Nail in coffin AFS2...?

[tonywob 4,769]

17 hours ago, pmb said:

On the other hand, it's amazing to see a group of highly talented freeware developers having developed outstanding tools for scenery creation which (IMHO) are even better than those available for XP today. There's just no one to use them.

I think the problem with this is that those freeware developers are still stuck using their SDK. There is presently no way to compile imagery without passing them to their SDK which is horribly slow. 3D models and placement files all need to be compiled via their SDK tools. I think the simple fact that iPacs won't document the native file formats greatly limits the creativity of many developers who are trying their best out of a bad situation. It took someone to play around with undocumented features to generate their own DEM/mesh because even that wasn't documented at all, and reading through their forum I get the impression that iPacs tolerate tinkering but really don't like it or encourage it. I often see these developers/enthusiasts requesting file format documentation, and the requests are always ignored..

You could argue that it's no different on P3D because that requires an SDK and intermediary file formats, however the SDK is very well documented, and the tools provided are generally fast and work well, and the developers will help out. From my work creating tools to generate scenery for both P3D and AF2, P3D is by far the easier and more pleasant sim to develop for.

There is also a reason tools like Ortho4XP, World2XPlane exist on X-Plane, and that's because the file formats are open, documented and Laminar Research encourage it and help out. Not helping the freeware community out will only hurt in the long run, especially on such a young platform. The strong freeware community is IMO what has driven X-Plane forward to become something popular flight-sim companies want to develop for. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, pmb said:

This just has not been a priority by IPACS, as they stated themselves. 

You wonder what has... If they aren't even willing to work on the SDK right NOW, what are they thinking...? Don't they realize how important 3rd party support is? When someone who is working on an airplane for AFS2 says how bad the SDK is and how much work is involved in things that are easy to do in P3D, why don't they say 'Okay, this is important, let's work on it'? Instead they say they might look at it sometime in the future... In fact 'they' don't even say it because the developers let Jeff and Jan do almost all the talking. I notice even those two guys are getting frustrated with the fact the developers won't listen to anyone, even them. Last week someone asked if it would be possible to assign the buttons on VR controls yourself: Jeff said that was his preference too but the devs said NO and that was it. It won't happen.

The fact that they also aren't willing to fix small thing doesn't help. Like whenever you ask about something related to the clouds or visibility they say they won't look at it until they start working on the weather engine. And they won't even say if they will be working on the weather engine after finishing ATC. They simply don't seem to listen to their customers and almost every request is denied. It really makes you wonder what the (core) developers are thinking.

EDIT

12 minutes ago, tonywob said:

I think the problem with this is that those freeware developers are still stuck using their SDK. There is presently no way to compile imagery without passing them to their SDK which is horribly slow. 3D models and placement files all need to be compiled via their SDK tools. I think the simple fact that iPacs won't document the native file formats greatly limits the creativity of many developers who are trying their best out of a bad situation. It took someone to play around with undocumented features to generate their own DEM/mesh because even that wasn't documented at all, and reading through their forum I get the impression that iPacs tolerate tinkering but really don't like it or encourage it. I often see these developers/enthusiasts requesting file format documentation, and the requests are always ignored..

This.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Guest

[hs118 707]

deleted

Edited November 11, 2018 by Henry Street

[pracines 823]

4 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

So, oft in simulations forums  
The disputants, so I ween, 
Rail on in utter ignorance 
Of what each other mean; 
And prate about an Elephant 
Not one of them has seen!

Its not a matter of knowledge as much as it is perception or opinion. Perception and opinion is the proverbial elephant gun.😬

But the knowledge that is presented in the OP is knowledge enough to have serious concern for AF2.

It does not matter what IPACS plans or intentions are, it matters when they are implemented and the value of the implementations...the FS community as a whole will not wait around for IPACS as long as P3D and XP are going strong.

I hope the best for AF2, but potential is not enough.🙂

 

[pmb 5,137]

11 hours ago, Murmur said:

Estimated sales on Steam-stats websites are stagnant from a long time. Not looking good at all. Unless Ipacs has some exciting stuff coming not too far away, I don't see many chances of survival.

Where can I find these Steam-stats for AeroflyFS2? I only know

https://steamcharts.com/app/434030

on the number of concurrent players, which are pretty alarming figures as well.

Thanks and kind regards,  Michael

[torium 207]

25 minutes ago, pracines said:

...the FS community as a whole will not wait around for IPACS as long as P3D and XP are going strong.

Of course not. They have never done that. "The FS community as a whole" use what they think is best - NOW - today. 

[anden145 2,285]

5 hours ago, GCBraun said:

The problem with AFS2 is that XP11 has established itself as P3D`s alternative. The fact that there are no advanced airplanes for AFS2 also did not help...

Come on... are you seriously suggestion, that the reason that the reason, that Aerofly FS 2 is failing (or falling behind in interests from customers and developers) are because of X-Plane 11?? 

Perhaps, if Aerofly FS 2 had more features, was easier to develop for and/or had a more flexible SDK, it would be more popular all around. But I guess, it's more appealing admitting defeat, when you can blame someone else... 

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, pmb said:

which are pretty alarming figures as well.

Wow, pretty alarming indeed. You should think IPACS is checking these numbers too...

[torium 207]

21 hours ago, J van E said:

Nail in coffin AFS2...?

What is your point? I still do not understand your negative attitude. It's like a drug addict who is only concerned with the next shot. As previously pointed out, IPACS has repeatedly said that they are a small team. A small team = slow development. Is it hard to accept?

