HiFlyer

AEROFLY FS2: Q-400 Moves Into Closed Alpha Testing

Recommended Posts

Hi folks! just passing on some hopefully interesting info.

 

From Drhotwing1 (Ipacs)

Greetings Aerofly FS2 Community,

We wanted to provide you with a status update regarding the much anticipated Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 Aircraft. As you are all aware, the Q400 aircraft will have most of the complex systems installed and operational as described by Jan in the previous posting: Q400 status update - More screenshots!

These new systems will not only be isolated to the Q400 aircraft. The updated autopilot system that will be a part of this release will affect all of the FS2 aircraft that have an autopilot system. Due to this, careful testing will be taking place prior to the official release of the Q400.

At this time, i'm pleased to inform you that the Q400 has moved into this closed internal testing. This testing will take as long as it needs to confirm the quality that all of you should expect from IPACS prior to release. Please be patient just a bit longer while we get the Q400 and the new autopilot ready for takeoff.

As always, we wish to thank you for your continued support while development of Aerofly FS2 continues. 

 

.........................................................................................................................

 

From Jet-pack (jan) Ipacs

https://www.aerofly.com/community/forum/index.php?thread/8351-q400-status-update-more-screenshots/&postID=41227#post41227

Dear Aerofly fans

In October I released a couple of screenshots of our upcoming Bombardier Dash8 Q400 (short just "Q400"), here is the link to the old thread: Bombardier Dash 8Q-400.

Back then it looked like the release was just around the corner but the work was interrupted in order to get the software development kit (SDK) out. Sorry for getting your hopes up high and then don't release soon. But that is the risk I took when I uploaded the screenshots, I just wanted to share the process on the Q400 and didn't know it would be pushed back that much. As I mentioned back then the turboprop engine was pretty much the only thing missing. In the last months we picked up the Q400 right where we left off and implemented a new turboprop engine specifically for the Q400. It features a simulated two stage compressor together with core turbines plus the power turbine that drives the large propeller. The basic physics for that are working pretty great at the moment, We have some fine tuning left todo (e.g. improve the FADEC) but that is all manageable, apart from that we're pretty much done with that aircraft.

The shut down engine on the screenshot below is the current state of my development version. We have not yet decided weather the initial release of the Q400 will feature engine start as well but we all agree that that would be pretty awesome. In the engine physics we would need to adjust a few things so that we can actually start the engine from zero rotation speed. We need to hook up a starter to the core turbine's shaft and then program the FADEC (engine conroller) just right to that it doesn't flood the engine. It's a bit more work for us, so maybe you can comment below if you would like to see such a feature from day one and if you would want wait just a little bit longer for that?  Personally I'd love to implement the engine start procedure first

The Q400 has quite a bit of system depth, here is an excerpt of its features 

(this list is far from complete, just the things that just now popped back into my head)

  • engine derates (MTOP, NTOP, MCL, MCR) using condition levers and engine control push buttons
  • reduced propeller rotation speed for landing (REDUCED NP LANDING)
  • fully feathering propeller, reverse thrust
  • all system pages and display swaps
  • navigation source selection and HSI select (+DUAL FD on ILS approach) to make the autopilot follow the FMS, ILS or VOR inputs from either pilot or copilot primary flight display
  • HSI on the navigation display to pre-tune the ILS approach (see screenshots below)
  • ARCDU (audio radio control display unit) with multiple pages (including the expanded pages), option to disable the automatic FMS tuning with the knob (ON/BOTH/FMS)
  • set v-speeds
  • DH/MDA selection
  • caution and warning annunciations for several warnings and cautions (will be expanded over time)
  • gear warning, beta range warning horn (when levers are below flight idle in flight), takeoff warning (+test), elevator trim warning, altitude alert, stick shaker,...
  • ice protection panel with automatic or manual selection of the airframe parts to deice
  • annunciator and advisory light test (screenshots below)
  • a lot of push buttons are moving when clicked (the other aircraft have that as well in my developer version - will be updated soon)
  • pretty much every button in the flight deck is implemented in my developer version, the ones that aren't functioning yet will likely be disabled in the release but that isn't certain yet. Maybe you'll get to click everything, too
  • stick pusher for stall protection
  • sound is actually pretty nice and has quite a bit of features. Also a lot of audible warnings 
  • handling is very nice as well, it's a lot of fun to fly, has noticeable prop-wash effects as well, straight takeoffs and climb outs actually require a bit of rudder and aileron trim
  • autopilot is simulated accuratly and features almost all modes (e.g. VOR OS, VOR capture annunciation is missing but VOR mode itself works, so nothing is really missing except maybe MLS but that is rarely used irl and we'd need to implement procedures and receivers for that first)

