hangar

X-plane shines when used for "flying" your own plane, not sitting around watching others. As far as the scenery...there's tons of it and mostly freeware...with some payware. IMO the out of the window look in XP default scenery is far more real than what I had in FSX... to me XP is just a much more realistic experience all around, especially in flight modeling and VFR plausable scenery. That all said Id say to stick with what you've got. Sounds like you more into "watching" than flying...and X-plane cannot be used with tons of AI anyway. AI (and ATC) are XP's weak points.

...ah the trials and tribulations we have to put up with in WeatherVaning Simulator 11

just checked into this PF3 thing...apparently although there is a way to get it configured to work within xplane by using 3rd party software, PF3 was not designed for x-plane use nor does the author support it's function with xplane. Quoted from the PF3 author himself: "We make it quite clear that PF3 will work with X-Plane but only when using the third party addon. There are no plans to make PF3 work with X-Plane" This was the author's response to a new customer asking if there's a way to get the PF3 demo (try before you buy) to work in Xplane. So... I wouldn't be buying this for Xplane since it has zero support in using it that way.

k, thanks Chris

Hi Christopher - ok so question about the Long Island area as depicted in Aerofly, since this is where I live and would normally do alot of flying. My home base that I typically fly out of is KFRG. Would I actually need to buy the DLC to be able to fly and use the airports around Long Island? i.e. KFRG KISP, KMTP, KHPN are these 4 airports depicted in the base scenery without dlc?...are they there even WITH the dlc??

Jeroen...I did just read your post..thanks so much again...it actually does contain alot more of the sort of thing I was looking for, so much appreciated. I feel I have a much better understanding now of what Aerofly currently has on offer. BTW - It was an interesting read and I find myself trying to read in-between the lines so to speak :-) Sounds as if you are using it/liking it more because you're tired of dealing with the same old issues that simming has been known for, rather than because you feel it currently has so much to offer. What you seem to like best about it is that a flight can be started and flown very quickly & easily without any fuss and without performance concerns...while I can understand this 110%, it doesn't really mean that you are happily satisfied with the Aerofly software...all it really means is that you are truly sick and tired of dealing with performance issues and other hassles of the older software...again completely understandable. Thanks again, I appreciate all that time you took out in sharing your own experience with it. I may try it soon, but it doesn't sound like it will remain on my HD for all too long, in it's current form. That doesn't mean, however, that it never will :-)

No I haven't yet...thank you so much, will check it out!

Thanks for your input, all well understood and nothing there to argue about, believe me. It's just that the information you're providing is not what I'm interested in for right NOW. I'm not looking for opinion on who likes it or believes in the project or not, or for what the devs have in mind for the future and all, etc. All of that is well and good and can certainly be alot of fun discussing at times. But right now, in this thread, I was just looking for facts about what the title is actually capable of doing right NOW out of the box far as real world aircraft simulation, whether it be including or excluding real weather conditions in the process, etc OH, ALSO! Thanks for the heads-up regarding Steam's return policy...been assuming however, that with a title such as this which may be rather complex, that 2 hours just isn't enough to really evaluate it for me and then I'd get stuck (which is all too common an occurrence :-). My plan was to take advantage of that policy AFTER my research had provided some concrete video evidence of what this puppy can do today, right now. But I still haven't really found anything based on actual numbers...whether it be good or bad. Kinda weird actually... but all I've been able to hear about is opinions not based on anything real. Typically when a new aircraft gets released around here you hear all sorts of comparisons to real world numbers or real world behaviors, etc... but for some reason I'm not finding any of that type of discussion happening with Aerofly. Perhaps I've just missed it or perhaps it doesn't exist, I dunno? That's why all I can do for right now is to continue looking and keeping an eye out, I suppose. Thanks again for sharing what you know, guys... much appreciated as always. Will keep an eye out here for more concrete answers... might be best to start a new & smaller thread though, heh :-)

Good to know, Alan...thanks for that!

