ATC won't be here anytime soon (and mod annoyances)

[Guest]

10 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Meanwhile, J van E seems happier

Happy with Orbx, yes. Less so with IPACS and AFS2. ;)

At this moment AFS2 is my sightseeing sim: low and slow in the C172 (with the windows removed) over TE Netherlands is a nice thing to do every now and then. For my more serious simming P3D is the way to go for me. Sightseeing bores me pretty quickly: not IPACS's or Orbx's fault, of course, but I notice more and more that low and slow GA flying isn't my thing anymore (even though it has been my favorite way of flying for quite some time). I prefer doing regional flights with a fully functional Q400 through real time weather in a world that is a bit alive (ATC, traffic).

I did a flight with the Q400 in AFS2 over TE but within a few minutes already things look a bit like default scenery down there and I can (seriously) almost oversee the entire country at FL160. Everytime I fly over the Netherlands I am amazed how small the country is! Again, not IPACS's or Orbx's fault LOL but the longest flight you can plan in the Netherlands is around 140, 150 nm which isn't much. So it's GREAT for low and slow flying but not so much for high and dry (and more 'deeper') simming.

But er... I think I am repeating myself: so much has been said and I forgot what I said where LOL

[torium 207]

17 hours ago, pracines said:

Flight simmers want to have a realistic sim and enough left over to get a PC to run that realistic sim.

Therefore, we need new development - a new platform!

On 8/16/2018 at 4:22 AM, pracines said:

I think flight simmers were willing to give IPACS a chance, but the writing is on the wall and IPACS is proving to be another likely failure.

Now you have for a long time celebrated that FSW is dead. Now you continue with AFS2. 
Recommend that you rather play with P3D (or X-plane) - and let the rest of us rejoice that someone with passionate interest for flight simulation drives development forward.

[dave2013 1,123]

17 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

And some background:

A) Right now, orthos of the United States are free, one of the few countries where that is true.

B) Orbx is now embarking on the creation of high quality Ortho sceneries and the technology to create areas quickly (TrueEarth)

                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A) Creation of ortho-scenery with buildings requires very precise footprint data and other information:

B) https://blogs.bing.com/maps/2018-06/microsoft-releases-125-million-building-footprints-in-the-us-as-open-data

I could go further, but from my perspective, it seems we are possibly perched on the precipice of an explosion of new scenery of a detail we've never before imagined.

P3D Netherlands/Aerofly Netherlands/X-plane Great britain.......

To me, rather than an abandonment, these seem like the first steps into a new level of scenery....... If we want it.

(There's that glass half full, again)

 

I agree with you that the TrueEarth scenery has the potential to bring flightsim scenery to the next level. I've been waiting for satellite imagery with accurately placed buildings and vegetation like this for years. It's been done before, for the UK I believe, but it's very expensive stuff and you have to buy separate products that place the photoreal scenery and then another one that places the 3d objects.

I just wonder how practical it is right now. It will be extremely expensive to cover just a single continent with this type of scenery, not to mention how much data storage capacity will be required which is another added cost. Of course, as technology progresses the cost per unit of data storage will decrease, but this will still be costly. I also wonder how much time it will take to cover an entire continent; we're probably talking several years.  Maybe ORBX will increase their production rate but we're still looking at a long time before this scenery is viable for someone like me who likes to fly long distances with *consistent* scenery. I don't want to fly across the U.S. for example and encounter areas of differing scenery quality and types.

This is great stuff but I'm not getting excited about it just yet.

Dave

 

 

[gpf3m 41]

I wish P3D was as smooth in True Earth as AFS2 is.  Much better low and slow with AFS2 than P3D.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

we're still looking at a long time before this scenery is viable for someone like me who likes to fly long distances with *consistent* scenery. I don't want to fly across the U.S. for example and encounter areas of differing scenery quality and types.

Ah! Someone who thinks like me! I have the same 'problem'! Which is why I only fly within regions that have the same quality of scenery. It's also why I stopped buying addon airports, really: I don't really like to see some awesome airports and then some awful ones. So I rather have them all mediocre. 😉 Anyway, this is why I only fly in FTX Norway with Airports of Norway (which btw aren't mediocre!). Luckily I like to fly regional flights instead of long ones.

 

1 hour ago, gpf3m said:

I wish P3D was as smooth in True Earth as AFS2 is.

We are all wishing the same... which it is such a shame that progress on AFS2 is so terribly slow.