The FMS will be implemented later, once we tackle it for all aircraft. So no changing of the flight plan from within the cockpit just yet.

Electric and hydraulics systems are not implemented yet but probably will be in the future.

Disclaimer

The screenshots below are taken from my developer version that doesn't have all required features for the scenery, my trees are missing for example. These are work in progress (WIP) development screenshots that may contain certain mistakes or bugs, the final product may differ. Not all of the features shown below might make it to the public version on first release.

Engine data is not fine-tuned yet, might be off a bit on the screenshots but we are not done there yet.

 

Shut down engines:

ELz2Ev.jpg

 

Annunciator and advisory light test in action:

4YKR7o.jpg

vVmvep.jpg

 

Taxiing out to the runway (this is OrbX Innsbruck but in my developer version I don't have all the new scenery features yet)

mSaIbI.jpg

 

Ready for takeoff:

VhXOp4.jpg

 

Lift off, pushed the "NAV" button on the autopilot to follow the route (FMS as nav-source required)

owx0qE.jpg

 

DUAL FD - CAT 2 ILS approach (this thing can't do CAT3 with autopilot or do a fully automatic landing sadly - it has only one autopilot, two would be required)

MzNmVX.jpg

 

Initiating a go-around by pressing the GA-button (assignable in control settings)

Tampxz.jpg

 

ARCDU, expanded page for the ATC/TCAS: line select the squawk and push "EXP" to get there...

wWQY06.jpg

 

HSI is displayed on the navigation display so that you could continue to follow the FMS but can also already monitor the NAV receiver, nice handy feature!

wWQY06.jpg

 

All in all there is a lot to play with in the Q400. So much that we will need a thorough tutorial for it perhaps.

 

Regards,
Jan

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Very good work there.

Some time ago I had the chance to try Aerofly FS 2 and I liked it very much.

Then a very ironic thing came to my mind. While exploring AFS2, I thought of all the things that could be improved (as we usually do in every flight sim we use): better weather, better atmospheric scattering, ATC+AI, more autogen coverage, reflective water, even certain aspects of the flight model.

And then... I realized that "more complex systems" not once came to my mind! Yes, I know it's an important aspect, but I found it ironic that, in my mental quest for better realism in the feeling of flight, I gave priorities to many other aspects while completely disregarding that one.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying: IPACS is doing the right thing (complex systems are a big priority for the flight sim community and a very important feature for a general purpose flight sim), and I know that they're working on some of those other things I mentioned as well.

I just found ironic that we simmers can have peculiar priorities sometimes. Whereas, say, the lack of a working mixture knob can kill the immersion more than the mountain meshes popping up and moving at 19fps. Isn't that weird?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Murmur said:

I just found ironic that we simmers can have peculiar priorities sometimes. Whereas, say, the lack of a working mixture knob can kill the immersion more than the mountain meshes popping up and moving at 19fps. Isn't that weird?

Not really weird..... It could have been a combination of many things: mood, expectations, the phases of the moon.......

For me, if a person is enjoying themselves, that should really be the only major criteria, even if every single last doohickey isn't blinking, clicking or whirring.

For me, 30fps per second is much more immersion killing than a nonoperative mixture knob on a plane with infinite fuel.  :laugh:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

For me, 30fps per second is much more immersion killing than a nonoperative mixture knob on a plane with infinite fuel.  :laugh:

30 fps is technically not immersion killing and, in my opinion, an acceptable performance depending on your rig, your settings, the amount of your addons and other factors.
Problem is when you drop below 20 fps... :ha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, barrel_owl said:

30 fps is technically not immersion killing and, in my opinion, an acceptable performance depending on your rig, your settings, the amount of your addons and other factors.
Problem is when you drop below 20 fps... :ha:

It honestly depends on what you are accustomed to. Maybe two years ago, I would have been (and was) happy with even just 25FPS and some fiddling with my settings (and we certainly do a lot of that, don't we?)

