Orbx Monterey Regional Airport: A Californian Classic Brought to Aerofly FS2!

[HiFlyer 9,358]

A new Jarred Marshal airport for Aerofly FS2 

https://orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/146512-monterey-regional-airport-a-californian-classic-brought-to-aerofly-fs2/

Excerpt:

Quote

 

G'day everyone,

I'm delighted announce our latest airport for IPACS Aerofly FS2: Monterey Regional Airport!

Whilst everyone has been enjoying both Meigs Field and Innsbruck for Aerofly FS2, ORBX and IPACS have been continuing our close relationship with ongoing development behind the scenes. A classic ORBX destination that was originally released for FSX and P3Dv4, Monterey Regional Airport has been brought to life for the new simulator. Depicted as it was in 2014-2015, the airport surely ranks as one of the most scenic in California, and for good measure is located smack dab in the heart of the default IPACS scenery area. Because of this central location, Monterey is perfect for exploring the rugged coastal ranges of Big Sur, the famous beaches of Carmel and Pebble Beach, and flights into the dry valleys of central California. Better yet, Monterey is the ideal home base for short regional flights in the exceptional new freeware Q400 to San Francisco, Los Angeles or Palm Springs. 

 

[FlyIce 354]

Looks nice! Typical Orbx style.

I have been totally sucked into Ortho4XP in XP11 though. I already covered 1/2 of US with zoom level 17 tiles. I can really appreciate OpenStreetMap, as combining OSM with Ortho photos through Ortho4XP really makes everywhere covered by tiles look as good as Orbx-lite level addons, with much better autogen (house, trees etc) placement since they're all based on real-world data, and I can cover the whole US! Such scale and level of details and accuracy in regenerating the real world in a flight simulator is just incredible (although I have to a buy 10TB drive just for that...) 

[pmb 5,137]

4 hours ago, FlyIce said:

I have been totally sucked into Ortho4XP in XP11 though. I already covered 1/2 of US with zoom level 17 tiles. .. 

Thanks. 

And this relates to ORBX Monterey for AeroflyFS2 in which way?

Kind regards, Michael

[GHarrall 494]

5 hours ago, FlyIce said:

Looks nice! Typical Orbx style.

I have been totally sucked into Ortho4XP in XP11 though. I already covered 1/2 of US with zoom level 17 tiles. I can really appreciate OpenStreetMap, as combining OSM with Ortho photos through Ortho4XP really makes everywhere covered by tiles look as good as Orbx-lite level addons, with much better autogen (house, trees etc) placement since they're all based on real-world data, and I can cover the whole US! Such scale and level of details and accuracy in regenerating the real world in a flight simulator is just incredible (although I have to a buy 10TB drive just for that...) 

Seeing as Aerofly is entirely photo based scenery I don't get your point? 

[FlyIce 354]

Sorry I was kind of topic, I probably got overdosed by Ortho4XP... 

I have Aerofly and I'm not belittling it. But it definitely can benefit from sth like Ortho4XP to let user easily build their own high quality scenery based on high resolution ortho photos and up to date OSM data. I knew there is a similar tool being developed by AFS2, but based on the forum feedback it's not very user-friendly yet.

[pmb 5,137]

I used that AeroflyFS2 Geoconvert tool +  Helper myself and IMO it's noch much harder to use than Ortho4XP, if at all, and the results are quite nice. What should be more user-friendly are the cultivation tools, very loosely corresponding to World2XP.

It's just that these tools didn't get the corresponding mass exposition given (# of XP user) >> (# of AF users).

Kind regards, Michael

[FlyIce 354]

Good to know that. I just searched and found a youtube video showing FS2 + Geoconvert, looks very nice. I don't see autogens, so I guess that is due to the problems with cultivation tools? To me having autogens on ortho scenery is essential, as I never liked bare photo-only scenery. I hope FS2 will eventually develop the right tool. 

Oh, traffic on the road... I really really want to see that in FS2. 

[pmb 5,137]

Geoconvert alone doesn't make any buildings and stuff, just conversion of Orthophotos. I agree, Ortho scenery without buildings/trees just doesn't cut it for me as well. Unfortunately,  Cultivation is a bit harder to use, but there are videos by "Rodeo" on the IPACS forum which explain it quite well, I just lack the time to play with it but I think I could master it.

BTW, it's not autogen, Cultivation is OSM-based similar to World2XP.

Also simple airports layouts are not hard to do. What's really hard are custom 3D buildings on airports etc., but that's the same in any sim, I think. That's where real masters like Jarrad enter the game .

