13 minutes ago, edpatino said:

I also hope that advanced developers will come in and produce study-level aircraft

After purchase and trying few days, I meet your want too. The sceneries, fps and downloads are outstanding but most aircrafts are less.

Need one complete and full fonctionnal airplane but not a complexe one... to be able to do quite travels.

3 hours ago, Murmur said:

AFAIK, AEFS2 night lighting is basically just point sprites, hardly comparable to the dynamic lighting of other flight sims. Not even working landing lights, for example. In addition to that, some other visual effects are missing, like ground self-shadowing, atmospheric scattering, and water effects (water is just a fixed texture).

I still think that it's the most efficient visual engine, and will probably keep an advantage even if they add all of these effects, but at the moment it's not a 100% fair comparison.

It's not something I'm worried about honestly, though I have thought about it.

Eventually I kind of decided that If decade old engines can handle these/those type of effects, then AF should'nt have an issue either, as I think it's evident the sim still has quite a lot of strategic depth when it comes to framerates, to hand back towards special effects.

It's hard to imagine what it would take to knock it down to the 30fps we often aim for in other sims.

In fact I was just experimenting with P3D dynamic lighting (Orbx Innsbruck) and lost about 10 fps.

As I generally putt-putt at over 144fps in AF I don't think I would even notice the loss, even if it was that high (which I suspect Ipacs would not allow and would find a way to reduce)

Add in the fact that I can exceed 200 fps if I turn down shadows a bit, and again, I'm not that worried yet: though it is something to think about.

It also occurred to me that by the time Aerofly really reaches that level, new generation graphics will probably around, and that will make any potential fps issue(s) even more negligible.

(I actually do muse about this stuff a lot as I drift from one sim to another over the course of your average week)

IPACS sent a new update today with the addition of the Jungmeister (a biplane from 1930's). Installed the update that also includes several improvements in the already excellent performance and the new airplane is really fun to fly, going back to the past. Well done once more time by IPACS.

Cheers, Ed

2 hours ago, ms2 said:

Need one complete and full fonctionnal airplane but not a complexe one

On the update released today, there is more functionnality for the C172 (now you can start/stop engines and they -IPACS- are saying the engine simulation in general is improved).

Cheers, Ed

Hello, 

With native Virtually Reality support out the box, and if you use Aeroflyfs2 simulator with Tpcast wireless HMD for HTC-VIVE,

no other simulator is more enjoyable to fly except AeroflyFs2.

 

Best Regards,

Aftab

26 minutes ago, edpatino said:

On the update released today, there is more functionnality for the C172 (now you can start/stop engines and they -IPACS- are saying the engine simulation in general is improved).

2017-11-23 

• Added: New airplane Buecker Jungmeister
• Added: C172 engine start / stop, extended engine simulation
• Changed C90GTX turboshaft simulation to use a similar advanced thermodynamic model as in the Q400 (work in progress)
• Changed: softer fade in / fade out for brakes when using a button or key
• Changed: Up to 30% rendering performance improvements in populated areas
• Fixed: Mouse wheel resolution was sometimes too low
• Changed: Better precision when placing 3D objects around airports
• Added: lower case matching of virtual objects
• Added: More objects in our Xref

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

Eventually I kind of decided that If decade old engines can handle these/those type of effects, then AF should'nt have an issue either, as I think it's evident the sim still has quite a lot of strategic depth when it comes to framerates, to hand back towards special effects.

It's hard to imagine what it would take to knock it down to the 30fps we often aim for in other sims.

Add in the fact that I can exceed 200 fps if I turn down shadows a bit, and again, I'm not that worried yet: though it is something to think about.

But most of those effects have been in other sims for a decade or so, so again your 30fps comparison is not 100% fair. For example, you have to go back to XP9 to lose ground shadows, night lighting, atmo scattering and water reflections, and at that point you have 200 fps. Although of course such older sims have less visual quality than AEFS2 because they miss other modern visual effects, and because they use lower resolution textures, meshes, etc.

AEFS2 is sort of a hybrid. It lacks many of the aforementioned visual effects (some of them quite performance intensive), but its developers have been very clever to exploit to the max the capabilities of its visual engine (better than other flight sims, kudos of them!), so that its limitations are not much noticeable in some ordinary flight situations.

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

It also occurred to me that by the time Aerofly really reaches that level, new generation graphics will probably around, and that will make any potential fps issue(s) even more negligible.

Yes, but this is true for all flight sims.

48 minutes ago, Murmur said:

AEFS2 is sort of a hybrid. It lacks many of the aforementioned visual effects (some of them quite performance intensive), but its developers have been very clever to exploit to the max the capabilities of its visual engine (better than other flight sims, kudos of them!), so that its limitations are not much noticeable in some ordinary flight situations.

My take on it (with nothing to back it up) has always been that the original engine came from tablets/phones and it's simply taking them a while to take full advantage of switching to PC.

48 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Yes, but this is true for all flight sims.

I'm not so sure. My switch to a 1080 gtx catapulted Aerofly to much higher framerates, while having negligible impact on my older sims in testing.

I have a suspicion that newer GPU's won't affect those sims significantly because they just aren't designed to take best advantage of modern hardware.

On the other hand I expect AF will respond much more positively to future GPU's, though I think X-plane has a good chance of moving forwards as well if the VULKAN thing works out for it......

I'm kind of bearish on the ESP engine, however. I assume that if there were really significant FPS gains to be made, LM would have produced them after all these years, yet in the same default areas, FSW and P3D behave pretty much identically for me.

The main reason that AF FS2 produces such high frame rates is that it is an incomplete flight sim missing substantial features. How can you conclude that adding a GTX 1080 to a system doesn't improve performance in either P3d4 or XP11 when every  benchmark is to the contrary? Both the two mainstream sims have made major progress in adding features while improving performance. With similar IQ settings and features I get almost identical frame rates in XP11 and P3d4 which indicates to me that two entirely divergent corporations (LM and LR) have bumped up against limitations imposed by the hardware, the OS and video drivers.

2 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The main reason that AF FS2 produces such high frame rates is that it is an incomplete flight sim missing substantial features.

Well, the best solution I've found is to check back in a couple of years. I've had discussions like this before, and am absolutely willing to wait and review the outcome regarding framerates in say, 2020.

2 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

How can you conclude that adding a GTX 1080 to a system doesn't improve performance in either P3d4 or XP11 when every  benchmark is to the contrary?

I actually said negligible improvements. (by my standards of course)