Managing 30fps over Aerofly New York I considered a high achievement! But add in FSDT KJFK ( just purchased V2 so I could test it with P3DV4) and suddenly you are in slideshow land if you are using what I consider to be acceptable settings, and forget about adding another heavy airport in the area.

Now, I can fly over a beautiful New York with JFK, Laguardia, Teterboro and others all in plain sight while easily exceeding 100fps with full shadows and...... after a year or so of that, it's hard to go back.

I wanted to give ESP another chance, so I did purchase P3DV4 and about $200 of extra Orbx scenery, and did give it the old college try; and yes, Orbx does beautiful stuff....

But..... (and I know I'm gonna get creamed)

30 to 40fps with the settings necessary to maintain that framerate are just painful to me, now.

I will still use it, in fact I'm thinking of buying Innsbruck for comparison purposes, but I have to say I'm drifting way more towards X-plane, and of course, Aerofly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news for an excellent simulator. The Q400 is most welcome to the already very good existing aircraft!.

Cheers, Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want to see road and sea traffic in FS2 so its beautiful world will come to live. Did the developers ever say when that will come?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flightsim axiom: we will not be satisfied until our computer is brought to its knees... then we know the sim has reached its full potential!  :laugh:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

30 to 40fps with the settings necessary to maintain that framerate are just painful to me, now.

 

I couldn't agree more. Everyone who says 25 or 30 fps is GREAT in a flight sim should experience the total smoothness of Aerofly FS 2 for a while: after that 25 or 30 fps really doesn't cut it anymore. 30 fps may seem sort of smooth in certain situations (flying straigh ahead while not looking around) but during actual flying the difference between 30 fps in for instance P3D and 100 fps in Aerofly FS is immense and very obvious. A change in direction or looking around with an fps of 30 is very different compared to the same movements with an fps of +100.

It's hard to describe in words. Let me put it in another way: when you look around in real life, do you even think 'This looks smooth!'? No, you don't. Things are just as they are. You only start thinking about things running smooth when you are aware things are presented to you in frames per second, like on a computer screen: at a certain moment you start to think 'Well, I hardly notice the frames anymore, this looks smooth'. But you still are aware of the frames. Well, at 30 fps things are obviously presented to you in frames per second, in Aerofly FS 2 things seem to be presented just as they are. A huge difference that has a huge impact on immersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

30 to 40fps with the settings necessary to maintain that framerate are just painful to me, now.

Problem here is that you are all comparing apples to oranges here. Yes, the framerate in Aerofly FS2 is nice, but the complexity of the sim so low compared to FSX/P3D/X-Plane. The aircraft are all toys from an arcade game. There isn't even a working mixture lever in the prop aircraft. With that low level of complexity you can easily achieve 60fps+ in P3D/X-Plane with a decent system. As soon as they add more complexity (also currently no autogen, no complex weather, no ATC, ...) the framerates will start to drop. No more 100fps over New York...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carlito777 said:

As soon as they add more complexity (also currently no autogen, no complex weather, no ATC, ...) the framerates will start to drop. No more 100fps over New York...

Can you explain that claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, torium said:

Can you explain that claim?

It's relatively straightforward and easily demonstrable.  Start with any sim you like (probably XP or P3D as they have bigger add-on ecosystems).  Turn autogen off, set clear skies, disable any atc addons, load a simple plane and fly above New York.  You will get a framerate, doesn't matter what it is for our purposes, let's call it X.  Start turning on autogen, ATC addons, load a PMDG aircraft, set the weather to cloudy or stormy.  At each stage you will see a framerate drop of some magnitude as those cycles dedicated to chucking frames out the door at X speed are spent on something else.  At no point is the framerate ever likely to exceed X.  

