AEROFLY FS2: Q-400 Moves Into Closed Alpha Testing

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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

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.

[barrel_owl 304]

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.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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! 

 

 

[Anxu00 176]

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.

[Flying Penguin 44]

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.  

[Flying Penguin 44]

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.

[Chock 17,769]

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.

[Pugilist2 878]

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! 

[HiFlyer 9,343]

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.

 

[wolke85 150]

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.

[Guest]

I just can't wait to try this plane above LOWI and see how the sim performs! This is going to be an important release.

[Pugilist2 878]

9 hours ago, wolke85 said:

 

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 ...

 

Once that happens, along with more 3rd party airport scenery, AeroFly FS2 will be my preferred sim of choice! 

[Lenny777 299]

I still believe AFS2 has huge potential as the 64 bit flightsim platform of choice. The first advantage it already has is the native VR support. Leaving aside DCS it is the only capable and functional VR platform for flightsimming - the clarity of the cockpits and avionics along with the ease of manipulation to me are head and shoulders above everyone else - P3D, XP11, Flyinside.

 

Now Flyinside are developing their own simulator which I wouldn't be surprised to see native VR integration.

 

But the potential in AFS2 is merely a potential. Real world weather, traffic AI, ATC to me are the sine qua non of a real flightsimulator (assuming of course the bones of the flight model and related programming  etc. are there). Growth can be exponential when these are implemented. Otherwise the simulator remains a static environment. I see a platform like XP11, which I love but have almost stopped using since P3Dv4 was released. Its weaknesses are poor traffic AI, non-existent seasonal texture variations.  It's ATC is still a poor mans excuse compared to the default P3Dv4 ATC and its integration with the existing traffic flow. WT3 may finally bring that sim to life on the traffic front but its competition is Traffic 360, MyTraffic and Ultimate Traffic for P3Dv4.

 

I take AFS2 out flying when I want a great VR experience. I don't use it as a non-VR flightsim because it is still only a neophyte in that respect.