Does MSFS 2020 Diminish The Importance of Aerofly?

[HiFlyer 9,345]

On 8/6/2019 at 7:16 AM, 188AHC said:

I unlocked this topic per a member request so the developer can receive feedback as to his continued development of his Aerofly tool. 

I still believe it's too early to be asking this as we have just found out about MSFS and we still know very little about it. 

 

Honestly , I see pretty much zero input regarding the tool.

[torium 207]

11 hours ago, KBUR said:

But IPACS decided in their wisdom to change the original flightmodel of the R22 (which was top notch regarding its Expert Mode) to something more user friendly and defused vs the previous one - now advertising it as " more realistic" - just ridiculous - and my interest on the Robinson decreased immediately, because its special feeling of almost beeing airborne vanished !!! 

Personally I choose realism before emotion. 

 

Jun 20, 2019 by Sérgio Costa, helisimmer.com, quote:

Quote

Some users have noticed a change in the flight model, in the open beta branch (more on that later) and have questioned IPACS on the official forums.

I have tried it and found the R22 become a little easier to control. This has been worrying some FS2 users as they see this change as a step back from realism and it was something I got worried as well.

After I gave it a good try, though, I thought the changes to be quite welcome. Helicopters are hard to control, yes, but being close-to-uncontrollable is not realistic. Quite the opposite. We have seen pilots indicate that helicopters in sims are way harder to control than the real ones, due to the lack of physical sensation, better depth perception, peripheral vision, etc.

Making a helicopter too hard to control, doesn’t make it realistic. Just like adding VRS to a helicopter flight model doesn’t make it realistic either.

I welcome the changes. I found the old flight model a bit too twitchy and hard. I’ve had real pilots being impressed with the flight model but indicating just that.

So, folks, don’t see these changes as something bad. IPACS is working hard to make the sim better and better over time and I hope they keep on doing it.

Now we just need more helicopters, IPACS. And perhaps a bit more of a living world. Other than that, I’m enjoying the direction the R22 is taking.

https://www.helisimmer.com/news/aerofly-fs2-r22-slightly-changed-flight-model

[KBUR 178]

6 hours ago, torium said:

Personally I choose realism before emotion. 

 

Jun 20, 2019 by Sérgio Costa, helisimmer.com, quote:

https://www.helisimmer.com/news/aerofly-fs2-r22-slightly-changed-flight-model

Well, of course I know all these threads about this issue, and I know Sergio Costa's article.  Allthoug Sergio is a good guy, he is not the Pope of helicopter pilots.  He is only a simmer with his own opinion among many others !

Here comes another user-perspective directly from the IPACS forum, and I prefer to share this one:

https://www.aerofly.com/community/forum/index.php?thread/14570-r22-changed-flight-model-professional-mode/&pageNo=3

Quote

 

Post #50 from cgerada:

" Iv also tried to give this new model a chance, but in my opinion its not as real as the previous one. I fly with flightlink professional helicopter controls, collective with twist throttle, floor mounted cyclic and helicopter pedals.

I have 180 hours in the real R22 and in my humble opinion the previous model was a much closer redemption of the real R22, it was not at all difficult to fly (if you have the propper controls) it felt just right.

My only criticism of it was the exagerated yaw at the end of an auto when you recover by adding throttle, and also the speed could be tweeked a bit, it didn't accelerate after transision quite as much as the real R22, (a working fuel system and carb heat would also be welcomed) but those critisms are minor and I was more than happy to live with them.

Unfortunately now I'm finding myself flying DCS huey more than Aeroflys R22 because the new flight model is just not as enjoyable as the previous one.

---

simple test , real R22 and previous flight model, when you lift off in the real R22 and the previous flight model you need to apply a little bit of left pedal in anticipation of the rotor torque that will catch you when you pull collective , once you apply left pedal and catch the spin you need to stabelize all other movement with the pedals and cyclic before gently raising the collective to lift off into the air. this model requires almost zero left pedal and zero stabelization, you can just pop in to the air without hardly any correction. the previous model was spot on in this regard.

*) how real pilots are saying that it is more accurate now is beyond me! "

 

Cheers and all the best.

*) it's beyond me too!  This reminds me on the old discussions (DCS forum) regarding the Huye flight model in DCS and its behaviour.  Some real pilots called "as real as it gets", and some others said " its BS ".

The best would have been if IPACS would have left the previous and gorgeous Expert Mode as a third option, and I asked the developers to do so, but they denied.  So, I'm done with Aerofly !

By all means, S. Costa is not a real pilot !

Edited August 12, 2019 by KBUR

[Pugilist2 878]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 6:13 AM, pmb said:

I tend to disagree here. I see (at least) two cardinal errors from DT: (i) Development strategy (notably SDK/3rd party strategy) itself was basically flawed. (ii) DT marketers tried to treat us as first graders instead of adults. Reactions in forums where just the echo to that.

Any prospective flightsim developer can and should learn his lesson from this. In this respect the AeroflyFS2 forum is in another class right now. While I still would like to see more roadmap info, you can discuss technical matters with the devs and get qualified answers and help there.

Kind regards, Michael

Well said Michael! .

[JimmiG 244]

Aerofly FS 2 is already very niche and limited in scope compared to X-Plane and P3D. This won't change when a new sim comes out.

I'll continue to enjoy AFS2 when I just want to do a quick flight without spending a ton of time setting everything up, waiting for it to load, worrying about correct procedures etc. It's probably going to remain a casual sim for its lifetime, the "placeholder" clouds and weather (which is how it was referenced to in a post by IPACS themselves) are still there two years after the sim left early access.

