You wait 30 years and then all the flightsims come at once.

  • Wow! Sim market is getting bigger and bigger!


    Now, I'm puzzle about this statement:


    • Can we import planes from other simulators?

      Yes, FlyInside Flight Simulator will provide options for users to convert and import existing aircraft.

    • I'm a developer and would like to create planes/scenery/etc for this new simulator. How can I do that?

      FlyInside Flight Simulator represents a completely open platform. There's a good chance that you'll be able to import aircraft you've created in the past with little trouble. FlyInside Flight Simulator also has custom APIs which give you direct access to engine internals, and a powerful yet easy scripting facility, allowing you to create plugins more easily than ever before. If you're interested in developing add-ons for it, please contact support@flyinside-fsx.com with the subject "FS Addon Developer."

  • The core "plot" for the flyinside sim (otherwise known as the hook) will be the ability for people to use many of their FSX/P3d plane collections in a VR implementation that actually takes advantage of their machines hardware.


    This is the same plot of almost all the "new" sims. To allow you to "upgrade" without having to lose your previous investment in software, and essentially without having to learn anything new.


    To people who have been using ESP based platforms for years and sometimes even decades, this is hoped to be an enormous draw, with the drag of backwards compatibility being presumably negated by the convenience of access to the width and breadth of the ESP aircraft ecosystem.


    For people like me, who feel that ESP has been stretched about as far as it can go without essentially being completely rewritten (which would be about the same as starting over from scratch, and is apparently not in the cards) ) this is not nearly as attractive.


    For those looking for a truly next generation experience, it will likely (eventually) be Aerofly, X-plane (Vulkan update and VR) or some as yet unknown dark horse, that will likely hold the most interest in the end.


    In fact the Flyinside sim actually looks a lot like a slimmed down Aerofly to me, with the same necessity to fill out its world with autogen, ai, weather and etc.


    Can/will it evolve fast enough to catch up with Aerofly? I think developers that are reluctant to learn the innards of Aerofly might be quite attracted to be able to use their old techniques and workflows on a supposedly faster sim. As with FSW, some might be quite excited and much more proactive simply because of that.


    Interesting times.



    Devons rig

    Intel Core i7 8700K @ 5.0GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ZOTAC GAMING GeForce® RTX 2080 Ti Triple Fan / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit /Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 Motherboard

    Edited once, last by HiFlyer ().

  • As I have repeated ad nauseum, Aerofly only has so long of a window being "unique". Other developers, and eventually a big one, will catch up. That is why I keep urging them to speed up their efforts or they will do much of the initial work without receiving much of the benefit. The hobby is moving again. No one will get 10 years to perfect a platform. That was a unique result of the demise of FSX. Once people begin leaving that standard the hobby should see rapid change and improvements.

  • Whoever brings a Sim with total globe coverage in 3d to the table, and I don't mean photo scenery, will be the winner. I'm talking about some of the cities and towns you see in other games like grand theft auto or some of the later games, although not real it looks pretty dam real, better than blurry photo scenery with some 3d modelling attached, plus it's alive 😎

  • Whoever brings a Sim with total globe coverage in 3d to the table, and I don't mean photo scenery, will be the winner. I'm talking about some of the cities and towns you see in other games like grand theft auto or some of the later games, although not real it looks pretty dam real, better than blurry photo scenery with some 3d modelling attached, plus it's alive 😎

    Problem is that Flightsims don't bring in enough ROI to make something like that financially feasible, much less the technical hurdles.


    The workaround is something I reccomended for years, and that X-plane eventually tried, which is using available data sources to have the world essentially construct itself, using procedural techniques.


    Unfortunately, X-plane left it at that, and never "humanized" its cities with colors and more randomization combined with hand placement, so it ended up with a world that feels very cold, mechanical and "samey" except at night.


    Seeing Aeroflys rendition of New york gives hope that Ipacs can do things better, but the fact that New york is so "incomplete" with huge open areas containing no buildings points out the flaw of limited resources.


    Can Orbx help square the circle? They've been awfully quiet, though..........


