FlyInside FlightSimulator

[HiFlyer 9,333]

Well......

It appears that if you have previously purchased a Flyinside product, that this sim is discounted to $25

At that price, why the heck not?

Something to mess with over what looks to be a rainy weekend.

[Christopher Low 5,324]

I mean no disrespect to the developer here, but.....even if you are a VR enthusiast....what does this simulator offer that can't already be provided by P3D, X-Plane 11, or Aerofly FS2? Why would a flight simulator with graphics that have been described here as "FS9 quality" be of any value in 2018?

[John_Cillis 2,406]

48 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I mean no disrespect to the developer here, but.....even if you are a VR enthusiast....what does this simulator offer that can't already be provided by P3D, X-Plane 11, or Aerofly FS2? Why would a flight simulator with graphics that have been described here as "FS9 quality" be of any value in 2018?

The sim might find a niche if priced for its market, but I agree, what I have seen is underwhelming compared to the sims I have (Xplane11, P3DV4) or even FSX with photoreal scenery.  As I mentioned, the free sim out there had graphics and aircraft that are comparable and I believe VR support now.  I think the developer of this sim should keep at it, and a demo certainly might help his sim gain traction for those with systems that cannot manage the other sims out there.  Even today I miss FS9 with the AI I had, lost when my old system died on me last year along with FSX and my Realair Dukes.  I was able to replace all my Carenado aircraft however.

John

[HiFlyer 9,333]

55 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I mean no disrespect to the developer here, but.....even if you are a VR enthusiast....what does this simulator offer that can't already be provided by P3D, X-Plane 11, or Aerofly FS2? Why would a flight simulator with graphics that have been described here as "FS9 quality" be of any value in 2018?

Well, my situation might be unique. Right now I'm sitting at home on a cold rainy Saturday. If I were to go outside, probably to the mall, inevitably something-or-other would catch my eye, and i would end up coming home with at least $100 worth of something or other.

Or, I could stay my sorry-word not allowed home, and spend $25....... 😀

[pmb 5,137]

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

I mean no disrespect to the developer here, but.....even if you are a VR enthusiast....what does this simulator offer that can't already be provided by P3D, X-Plane 11, or Aerofly FS2? Why would a flight simulator with graphics that have been described here as "FS9 quality" be of any value in 2018?

I own it, and I would describe present graphics and notably building textures looking even Pre-FS9. Scenery is OSM-based, btw. However, there is more about it. The display engine is Vulcan-based and certainly not FS9 or FSX-like and fast. It holds 60 fps (VSync on) which, however, doesn't say too much as fps killers like car traffic and really heavy autogen are missing yet. But I always hear people (not including me!) crying to get rid of that age-old legacy outdated ESP engine (and let's face it, XP originates from the same age). So, here is their chance. 

I read the present building textures are rather place holders and proper textures are under development and will be released within the beta period.

In the present state it's certainly not an alternative to even a naked P3D or XP, but rather a toy for people like me or HiFlyer who don't mind an adventure now and then and are open to new developments 🙂

Kind regards, Michael

Edited October 13, 2018 by pmb

[HiFlyer 9,333]

https://www.helisimmer.com/previews/trying-out-flyinside-flight-simulator/

[jozeff 91]

Hi all,

 

I tried the demo and actually I'm pretty impressed. The interface is very good compared to xplane11 vr and P3d where I have to take my headset of all the time.  The settings change very quickly and are easy to handle. I tried the b55 milviz and that is a good plane as default right?

 

The graphics are not to overwhelming but in VR that is a good thing as far as I think. It is quite fluid. Aeroflyfs2 is better in many ways but I don't really like their sterile planes and flight Dynamics. The difference between a c172 and a learjet are hard to spot for me in that sim.

 

I think Dan has developed a great product so far. If he keeps developing it this might be something to remember!

 

Jozeff

[AnkH 2,232]

Well, honestly, if I turn the settings of my P3D down until it looks like this sim, I easily get as well over 100FPS. As long as they do not show something visually complex with their 90FPS cutoff, I am not impressed. Aerofly FS2 shows how eye-candy and good looks do not exclude low FPS numbers in general... We will see..

[John_Cillis 2,406]

It seems the fps count is such a way to draw in simmers, but I would stick with the content, like Xplane11, and P3DV4.  Even Aerofly.  You get what you pay for and someone's always looking to get someone to fund their project as you go along....

John

[avhpilot 155]

21 hours ago, jozeff said:

Aeroflyfs2 is better in many ways but I don't really like their sterile planes and flight Dynamics.

Hmm. I disagree. Aerofly is only playable in a few areas out of the box + others for which you have to pay. the rest of the world only makes sense at 30.000 feet or higher. Even in the payware Switserland region the airports are the only areas with 3D buildings. the main city Zurich is just flat photoscenery making an approach into LSZH dull. The only thing that looks like how a sim should look like is the LOWI area (payware) . For the rest of the world., there is no nightlighting, (it's completely dark everywhere). fuel is always unlimited, clouds are annoyingly rotating 2d flat pictures, The options are more like an iPad app game than a desktop sim.

No, I think that FlyInside's FS at this stage has more to offer and can only get better and hopefully at a faster pace. So i have given it a go and purchased.