[KBUR 178]

3 hours ago, AdvancedFollower said:

Aerofly FS 2 is already very niche and limited in scope compared to X-Plane and P3D. This won't change when a new sim comes out.

I'll continue to enjoy AFS2 when I just want to do a quick flight without spending a ton of time setting everything up, waiting for it to load, worrying about correct procedures etc. It's probably going to remain a casual sim for its lifetime, the "placeholder" clouds and weather (which is how it was referenced to in a post by IPACS themselves) are still there two years after the sim left early access.

Well said in a nutshell !!!

And it would remain a casual alternative for the VR guys and the smartphone-pilots. 

The only "correction" I have to do about your post:  These placeholder clouds are the same since "aerofly FS" - IPACS first rendition of Aerofly - which was published in 2012 .

 

All the best.

[HiFlyer 9,345]

3 hours ago, KBUR said:

The only "correction" I have to do about your post:  These placeholder clouds are the same since "aerofly FS" - IPACS first rendition of Aerofly - which was published in 2012 .

I suspect not. While there are some similarities, if you actually have both Sims installed and can run them one right after the other you'll see there are quite a few differences, including in how the two versions handle weather

There seems to be a popular but incorrect consensus that he two sims are just modifications of each other, but in fact Aerofly 1, had a completely flat world, no working instruments of any sort, no buildings except a few dioramas at various airports..... etc.

It did. however, have real water and a weather simulation system that was actually a bit MORE detailed than the current one, especially for gliding, since it gave control of thermals to the user, and also featured a visible windfield simulation. (does anyone remember the built-in slope soaring challenge?)

It also had a very nice apple style user interface.

Other than that, except for the reuse of the Switzerland orthos, FS2 is pretty much a complete rewrite from the ground up.

Water and windfields:

[HGNK 20]

I don't have Aerofly FS 2 (only have the original) but I suspect they dumbed down the crosswind modelling, which is one of the reasons I never upgraded.

If I was the developers, with the approaching FS2020, I would focus on limited regions (key airports and areas) that connect the world, allowing both GA and long haul enthusiasts, similar to what Flight Unlimited 3 did (it was superior to MSFS imo at the time) of Looking Glass Studios. I would go the Looking Glass route, and focus on flight modelling, wind and weather to compete against MS. FU3 had good weather and crosswind modelling.

Because MS is going to do the whole world, it makes it easier for them to provide an alternate sim experience by focusing on key locations for a superior result.

Flight fidelity, improved weather and crosswind modelling (stick and rudder skills) would be my route to market. They are smart guys and certainly can do it. I like the real engineering type layout of their flight model files, which are highly customisable. I like to play around with the thrust power and 'aircraft weight' to modify aircraft behaviour (runway takeoff lengths). By this method and consulting performance charts for a particular aircraft you can get some very realistic take off runs and flap settings - makes a short runway look extra scary.

In a word - seeking to emulate Looking Glass Studios FU3 is the way I would go. Aerofly FS1 and FU3 are the only sims I have flown that made wind a factor and landings hard. The damage model in AFS1 was good too - a hard landing becames a crash!

[torium 207]

37 minutes ago, HGNK said:

FU3 had good weather and crosswind modelling.

Yes. Remember I was very impressed with the weather system.

[HGNK 20]

I agree with KBUR about heli fyling and realism. They should have three settings - easy for those who want a casual experience, hard and ultra-hard. Notice I don't say 'Real' because I don't expect a sim heli will ever be as hard to fly as a real one - I have never heard a real world heli pilot say they are easy to hand fly - exactly the opposite. They are what in engineering is know as "inherently unstable" unlike fixed wing. Inherently unstable in engineering speak translates to mean DANGEROUS, BE CAREFUL.

People like me who are interested in flying helis in sims is because they should be hard to fly. My top tip, in my endless quest for brain-crushing hellish difficulty is to take your favourite controller and go into setup screen and purposely off-centre it slightly, so it will always want to roll off in another direction. The trick is to let someone else do it for you so you don't know where the new center is. You will have a ride which will never sit in one spot and will need constant slight correction. 

My choice of controller is the excellent PDP Xbox Win10 controller. I also have the real flight RF8 USB controller for Windows, but this controller is so precise that it takes up a fair bit of computer memory so I prefer the PDP, but the RF8 is a superb and precise heli controller with very fine inputs.

Heli flyers want a challenge. I haven't got the AF2 sim, but every other sim I have is a bit of a walk-over without improvising to make them harder. My particular interest is hovering and taxiing in high wind conditions. Its a blast.

[HGNK 20]

Forgot to mention the 50" widescreen TV display - that makes a huge difference. Sims look much more real on a big screen - lifesize. Anyone who hasn't experienced a big screen flight sim I cannot recommend highly enough - I simmed for 20 years on a small laptop, desktop monitor and I wouldn't go back there again.

[HiFlyer 9,345]

1 hour ago, HGNK said:

Forgot to mention the 50" widescreen TV display - that makes a huge difference. Sims look much more real on a big screen - lifesize. Anyone who hasn't experienced a big screen flight sim I cannot recommend highly enough - I simmed for 20 years on a small laptop, desktop monitor and I wouldn't go back there again.

Many now feel that way about VR.

[HGNK 20]

Yes I agree, VR is fantastic and I am sure superior to a 2D wide screen TV. I had a 3D MS flight simulator set up in 2001 on a 19" monitor with electronic shutter glasses, and at the time thought I would never go back to 2D. It was a game-changer and a radical improvement in flying simulators. Unfortunately life got in the way and the software was very complicated with issues back then, and I am hoping one day to get back there. Haven't used 3D since that time. Some day soon. VR is definitely the future.