 

[torium 207]

44 minutes ago, J van E said:

Ah! Someone who thinks like me! I have the same 'problem'! Which is why I only fly within regions that have the same quality of scenery. It's also why I stopped buying addon airports, really: I don't really like to see some awesome airports and then some awful ones. So I rather have them all mediocre. 😉

I also want it perfect. But it is not realistic - technological. If you are equally critical about the scenery in FSX / P3D or X-plane - you will quickly discover that the scenery is a caricature of reality (angular "zigzag" roads, etc.). Therefore, it is an advantage with a type of "psychological" adjustment - otherwise you may lose the joy of flight simulation. Because it's actually simulation - and not reality. Remember, Darwin showed that anyone who can adapt to the current flight simulator - survives (live) better. 

Stop focusing on whether color nuances are absolutely correct - or that the currently simple clouds are not completely realistic, etc .. 

I choose to enjoy the opportunities AFS2 gives me (with all its limitations). With the new amazing AeroScenery tool (including GeoConvert) - I can now create my own scenery (almost completely automatic) in an hour. Of course, it's not as good quality as Orbx - but I accept that (and in the meantime, AFS2 will be further developed). Now, for example, the helicopter arrives soon - I hope. 

https://www.helisimmer.com/previews/new-look-r22-ipacs-afs2/

[Guest]

3 hours ago, J van E said:

which it is such a shame that progress on AFS2 is so terribly slow

Like a fine wine 🙂

I recorded some video last night of AF2 + Orbx Netherlands, I had a few graphics issues using the Beta Vulkan option (Map overlay) but overall it was simply outstanding visually ... maxed everything out and capped to 60hz ... flew around at 1200 KTs about 200 AGL and it was very smooth ... my MSI Afterburner performance monitoring overlay may have been interfering with Vulkan a little ... glad I have 12GB VRAM as the Netherlands used up over 10GB of it.

I don't know their priorities, but I would NOT do ATC as the "next feature" ... that's just way too complex and time consuming.  ATC is not an FPS consumer so I can understand taking the task on, but my exposure to FS user base, ATC is NOT a big priority for a visual simulator.  I'd rather see iPACS implement weather, AI traffic (necessary for ATC anyway), road traffic, and dynamic lights before they tackle ATC.  Don't get me wrong, I want ATC also, but it's just such an incredibly hard feature to implement well.

Cheers, Rob.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I don't know their priorities, but I would NOT do ATC as the "next feature" ... that's just way too complex and time consuming.  ATC is not an FPS consumer so I can understand taking the task on, but my exposure to FS user base, ATC is NOT a big priority for a visual simulator.  I'd rather see iPACS implement weather, AI traffic (necessary for ATC anyway), road traffic, and dynamic lights before they tackle ATC.  Don't get me wrong, I want ATC also, but it's just such an incredibly hard feature implement well.

Please PLEASE tell this to IPACS! I've been asking for weather from day one but they keep on working on ATC as the next big feature. Afaik their main focus during the last 1.5 to 2 years has been on ATC. And it seems it will remain their main objective for another year or so at least. Afaik it is the ONLY "next feature" the core team is working on (I am not talking about new scenery and new planes where others are working on). I've asked for weather numerous times but they won't even acknowledge that weather will be next on their to do list. They haven't even decided on this! Which obviously is driving me nuts. I also like ATC a lot (if done well) but a flight sim without a proper weather engine isn't a flightsim imho. So if you and everybody else keeps on nagging them, we might get some weather withing a few years... (I won't nag them about it anymore because my posts will only get deleted. 😉 )

Edited August 17, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

...

Edited August 17, 2018 by Guest

[HiFlyer 9,345]

1 hour ago, J van E said:

Please PLEASE tell this to IPACS! I've been asking for weather from day one but they keep on working on ATC as the next big feature. Afaik their main focus during the last 1.5 to 2 years has been on ATC. And it seems it will remain their main objective for another year or so at least. Afaik it is the ONLY "next feature" the core team is working on (I am not talking about new scenery and new planes where others are working on). I've asked for weather numerous times but they won't even acknowledge that weather will be next on their to do list. They haven't even decided on this! Which obviously is driving me nuts. I also like ATC a lot (if done well) but a flight sim without a proper weather engine isn't a flightsim imho. So if you and everybody else keeps on nagging them, we might get some weather withing a few years... (I won't nag them about it anymore because my posts will only get deleted. 😉 )

Don't forget that it was the hardcore that voted for atc as a priority. I can't really blame Ipacs for taking the results of the poll to heart.