For the record so to speak, ...who customers are forced to entrust their private information to as part of a sales transaction, as well as their customer service needs as they come up afterwards, can certainly have an impact on the future sales of a product, as well as the reputation and trust in the product's author. So, I'd say it IS on-topic (according to the title of the thread anyway, which is vague at best), just not "technical" in nature is all. Regardless of some obvious biased opinions here...the evidence presented today which shows undeniable unprofessional behavior from the people who run that store should come as NO surprise and is really nothing new if you've been paying attention over the years. My own personal disappointment is the author's refusal to setup any other available means in getting his products via what some buyers might consider to be more professionally run and trusted etailors.

Tell you what guys... instead of arguing on a forum about who said what, etc. and why you should believe person x over person y, why not just post your own personal but detailed video/data findings about the software then? (no one seems to be doing this) In my own personal case, I am merely going by what was told to me by a couple of old colleagues of mine that I've stayed in touch with over the years from my old training days at FlightSafety KLGA, one of which is now a professional pilot and the other an engineer. Now, you can't blame someone for taking the word of 2 professionals that they've personally known for nearly 20 years over some printed words on an internet web page. There's really no need to waste any time and patience arguing about this. If you feel the information that I've been given is not accurate and I should discount it then please, by all means, show me the numbers and proof in a video that you've either discovered or made yourself. I am more than willing to reconsider my own personal position about it if/when the data presented to me shows otherwise. I've already stated earlier that I "will keep an eye out in case it becomes a serious contender for flight modeling & atmospherics in the near future". ... but mere words, arguments and claims on a page don't suffice, obviously. Lets actually see some good numbers inside some good flight videos proving that it does this NOW. I've tried searching on Youtube for such proof and have not yet found anything detailed in this regard. The search continues...

That's not even close to being a licensed pilot, but thank you just the same for that feedback. Through some more research I have already found out what I needed to know and have decided to move on from this title. From what I was able to ascertain, from reliable sources, there is more arcade in this title than reality. It's strong point seems to be creating beautiful views with a feeling of flight, but NOT simulating a real aircraft with accurate real world physics. Looks like a fabulous scenery simulator but that's not all I'm currently looking for in a new sim. ... will keep an eye out in case it becomes a serious contender for flight modeling & atmospherics in the near future.

No offense intended regarding your curiosity about sales numbers but, other than 3rd party developers, who really cares? I mean, I was attracted to this thread to learn about the new sim and how well it depicts flight and other info related to what customers are usually interested in discussing about something like this....not how many others are buying it...I can't base my buying decisions on how many sales they're getting. Again, not to step on toes...but in such a long winded thread there's much more meaningful info to explore about the title than it's sales numbers. ...such as it's flight modeling...which has gotten zero attention here as far as anything concrete or detailed. It's 25 flippin' pages about graphics, lol. I mean thank goodness someone in the thread at least mentioned that the sounds are less than stellar...that's good to know! ...so, what else is good or bad about it (other than graphics/scenery). Also, in addition to it's flight modeling, why not talk more in depth about it's available navigation systems and what instrumentation can be used and what can not be used here? ...would just like to see this discussion get back on track is all, to keep it more useful.

Enough already with the "my penis is bigger than yours" banter, sheesh you guys are killin' a perfectly good thread that's already way too big to follow as it is. Anyone with a pilot's license fly this thing yet, that would like to contribute any thoughts pertaining to how good it's flight modeling might be?

I have a request.... ... for those who may have flown one of the included Aerofly2 aircraft types in real life, I would be very interested if some of you could offer some true insight into the accuracy of the flight modeling for some or any of the included aircraft here. I did a search for flight modeling in the topic but nothing detailed came up other than folks mentioning how smooth it fly's. This thread has tons of opinions regarding the graphics and which scenery looks best at which altitude, etc...but I don't see any real discussion about the accuracy of the flight modeling. ...so, would love to hear from some licensed pilots at least.