 

X is 100 for Aerofly on HiFlyer's system at the moment.  Whilst it probably uses resources more efficiently, Aerofly is subject to the same physical resource limitations as any other programme, therefore if Aerofly achieves the same level of complexity and completeness that a "fully loaded" XP or P3D setup achieves, framrates will drop (we can discuss whether that should be their goal, but let's assume for the moment that is the case). 

 

Does that mean a 10% or a 50% drop?  Not a clue as to the specific figure.  But given the delta in complexity is large it's probably non-trivial.  That is not a criticism of Aerofly, merely a recognition that on any given machine they have a fixed budget of CPU and GPU cycles to spend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, carlito777 said:

As soon as they add more complexity (also currently no autogen, no complex weather, no ATC, ...) the framerates will start to drop. No more 100fps over New York...

 

3 minutes ago, Flying Penguin said:

It's relatively straightforward and easily demonstrable. Start with any sim you like (probably XP or P3D as they have bigger add-on ecosystems).  Turn autogen off, set clear skies, disable any atc addons, load a simple plane and fly above New York.

This is a typical misconception based on an arbitrary application of years of ESP experience to a quite different platform, which has in fact been built with a much more solid and advanced technology. Obviously, as you add more and more addons and you keep your settings to the highest resolution, performance will always tend to decrease. As the number of addons and additional load you can put on a simulator is virtually unlimited, even the best performing simulator can be brought to its knees at some point. This does not prove, however, that all simulators are the same and keep up with high additional loads in the same way. Jarrad Marshall, who developed the LOWI scenery both for FSX/P3D and Aerofly, explained in detail weeks ago in the Orbx forum why such view is little more than a speculation. IPACS actually built a very solid platform that will be capable to support many addons in the future without compromising performance and experience. As a matter of fact, most of us fly over NYC and LOWI well above 100 fps (I get about 100 fps over NYC at Ultra settings and about 200 fps over LOWI with a i7 4970K at 4,5 GHz and GTX 980 with 16 GB RAM, which is an average rig for the simmer community). You can test yourself the different performance on LOWI, if you happen to have both versions. Keep in mind that no road traffic is present in LOWI even in the FSX/P3D version and also AI is limited there due to the very special approaches.

Also, are you serious when you say "no autogen"? Ever watched any video of Aerofly over NYC? That's the highest concentration of 3D objects I have ever seen in any civilian simulator so far. The scenery does not cover only Manhattan, it includes large sections of Queens, Brooklyn and especially New Jersey with all major airports. That itself and alone would bring any current ESP version to its knees even in the vanilla state and with conservative settings (actually I see a lot of stuttering in lots of videos even in far less demanding sceneries, but I prefer not to elaborate here).

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Flying Penguin said:

Does that mean a 10% or a 50% drop?  Not a clue as to the specific figure.

This is the main question. How many % drop?  1 - 2%?

Aerofly FS2 engine has of course also its limits. But the claim is that as soon as you increase complexity (a working mixture lever) framrates will drop. IPACS responds to this repeated claim, reads as follows:

 

"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, 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 would somehow managed to bring the physics engine to its limits. Then the phyics would probably just get less acurate if we had to slow it down... 

That shouldn't affect the frame rate at all though, it does in other simulators but it shouldn't. But I doubt we will ever get to the limits of the physics engine, even if we add study level system depth."

"There is always a compromise between quality and performance. So sometimes you have to cut down either on polygons or tital buildings in a single scene. But LOWI proves that the engine can indeed handle a ton of polys and total buildings withour affecting performance.
"

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, barrel_owl said:

Obviously, as you add more and more addons and you keep your settings to the highest resolution, performance will always tend to decrease.

But that was exactly my point, so I'm not sure what you are objecting to?  Whilst add-ons will have some overheads that inbuilt functionality will not (mainly around usage of the relevant API), exactly the same point about increased complexity (whether through increased polygons or working mixture levers/FMS etc) tending to decrease performance in the absence of something else giving way (through changing of settings or accepting a lower frame rate) applies to inbuilt functionality as add-ons, unless Aerofly has somehow worked out how to break physical performance limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barrel owl and Torium, I nearly crossposted with you guys to make the same points you did. :emu_melk:

The main one being that people's gut reaction to the framerate delta of adding additional complexity is, unfortunately, based on more than a decade of experience using older technology. The expectations just don't track with the reality of modern capability

When I say 100fps over New York, I was actually being a bit modest/conservative, as my actual FPS with my current system is closer to 200.

