5 minutes ago, torium said:

FSW was condemned and disappeared. Now it's Aerofly FS2 to be removed. Why?
I know why. Do you?

FSW didn't diappear because some people comdemned it. It disappeared because of mismanagement and greed of DT from the very beginning hindering their co-operation with nearly all 3rd parties, including freeware developers.

I do not condemn AeroflyFS2 at all. Neither does Paul (see above). I just found it inappropriate calling Paul a troll just for being critical. 

I use AeroflyFS2 myself and enjoy it to some extent. I even wrote quite a number of very positive statements here at AVSIM (search) and more in German forums. Plus a very positive judgement on the Steam page early on, still visible and unmodified.

However, I now see a lot of shortcomings staggering which should have been dealt with and which I am afraid will never be resolved given the present speed and style of development. IPACS have an excellent rendering engine indeed, visually and performance-wise. However, I am afraid their style of development will not be successful and may end up the same way as AeroflyFS1 if thy don't either (i) enlarge their development team, and/or (ii) outsource certain aspects. I recall an interview with the 2 main developers in a German flightsim magazin from I think 2012 on AeroflyFS1. The editor-in-chied told them they will not succed if they didn (i) make the whole world accessible, (ii) co-operate with 3rd parties for those aspects they can't resolve themselves. 

My example of the Saitek FIPs was on purpose. I heard (from other devs) the number of variables available via their interface is too limited yet for this purpose (and others). Why didn't they contact e.g. Logitech to develop the interface and drivers in a joint effort?

It should be allowed to voice this, shouldn't it?

Kind regards, Michael

50 minutes ago, torium said:

Why do you think that IPACS earlier this month wrote on its own website (and "humbled themselves"), quote:  - "We need that kind of support so that we can keep moving Aerofly forward. Most of the negative reviews posted on Steam were inaccurate or simply from users that purposely want to hurt our product. This makes it hard for us to keep momentum." 

Problem with this quote is that the 'negative' posts over here, and the ones that have been deteled from their forum, are actually accurate and from people who do not want to hurt their product. I can understand IPACS having problems with inaccurate posts from people who want to hurt their product but they should listen to accurate concerns and comments from people who would love to see AFS2 succeed. BIG difference.

18 minutes ago, pmb said:

It should be allowed to voice this, shouldn't it?

Exactly.

And btw "humbled themselves"... Instead of looking at themselves to see where things are going wrong and change certain things to avoid a possible failure they simply and only blame it on the users if IPACS goes out of business. I am not only talking about the quote above here but also about a PM I got from IPACS, making that blame quite personal.

And still I love AFS2 and I want it to succeed. Imho it is THE sim with the most promise for the future and I will keep on supporting IPACS.

1 hour ago, pmb said:

I do not condemn AeroflyFS2 at all. Neither does Paul (see above). I just found it inappropriate calling Paul a troll just for being critical.

There's a difference between being critical, which is absolutely fine, and being a troll. In my personal opinion, the behaviour, attitude and tone of that individual, considering his posting history on FSW, AFS2 (and in the past also XP, if I'm not mistaken) forums, amounts to trolling, not legitimate criticism. Very different from the criticism of other members like you, J van E, etc.

19 hours ago, Murmur said:

There's a difference between being critical, which is absolutely fine, and being a troll. In my personal opinion, the behaviour, attitude and tone of that individual, considering his posting history on FSW, AFS2 (and in the past also XP, if I'm not mistaken) forums, amounts to trolling, not legitimate criticism. Very different from the criticism of other members like you, J van E, etc.

My problem with this forum is that it’s generally negative to Aerofly FS2, PLUS a lot of the negativity comes from people who haven’t flown the sim (or if they were, they weren’t paying attention). I wouldn’t post about how Prepar3d is rubbish/going to fail/missing critical feature ‘X’ over on that forum if I wasn’t an actual user.

HiFlyer - as an example - is one of the few who actually posts normal, useful information, as you’d expect on any functional forum.

The comment about only being able to perform “simplistic VFR flying” above is a good example. Pretty true if it was 2012 and we were talking about Aerofly FS1. But have you actually flown the current iteration of the A320? I flew it around the southwest US until 5am this morning, having a heap of fun simulating proper operations, using all the normal checklists with my Voicettack FO. MCDU works pretty well now in terms of letting you enter non-navigation data, ECAM is great, FCU implementation is excellent and she hand-flies well to boot.

So I’d really love to see - and I’m going to try and start posting here a bit more myself - is more discussion on addons, which default airports are great, how get the most out of the aircraft that are included, and other useful topics like that.

 

1 hour ago, OzWhitey said:

The comment about only being able to perform “simplistic VFR flying” above is a good example.

Agreed. I missed that one, although I already said I don't agree with everything Paul posted. 😉 But anyway, another example that proves this wrong is that you can perfectly fly the old fashioned way with VOR only. I really enjoy doing VOR only flights every now and then, using traingulation and so on and no GPS or moving map at all to get to my destination. It really feels great to find your destination this way, specially when it has no VOR on site. And this works like a charm in AFS2! This certainly isn't simplistic VFR flying.

The Q400 also has a lot more depth than some people know. When you use the cold and dark mod it get's even more interesting and you can use your Majestic Q400 workflow almost completely (apart from everything FMS related).