Not what I wanted, but I remember thinking at the time that if they could get ATC done, that was one of the biggest elephants in any sim, handled and hopefully done. Especially since ATC would require a whole host of ancillary stuff that would hopefully also be of benefit. 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Don't forget that it was the hardcore that voted for atc as a priority. I can't really blame Ipacs for taking the results of the poll to heart.

Not what I wanted, but I remember thinking at the time that if they could get ATC done, that was one of the biggest elephants in any sim, handled and hopefully done. Especially since ATC would require a whole host of ancillary stuff that would hopefully also be of benefit. 

Fair enough but ATC clearly was a TOO big elephant. It is holding everything up now.

In the meantime things are getting a bit crazy on the official forum. Imho. Now even a positive post of mine in defend of AFS2 has been deleted LOL I also don't understand why all TE related posts have been locked and everyone is required to post everything about TE in ONE big topic... That topic is a mess now already. As someone suggested they should open a support subforum. Giving support in a general discussion forum is odd. And btw you aren't allowed you generally discuss AFS2 over there: you may only praise the sim. Aaaaaaaah, I think I should just forget about all this... 😄

[dave2013 1,123]

I don't understand why the Aerofly developers would be focusing on ATC over a good weather simulation.  Moreover, the default sim only comes with 300 airports and the scenery only covers a tiny part of the world. Why not at least include slightly lower-grade scenery and airports that covers all of Europe or the U.S., for example, and then improve the weather, before spending valuable resources and time on ATC???

I hate to say it but it seems to me these guys don't really know what they're doing.

I'll make a prediction: if things keep going this way then Aerofly FS2 will end up like Dovetail FSW within the next few years.

Dave

[HiFlyer 9,345]

52 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I don't understand why the Aerofly developers would be focusing on ATC over a good weather simulation.

Because they asked users what we wanted, and took a poll, and a majority of users requested ATC as the priority.

Honestly, if you look at the way the community functions, no matter what they did, fans of one priority or another would say the wrong choice was made, and the posts like yours would simply substitute clouds and weather rather than ATC.

Honestly I was kind of stunned when a flood of apparent hardcore simmers bum-rushed the poll and demanded ATC or it wouldn't be a "Real" sim.

I wanted cars, water, weather, and other contemptuous casual "eye candy" 😃

[dave2013 1,123]

28 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Because they asked users what we wanted, and took a poll, and a majority of users requested ATC as the priority.

Honestly, if you look at the way the community functions, no matter what they did, fans of one priority or another would say the wrong choice was made, and the posts like yours would simply substitute clouds and weather rather than ATC.

Honestly I was kind of stunned when a flood of apparent hardcore simmers bum-rushed the poll and demanded ATC or it wouldn't be a "Real" sim.

I wanted cars, water, weather, and other contemptuous casual "eye candy" 😃

Just because a majority of users want something doesn't mean the developers should always acquiesce. The developers need to think about how to expand their user base, not kowtow to its every whim.  If they had focused on enlarging the scenery area to at least a continent size *and* improved the weather then I would have bought Aerofly FS2 once this was accomplished.  ATC and AI traffic are the very last things a good flight simulator needs in my opinion. They're great to have, but not a show-stopper if you don't.  More important for me is accurate flight dynamics, good-quality realistic aircraft, decent scenery, and realistic and accurate weather.  Others will of course disagree.  Perhaps a poll on this very question is in order.  It would be interesting to see the results.  I'll do this if I can. 

Dave

[HiFlyer 9,345]

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

The developers need to think about how to expand their user base, not kowtow to its every whim.

Wouldn't they be doing the very same if they prioritized your desires?

I remember well the DTG "simmers desires" threads.

Everyone wants to be at the head of the line in this hobby. It must drive developers mad.

Ipacs decided to go ahead and do ATC. I wanted otherwise, but I did not go ahead and start announcing that not answering my particular needs equaled doom.

I remain cognizant that with a self-made engine they have lasted longer and gotten more support (in some ways) than the much flashier and more well-funded DTG sim, which is now history, while they are still here.

Maybe slow and steady sometimes does have a better chance of winning the race.

Maybe they know what they are capable of, and what they are doing better than we.

Time will tell.