big that they had to give the design gull wings in order to allow the propeller enough ground clearance when on the ground.

Most contemporary fighter aircraft were much smaller by comparison, with engines of around half the amount of horsepower of the Corsair and with considerably smaller propellers. So as one can imagine, the Corsair was subject to a lot of torque, early versions, before a small vane was added to one of the wings to improve flight characteristics, were subject to quite vicious stalls and spins induced by a torque roll. None of those slightly scary and challenging flight behaviour is apparent in the AeroFly FS2 Corsair.

Additionally, the texturing and mapping of the textures is a bit iffy in places, it has some big rivet heads on it, which look more like the kind of thing you'd see on a battleship hull. The real F4U Corsair was one of the earliest aeroplanes to feature flush riveting, and advanced welding of some parts too, in order to give it a very clean and smooth exterior skin.

[Elvensmith 165]

Quite interesting to read this. I tried Aerofly when it first came out but refunded after I was able to get one of the jetliners off the runway at 90 knots. Thinking of repurchasing (should have some Steam credit off SWMBO for my birthday next month) but can users of the sim confirm that generally jetliner physics and handling have improved and at least on a par with default or low end payware MSFS?

[jcomm 5,930]

All Ican confirm is that, as in pretty much every civil flight simulation game I have tried so far, nothing extraordinary should be expected from the default aircraft.

I confess I never even thought about trying to rotate the A320 at 90 ... For me the most important is looking in the aircraft physics definition structure / files and finding out their potential, how the aerodynamics are modeled, how they can be fine tuned, etc... and it looks like AEFS2 has lot of potential.

Of course GI-GO always applies...

Knowing the care taken to model, for instance, the upcoming multi-stage turboprop engine for the Q-400, or simply looking into the current implementation of jet / turbofan engines, shows an approach open for 3pds to add the necessary complexity, and that is a way of guessing what might happen in the Future.

OTOH, I believe AEFS2 smoothness is in part due to bringing as much as possible into the aircraft and systems definition files, preferably not depending on external code / DLLs.... That means that a lot has still to be added into the core engine to permit the level of sophistication some MSFS or even X-plane addons provide...

Benefit of doubt, is what I am giving to AEFS2 :-) After all even at it's present stage it can deliver a much better flight experience, in some aspects including but not only the smoothness and high fps, compared to the other civil flight simulation games...

 

[olderndirt 2,295]

None of the simulators simulate real life flying very well but I'd rate FS2 closest.  Procedures wise, FS2 has a ways to go as with environmental addons but, if the two recent additions from Orbx are a preview of things to come, it'll be worth the wait.