Previously John Venema (Orbx) got the following question: "Do you (JV) have any thoughts about why not experienced manufacturers like Carenado, Alabeo, Just Flight, etc., convert their products to Aerofly FS2? Is the customer base - preliminary - too small?"

The answer from John Venema: "Yes the customer base is too small and they aren’t willing to invest R&D for no profit. Things may change once the sim matures though."

Furthermore, John Venema said: "We view AFS2 as very much a 'foundation sim' which is a work in progress with a lot of potential over the coming years. Therefore all the work and R&D we are doing with ports and new scenery products are not contributing to our bottom line but it's an investment in the future.

The IPACS team have been working very hard on core engine systems (therefore the Vulkan option recently released) to further optimise the sim ahead of new tech and systems being introduced. Rome wasn’t built in a day and it will take time for AFS2 to compete at a features level wwith P3D and XP11, but for VR flying nothing can touch it right now."

"There are plenty of Orbx TrueEarth regions coming for AFS2 to keep the scenery fans happy."

I am 100% agree with this assessment from John Venema. AFS2 is for the future - the new fresh blood that our community needs. IPACS is very open and aware that it will take time. Spreading negative rumors that can indirectly infer AFS2's slowly dead - are directly destructive - and in no way constructive. So please give IPACS the time they need. If you are not interested in joining the journey - please come back in 2023. Perhaps a helicopter has appeared. 

[GCBraun 2,392]

34 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

Come on... are you seriously suggestion, that the reason that the reason, that Aerofly FS 2 is failing (or falling behind in interests from customers and developers) are because of X-Plane 11?? 

Perhaps, if Aerofly FS 2 had more features, was easier to develop for and/or had a more flexible SDK, it would be more popular all around. But I guess, it's more appealing admitting defeat, when you can blame someone else... 

I say that from a consumers perspective. Perhaps if XP11 was not around, I would spend more time with AFS2. Regardless, the fact is that one platform has expanded significantly since launch and the other has not...if course it is not an excuse for IPACS.

[pmb 5,137]

5 minutes ago, torium said:

What is your point? I still do not understand your negative attitude. It's like a drug addict who is only concerned with the next shot. As previously pointed out, IPACS has repeatedly said that they are a small team. A small team = slow development. Is it hard to accept?

I think most of those around here have had high hopes in AeroflyFS2 and were VERY supportive and heavily invested into it (which does not only include myself - I bought all AF2 addons so far -, but JvE, Rob and several others I know). Those guys are now in doubt this journey will come to an end which - yes - would be a real pity. 

I understand your point that spreading negative rumors might not be helpful. But on the other hand, it seems necessary to ring alarm bells to wake up IPCAS at this point (which, unfortunately, is impossible on their own forum).

Recall FSW? A lot pof people said it would derail. Others suggested we shouldn't talk bad about them as that would make the project fail. It certainly was not forum gossip making them fail but their faulty business concept. Where, btw., the SDK was one club foot as well. While the details and business models are different, I am sure IPACS will have to rethink their strategy. Given, the <5 guys can't do any more workload, this would, among others, mean distributing work on more shoulders, upgrading and debuggings the SDK to make it fit for 3rd parties etc.

Kind regards, Michael

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, pmb said:

it seems necessary to ring alarm bells to wake up IPCAS at this point

+1

 

6 minutes ago, pmb said:

Given, the <5 guys can't do any more workload, this would, among others, mean distributing work on more shoulders, upgrading and debuggings the SDK to make it fit for 3rd parties etc.

+1

[edpatino 1,964]

1 hour ago, pmb said:

on the number of concurrent players, which are pretty alarming figures as well.

Thanks for posting those figures, very informative. Quite a low amount of users in average and in peak with no substantial change over time. At that rythm, one should forget about any further development for AFS2 just because it will be no funding, and that's real numbers.

An old chinese proverb: a picture is worth a thousand words.

Cheers, Ed

[torium 207]

11 minutes ago, pmb said:

I understand your point that spreading negative rumors might not be helpful. But on the other hand, it seems necessary to ring alarm bells to wake up IPCAS at this point (which, unfortunately, is impossible on their own forum).

Thanks for good comments - although I see the situation differently. Is it likely that IPACS is locked in its own bubble without touch with reality? It's hard for me to believe that IPACS does not follow the situation closely. There is reason to believe that IPACS is also informed about the sales figures. 

Orbx has economic interests in that IPACS succeed. So how much called Venema (Orbx) with alarm bells when he visited IPACS?

J van E quoted John Venema: "I spent a day in Germany with the IPACS team about six weeks ago and they showed me some pretty exciting stuff to come in the sim, so please don't write it off just yet!"

Why?

Venema also said: "We work very closely with IPACS on projects and share tech between our companies all the time. There are obvious technical issues to solve as we introduce new systems into AFS2 but working so close with IPACS allows us to overcome those obstacles in good time. AFS2 has so much excess framerate bandwidth that adding new systems won’t diminish its performance as we move forward. We previewed Palm Springs airport at FSExpo in June running at 200fps on a laptop with full PeopleFlow2 support – What a sim! We have internal tools being coded in conjunction with IPACS and other contractors to allow us to rapidly build out airports and other aspects of terrain, so we are investing all the time to accelerate the development cycle for that sim. Vulkan will provide even more headroom for further tech to be added."

IPACS may disappear tomorrow. But today we as customers can choose to listen to their wishes. They know our wishes very well. 

 

[Murmur 3,941]

3 hours ago, pmb said:

Where can I find these Steam-stats for AeroflyFS2? I only know

https://steamcharts.com/app/434030

There's also steamdb with some charts.