At Lowi, I start on the runway with all settings at ultra with about 150 fps.

If I turn down or off shadows, then the FPS becomes completely astronomical.

And that's not part of a which sim is better argument, it's just an appreciation of the potentials that might be available to the flightsim community in getting its hands on a fully modern engine.

Whether we will ever get to see that potential reach its full fruition is partially up to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Flying Penguin said:

But that was exactly my point, so I'm not sure what you are objecting to?  Whilst add-ons will have some overheads that inbuilt functionality will not (mainly around usage of the relevant API), exactly the same point about increased complexity (whether through increased polygons or working mixture levers/FMS etc) tending to decrease performance in the absence of something else giving way (through changing of settings or accepting a lower frame rate) applies to inbuilt functionality as add-ons, unless Aerofly has somehow worked out how to break physical performance limitations.

Again: virtually every simulator, even if running on a NASA rig, can be brought to its knees at some point, if you really want to. What really matters, however, is: how much room do we have until reaching that point? That gives us a measurable basis for a comparison.

Fact is, as of today, Aerofly is the only platform which has the potential to support VR in the future with a more than decent balance of complexity and performance. Not only because it provides a native VR support, but also because you have plenty of room before you drop to a critical point under which your experience is definitely compromised. Not even X-Plane, which in my opinion is way ahead P3D both graphical and performance wise, is capable today to keep up with AeroFly FS2 under this specific view. In fact, Laminar needs to improve their engine a lot yet, although they're working seriously on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Flying Penguin said:

unless Aerofly has somehow worked out how to break physical performance limitations.

Not really. It's just that 10 years or more is millennia in the computer world, and technology has moved a lot since the creation of the older sims.

They are, all of them, heavily CPU dependant, and that dependency was allowed on the assumption back then that CPU speeds would essentially keep increasing nearly forever. They simply don't take the greatest advantage of where technology actually went, and even as we speak, all of them are struggling to transfer more functions to the GPU where they belong in this day and age.

Unfortunately they have the big, heavy weight of backwards compatibility around their necks, and until that is finally broken they're going to have a tough road advancing like they otherwise might. Someday, Aerofly will probably encounter that same problem of backwards compatibility, but right now it's still free as a bird to leverage modern tech to the maximum its developers are capable of.

Yes, performance will degrade with new functions, but I don't think nearly as badly as many people are apparently expecting.

EDIT: Barrel Owl was faster than me again. I'm going back to bed! :uwe_melk_sblh:

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

But..... (and I know I'm gonna get creamed)

30 to 40fps with the settings necessary to maintain that framerate are just painful to me, now.

I will still use it, in fact I'm thinking of buying Innsbruck for comparison purposes, but I have to say I'm drifting way more towards X-plane, and of course, Aerofly

No you are not ;-)  I agree with you on the immersion of flight and the true feel of being in the air and not to notice that you are in a microstutters-fest even with 40 FPS.  Each sim has its use, for airliner simmer, nothing beats the P3D/PMDG combination, as no ORBX stuffs is in that mix and once you get to FL330, of course you are flying.  Of course if being in the air for hours and follow procedure is your thing.  For me, I want to enjoy flying and enjoy the scenery, being a GA flier I found the P3D/ORBX combination is beautiful but still suffer microstutters, especially on turn, so a total immersion killer.  Nowadays, I use XP11 more often than P3D. I have not tried Aerofly2 yet but am watching with high interested.  If there is a very good GA sim in Aerofly2, then I think that's when I will jump in.  In my view, the news about the Q400 is good, but again that plane is not my thing.  I am hoping its development will lead to better, more system complex GA planes in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, barrel_owl said:

Again: virtually every simulator, even if running on a NASA rig, can be brought to its knees at some point, if you really want to. What really matters, however, is: how much room do we have until reaching that point? That gives us a measurable basis for a comparison.

So, remind me again why a statement that increased complexity will tend to decrease performance from current (impressive) levels, and that we can't yet quantify the exact impact is a controversial statement?  