Kind regards, Michael

[HiFlyer 9,358]

KMRY Monterey Regional released for Aerofly FS2! https://orbxsystems.com/forum/topic/146876-kmry-monterey-regional-released-for-aerofly-fs2/

[Noel 4,496]

Alright guys, this is my very first look at AFS2.   How does its core engine compare in terms of what it can process per cycle on multi core machines w/ P3D V4, XP11.x, any other up and coming FS platforms?   IOW, what engine has the most potential for running the highest def scenery, flight modeling, everything, w/ the highest GPU demands at the best possible smooth video performance looking out into the next 2-5y?  I've been deep into P3D V3.4 but would consider supporting another platform that was not as robust in terms of total content and depth, but only if it was the clear winner in terms of engine efficiency as it were going forward.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Alright guys, this is my very first look at AFS2.   How does its core engine compare in terms of what it can process per cycle on multi core machines w/ P3D V4, XP11.x, any other up and coming FS platforms?   IOW, what engine has the most potential for running the highest def scenery, flight modeling, everything, w/ the highest GPU demands at the best possible smooth video performance looking out into the next 2-5y?  I've been deep into P3D V3.4 but would consider supporting another platform that was not as robust in terms of total content and depth, but only if it was the clear winner in terms of engine efficiency as it were going forward.

I would start by throwing in some recent words from Orbx's Jarrad Marshall regarding how he sees Aerofly:

Quote

 

In terms of visuals, whilst there are the well-discussed tradeoffs with AFS2, there are a couple of big advantages for me as a developer: 

- The terrain engine is much sharper. Ground textures and autogen (cultivation in AFS2 parlance) render more clearly in the middle and far distances. This is particularly great for mountain sceneries; the definition in distant peaks is much better than P3D. 

- Performance is through the roof. Contrary to popular belief, this is not solely due to lack of systems (AI, complex weather etc), but because the IPACS team make it their core mission to make an extremely lean core engine for us to work with. Throwing the kitchen sink at the sim and still getting 200fps (even with VR) does wonders for increasing the sense of immersion. 

- Sloped runways, sharper shadow rendering (compared to P3Dv4), and a few other small improvements all add a little bit of incentive for us P3D developers to try it out. 

 

Does this mean Aerofly is the best sim? Nope, like all sims it has its faults, many of which will eventually be addressed, I believe.

But it does mean that it has a lot of potential that we are just beginning to tap, and it's going to be an interesting next few years watching the sim grow to meet that potential.

Whether its growing/going in a direction you will find interesting enough that you decide to join the ride is something only you can decide, though.

 

[pmb 5,137]

One of the most convincing aspects IMO is fluidity. I think my Prepar3d4 runs quite fluid with around 30 fps or more - until I fire up AeroflyFS2 with 120 fps. It's not so much the fps as such, which my old eyes can't resolve anyway, but you get the impression being in a real plane and landscape flowing along. In Prepar3d (and any other sim I know, if that matters)  you have these little stutters, long frames, notably in turns, telling you the brual way you're sitting in front of a screen.

It's the same like in a commercial (moving) simulator - it's just fluent, no hesitation at all, you are immersed.

While there's some stunning scenery available, there's indeed quite a lot lacking yet, as HiFlyer states, including all moving elements - moving cars, people, water, AI planes, and the like.

Kind regards, Michael

[Murmur 3,941]

3 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Performance is through the roof. Contrary to popular belief, this is not solely due to lack of systems (AI, complex weather etc), but because the IPACS team make it their core mission to make an extremely lean core engine for us to work with.

Interesting that he mentions "lack of systems" and not "lack of visual effects". A 100% comparison with other engines unfortunately is still not feasible, because in other engines you have some visual effects (terrain shadows, atmospheric scattering, water rendering, global lighting) that cannot be disabled. You have to go back to XP9 or FSX to exclude those features from the core engine. Indeed, "lean core engine" means exactly that, "lean". Neverthless, IMO AEFS2 probably keeps the advantage in performance even when taking account of all of that. But hopefully Ipacs will add all those features so that a real valid comparison can be made.

 

[Noel 4,496]

5 hours ago, pmb said:

In Prepar3d (and any other sim I know, if that matters)  you have these little stutters, long frames, notably in turns, telling you the brual way you're sitting in front of a screen.

It's the same like in a commercial (moving) simulator - it's just fluent, no hesitation at all, you are immersed.

While there's some stunning scenery available, there's indeed quite a lot lacking yet, as HiFlyer states, including all moving elements - moving cars, people, water, AI planes, and the like.

Kind regards, Michael

Thanks HiFlyer and Michael.  Sounds like serious potential exists in this sim, and that Orbx supports it seems very meaningful.    At the very least I will be watching closely.  I'm still quite happy w/ P3D for its total experience, but I've never liked the phony concerns in the EULA, and the fact that LM's primary relationship is w/ their commercial base, utilizing the retail desktop simmers as paying beta testers.  Since going to 30mHz vertical refresh w/ unlimited frames I've had such freedom from stutters it's been fine, but now of course we're down to 30 and w/ a monitor refresh of 30 you're definitely losing fluidity even if you don't see stutters.

Does Aerofly publish their ongoing goals and time tables?  Any of the big aircraft and weather content developers signing on yet do we know?   How about ATC?   ATC has been a major pet peeve of mine w/ LM.  They've left the nearly 10y code exactly as they found it, and while it was pretty funky a couple of its major annoyances could have been addressed by now I feel, but clearly it's not on their radar.