Edited October 15, 2018 by avhpilot

[DennyA 8]

Everyone is so cynical! 🙂

This is basically an early-access alpha version. That's the peril -- everyone's like "I want to play now even if it's not done!" but then everyone wants all the features of a full-on years-old sim too. It's a Kobayashi Maru scenario. 🙂

The buildings are called out right on their website as being developer art that will be replaced. The sim's silky smooth 90 fps in VR, since it's multi-threaded and supports modern graphics APIs. P3D is awesome, but call me when I can fly over Seattle in VR with smooth frame rates. 🙂 Couldn't do it on FSX 10 years ago, can't do it now with decent custom scenery installed.

Also note that it includes $390 worth (at retail) of ported FSX planes and helicopters. Heck, I wanted to try the MilViz Cessna T-50, and the early access sim costs way less than just that plane. Double heck, I wanted to check out that 717, and it sells for $70 as an FSX add-on.

Speaking of FSX planes, I get the impression porting FSX content is pretty simple. (Originally the sim was going to be compatible with FSX add-ons, but they changed that.) AND they allow you to sell/distribute payware/freeware on your own site, avoiding the Steam bottleneck for add-ons that caused the market to reject FSW.

I'm happy to throw them a mere $25 (since I had FlyInside, but I wouldn't hesitate to spend the $32 either) to hopefully help fund a new competitive sim. The market could use another sim. P3D is awesome but I'm always nervous about it being at the whim of Lockheed-Martin, where selling a spare part for the F-35 probably makes more profit for them than the entire sim division. X-Plane's finally gotten really good once you get off the crazy ground handling, but it's very much at the whim of one guy. And AFS2 has a lot of potential, but it's gotten no add-on planes, and it's still a ways from being fully developed.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by DennyA

[HiFlyer 9,333]

4 minutes ago, DennyA said:

And AFS2 has a lot of potential, but it's gotten no add-on planes, and it's still a ways from being fully developed.

Not quite correct! 🤗

Dino Cattaneo just released the first 3rd party plane for Aerofly, and there are a couple of others also working on them.

[DennyA 8]

1 minute ago, HiFlyer said:

Incorrect! 🤗

Dino Cattaneo just released the first 3rd party plane for Aerofly, and there are a couple of others also working on them.

Not to get off-topic, but cool! I've had AFS2 since Day 1 and like a lot about it, but as someone who likes test-piloting new planes, that's been a frustration. I'll have to go check that out.

Back on-topic, I'm really curious how much work is needed to get FSX planes into FlyInside FS. If the porting process is pretty simple, that could make a huge difference in expanding the content here. 

[HiFlyer 9,333]

10 minutes ago, DennyA said:

I'm really curious how much work is needed to get FSX planes into FlyInside FS.

They would have strong incentive to make it as easy as possible. I always thought the whole endeavour hinged on enticing people who were wedded to the ESP engine but were also intrigued by VR to leverage their existing aircraft libraries into a sim that took (possibly) better advantage of modern hardware.

[Pastaiolo 1,686]

13 hours ago, DennyA said:

Everyone is so cynical! 🙂

This is basically an early-access alpha version. That's the peril -- everyone's like "I want to play now even if it's not done!" but then everyone wants all the features of a full-on years-old sim too. It's a Kobayashi Maru scenario. 🙂

The buildings are called out right on their website as being developer art that will be replaced. The sim's silky smooth 90 fps in VR, since it's multi-threaded and supports modern graphics APIs. P3D is awesome, but call me when I can fly over Seattle in VR with smooth frame rates. 🙂 Couldn't do it on FSX 10 years ago, can't do it now with decent custom scenery installed.

Also note that it includes $390 worth (at retail) of ported FSX planes and helicopters. Heck, I wanted to try the MilViz Cessna T-50, and the early access sim costs way less than just that plane. Double heck, I wanted to check out that 717, and it sells for $70 as an FSX add-on.

Speaking of FSX planes, I get the impression porting FSX content is pretty simple. (Originally the sim was going to be compatible with FSX add-ons, but they changed that.) AND they allow you to sell/distribute payware/freeware on your own site, avoiding the Steam bottleneck for add-ons that caused the market to reject FSW.

I'm happy to throw them a mere $25 (since I had FlyInside, but I wouldn't hesitate to spend the $32 either) to hopefully help fund a new competitive sim. The market could use another sim. P3D is awesome but I'm always nervous about it being at the whim of Lockheed-Martin, where selling a spare part for the F-35 probably makes more profit for them than the entire sim division. X-Plane's finally gotten really good once you get off the crazy ground handling, but it's very much at the whim of one guy. And AFS2 has a lot of potential, but it's gotten no add-on planes, and it's still a ways from being fully developed.

 

Your analysis is, in my opinion, a bit too P3D centric. You are happy because you find a lot of things from P3D. I am not. I dislike portings. I dislike compability between simulators. To a certain extent it means having what is already available without a push to improve things.

The sim 90  silky smooth fps as you say are also possibile because things are missing. Autogen, simpler autogen buildings, less heavy textures and so on.

They have yet to demonstrate they will be able to keep such a performance with visual quality that shoudn't just reach what we already have, but overtake it and actually be an improvement.

 

If we want to get into the flight dynamics side of things then, well, go speed up that 737 to over 250 knots and apply full rudder.

Edited October 16, 2018 by france89