 

As I said, I am not in any way criticising Aerofly, it looks like a well engineered solution in as far as the implementation to date goes, however we are talking about non-frame-limiter performance, therefore something physical is the limiting factor.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Yes, performance will degrade with new functions, but I don't think nearly as badly as many people are apparently expecting.

 

 

And that's exactly my point.  The rest of the conversation around this is merely best guesses with varying levels of optimism that we will not have a firm answer to until implementation of those new functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see what the flight modeling is like on something which is a bit more akin to what might be expected from a payware add-on, albeit one which still doesn't have a working FMC simulated. As impressive as many aspects of AeroFly FS2 are, one thing which hasn't exactly blown my skirt up is the flight modeling on some of the aeroplanes, which is pretty basic compared to what we see in some other simulations.

A good example of that is the default F4U Corsair, which exhibits the - familiar to all flight simmers - 'nose wandering about as though you are balancing on a ping-pong ball' type of movement as it flies along. In real life, the only aircraft I've flown which really do that (and even then not that much) are gliders, because they are not being thrust through the sky by anything other than gravity whenever not being aerotowed or winched. Every other powered aircraft has too much powered forward inertia and weight to exhibit that kind of behaviour very much if at all. In the case of the real F4U Corsair, it weighs nearly 10,000lbs empty, and is being pulled along by a 2,000 horsepower engine, which itself has a weight of 2,500lbs, driving a propeller which was so big they had to give the aircraft a gull wing just to get ground clearance for that thirteen foot diameter prop. It's an absolute beast of an aeroplane with fairly vicious stall characteristics too. None of that feeling of the real aeroplane comes across in the AeroFly FS2 Corsair, nor can you get it to spin even if you try, whereas the real thing had to have a special vane added to one of the leading edges just to help improve matters on that score a little, and it could still spin viciously anyway. Compare that to for example, the A2A Corsair and you get a fairly apparent lesson in which simulation presently has aircraft with much better simulation of flight modeling.

So as noted, along with wanting to see AI, ATC and better weather added to AeroFly FS2, one thing I'd really like to see, is how closely it can model more study sim-type flight characteristics. I'm pretty sure it can, but I'd like to see it done in that 400 and hopefully we will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chock said:

So as noted, along with wanting to see AI, ATC and better weather added to AeroFly FS2, one thing I'd really like to see, is how closely it can model more study sim-type flight characteristics. I'm pretty sure it can, but I'd like to see it done in that 400 and hopefully we will.

My thoughts also! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes.... actually oftentimes, I feel a bit wary about the whole "study sim" thing, because historically, satisfying that smaller but very vocal segment has tended to drag sims off center in the direction of less accessibility to those drawn to other aspects of flight.

Essentially, the newcomers and little guys tend to be pushed out, and a niche product is born.

I know that both DTG and Ipacs are pretty firmly set on not having their products flown to the top of complexity mountain where nobody else can get to them, and that gives me hope, but i'm also wary.

I've always thought that FS9/FSX etc succeeded not because of how many buttons you could press, but because its developers knew even back then that flight simulation was for everyone.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q400 here looks quite amazing and if all the systems are really implemented as pointed out, then this will be a great airplane. Why? Well, it certainly won't match up with the Majestic Q400, which by the way is not the intention of the developers here, but ... this Q400 here will quite clearly show how much can be achievd within AeroflyFS systemwise even by now. Okay, we don't know how the flightmodell will work, but still i would not be surprised that in the end IPACS will be offering an - overall - really convincing, plausible and immersive representation of the Q400.

Now imagine how much more might be gained in the future if payware developers of a kind such as PMDG, Majestic, A2A (just to mention a few from FSX/P3D here) should start checking out Aerofly ...

Sure, there are importrant areas where AeroflyFS lacks a lot - currently - but (!): I honestly have got to admit that AeroflyFS is catching up very quickly and appears to be a stable platform, programmed to really be able to handle a number of tasks such as weather, ATC, AI and all that at once, without having a real noticeable impact on performance. I know that in the end only time will tell, but so far AeroflyFS is really heading in a good direction.

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