dtrjones

This is what I hate about the reviews of Nvidia verses and Radeon cards. All the reviews seem to concentrate on rasterisation performance and completely neglect the impact these support systems have on performance. You asked me how you can run 4K, it's called DLSS.

Strange comment since MSFS 2024 will have a ton of partner content out the box, including real world liveries, vehicles and assets and the majority of planes from 3rd party developers. If you read between the lines and see the interviews, then you'll know that they are making a massive investment to make places more regionalised which includes everything from people walking around, to biomes, traffic, buildings and activity at airports. They've not said it yet but I would be amazed if they don't have regional ATC accents as well. For me this alone is worth the upgrade. It's pretty enlightening reading some of these posts, short of the sim becoming a crashfest, there's really no excuse not jumping into MSFS 2024 day one even if you have to sell one of your kidneys.

Sure ok I get it. It may seem like moving from "potential" to "believable" (for some) is a way off. I guess if you can see yourself enjoying what is currently on offer that could sweeten the deal given the hefty price tag, I was a fan of Flight Unlimited so it's got my attention - however Flight Unlimited seems to be a far more complete game than the current offering of Areofly FS 2 EA edition. I can't promise this will be the next big thing or another unforfilled venture, so I guess you pays your money and makes your choices and which every choice you make that fair enough with me. Before you give up completely though I would checkout the interview with Torsten Hans who talks about Aerofly FS future development. https://www.helisimmer.com/interview/interview-aerofly-fs2-developer-tosten-hans/

Pardon me but it sounds like you haven't a clue what IPACS are up to... V2 is intended to be an open sim which is why it is featuring a protracted early access phase so that IPACS team can build the new systems required which were missing from the first simulator. The fact that IPACS are promising to deliver an SDK, on top of global elevation and satellite imagery should tell you something about there amibition. Right now the simulator is far from finished it's true which is why it's in early access, but to dismiss this as being nothing more than the first simulation isn't at all fair.

Hi Heimi, Microsoft were behind the curve as well. Looking back now they had such a job for each release just updating the content alone... But you always felt they could have done a better job with the engine. It's nice therefore that we have another developer "having a go", just a pity really this couldn't have started 10 years ago...

You've taken my words out of context. I was responding to the threat which a 64bit simulator could pose if the potential for it's memory capacity is realised which would increase demand to add more memory to a users PC system which on a moderate budget could be a significant problem.

You sound a bit jealous Jim? Comparing an early access product with one in development for 283 years give or take a few is easy right... I thought David Womacks review was pretty good. Gave a good flavour of what the sim could and couldn't do and highlighted how the developers are working on the product for the future. The visuals certainly are pretty that's for sure. David is right to point out the potential, the bottom line here is that the developers want to create a platform like FSX / P3D and it's shortcommings will be open to the community eventually to solve if they have not put something in place beforehand. You just seem to knock everything back and given 1. the position in the development cycle and 2. the potential on offer for something new and exciting it just seems a bit unfair. Hi Christopher, the early access release is 30GB already. Are you sure you want your early access testers downloading even more GB's - thats not practical on a regular basis. I think the developers have stated that higher resolution textures will be available eventually although I can see them releasing this as an optional pack. Thats a good point. The irony is that photoscenery looks best when the terrain isn't flat. This seams like an X-plane 10 verses Aerofly - both however have significant problems with consistent global coverage. P3D/FSX uses something in the middle which I prefer but I'm still waiting for the next evolution of this technique. I'm convinced the like of Orbx Global and GEX products can get significantly better and I'm hoping Dovetail could be the key to this solution but they are going to have to improve a lot to get near what IPACS have achieve with Aerofly FS 2 in and around the airports which is pretty decent.

Hi Antonvs, you should have a nice system for $3000! Your reference to the 30K argument isn't quite right. 192GB memory shouldn't cost much more than a 1000 dollars and whatever memory configuration you have chosen I suspect it would be fairly economical to increase the memory in the future should you need it. Don't worry about 64bit. Software companies have a long way to catch up before even say a 64GB memory system becomes necessary. Enjoy your new system. Happy flying. Cheers, Dave.

Hi Steve, I don't believe instrument panel interactions was a top priority for an introductory flight simulator. I suspect Martin doesn't have an answer for you yet otherwise he would have replied. Martin commented on a desire to look at developing their own solutions to remove the need for current third party hacks like FSUIPC and I'm sure when Martin has more information on this he will share this with the group.

The airports in Aerofly FS 2 for PC are really good here. Very natural to look at and blend in well with the surrounding scenery. Even the static planes look much better than DTG's. This aspect does worry me a little that colours are not quite what they should be across the board as evidenced by the unnatural horizon haze, sky colours and relatively poor quality buildings surrounding the custom airports. It's certainly not all doom and gloom, modelling is generally very good, but the correct choice of colours can go a long way! Cartoonie feel certainly would kill off any imersion is a serious flight simulation so lets hope this aspect improves. Aerofly certainly points the way forward here and it would seem any one of the 150 modelled airports in that sim have been beautifully put together.

Moving to 64 bit after release is a huge deal. Laminar Research were set back by this, no wonder Lockheed Martin put so much effort into the VAS side. It's a moot point anyway, as Dovetail have already done the work and are addressing the issues with the FSX (or should that now be Dovetail) engine. I actually thing it's refreshing that we have somebody different talking ownership of the FSX code and applying a different approach. Comparing Lockheed Martin's product with a future Dovetail release will always be a little unfair for many reasons - so I wouldn't look at it that way. Dovetail have an oportunity to bring something fresh to the table which at the moment is having a slow start but give them time. It will probably take 2 or 3 releases before the community accepts what they have, but if the 3PD's get on board early then who knows how things will shape up. To make you feel better I've provided you with an image for 'arsenal82'... :smile: :smile: Arsenal FC 1982 Shirt

What was it that they didn't learn from MS Flight? Statement like this need to be substantiated. It's certainly not a given that everybody has the same opinion. Read what Martin has stated for the reasons for Flight School, and the news they will follow this up with a full Flight Simulator as a bases for why the products exist. Pretty much everything ties back to the use of FSX technology which was a design descion based on providing a reasonable business plan for sustainable future development of the main Flight Simulator. Like it or not Dovetail have delivered a Flight School which is accessible for new flyers and looks ok enough for the less initiated to enjoy a reasonable flight experience. Glad you kept a lid on it Bill :smile: ! Manny right click on your title in Library and select Create Deskop Shortcut.

I can confirm DA42 has more than 64 bits. And no I don't like eating planes! Who do you think I am Michel Lotito... :smile:

Just want to say thanks Heimi, Uninstaller, HiFlyer and JimmiG for some great feedback. Personally I'm not going to buy this just yet but I'm eager to see how the Early Access develops and will probably look at purchasing this or DTGFS (or both) at the end of the year...

I understand your feelings and I'm sure some people made a mistake thinking this was something more like FSX. I don't think it's fair to say "Give what a chance?". Many people will enjoy what it has to offer and some even prefer the megascenery packs in FSX to autogen objects. To be fair North California and Nevada look amazing in photographic scenery. IPACS have ambitions to make this more functionally rich but it may not happen for this release. That doesn't mean some will still not get enjoyment from the package as I'm sure there is fun to be had.