    We fans can only watch, with crossed fingers.

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i7 8700K @ 5.0GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ZOTAC GAMING GeForce® RTX 2080 Ti Triple Fan / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit /Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 Motherboard

  • Yes I agree with you on Orbx, let's hope no news is good news, they are the ones that can bring a Sim to life, I can only fly so much of USA and Europe, some of it is beautiful but I still long to be able to fly my own part of the world which apart from a couple of dedicated local developers is sadly lacking scenery in these latest sims, I downloaded FSW the other day just to check it out, went to Wellington airport here in the capital of New Zealand and yeah just as I thought, sad man, I wouldn't even bother putting that kind of scenery into a Sim, it's rediculous, saying they have global scenery? Yeah right 😎

  • All the flightsims may come at once but none offer what I want. Aerofly has the best performance but lacks a lot of things and some of what it misses won't be here anytime soon: I don't expect for instance a good weather engine within a few years. Seriously. I am beginning to doubt if I want to wait that long and if I can stay entertained with what it offersright now. I already noticed that I quit flights before I land because I get bored. Other sims may have things I want but lack performance. Or good looks. Or good VR support. But even good VR isn't too good, really: current VR tech is nice but not good or great.


    Yes, I am becoming a bit negative lately when it comes to flightsims.

  • Yes, I am becoming a bit negative lately when it comes to flightsims.


    Flightsims just don't have the resources to quickly do what we can imagine. That era ended with the departure of Microsoft, and appears unlikely to return anytime soon. DTG acts almost like it has limitless resources to throw at this, but that's obviously not true, and one wonders how nervous they might be, especially at the generally negative reaction from many third parties.


    Slow and steady seems to be the mantra of the flight sim universe, and patience is the byword.


    Without patience, we might as well all go find something else as a hobby.


    Did you know Jcomm is now doing fighter ops? :P


    For myself, I think Aeroflys major, glaring, outstanding problem is that it has no "fleshed out" areas to visit.


    All its locations are light "sketches" of an area, incomplete and thus unable to hold attention for long.


    In my opinion it needs at least one fairly complete state (or country, like Austria) to hold users attention while the rest of the sim fills out. Even a well done rendition of Hawaii and some of the islands would probably do as a showcase.


    Orbx's hints of a "region" for Aerofly is just what the doctor ordered, but will it come soon enough?

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i7 8700K @ 5.0GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ZOTAC GAMING GeForce® RTX 2080 Ti Triple Fan / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit /Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 Motherboard

    Edited 4 times, last by HiFlyer ().

  • I'm wondering what happened to the autogen upgrade for Meigs... thought we would have seen that some time ago, but ORBX has been a little silent on that.

    Yup; the people who would probably know the answer to what's going on with that are so far playing their cards very close to their chests.


    In the flightsim world that means it's speculation time! And since there's plenty of speculation surrounding every other sim, I guess Aerofly is past due for some of the juicy stuff.


    (searches for some popcorn)

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i7 8700K @ 5.0GHz / 32.0GB G.SKILL TridentZ Series Dual-Channel Ram / ZOTAC GAMING GeForce® RTX 2080 Ti Triple Fan / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Rift VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 2x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit /Gigabyte Z370 AORUS Gaming 5 Motherboard

    Edited once, last by HiFlyer ().

  • In a perfect world IPACS, Laminar, DTG and Lockheed would all come together and have one beautiful baby!

    I had similar thoughts when I think of bundling all these resources. However we know that competition is good for business.

    Best regards,

    Thomas


    i7-6700K @ 4.0 GHz, Geforce GTX 1080, 32MB RAM, 500 GB SSD, 1 TB SSD, 1TB HD, 32" Monitor 4K, Oculus Rift

  • I want to add my personal opinion into this matter, trying to be objective as seen from an outside perspective.


    First of all I think it is good that there are multiple new platforms out there. Personally I would like to have only four major platforms out there: P3D, X-Plane, DCS and Aerofly. There are so many Microsoft flight sim based sims today (FSW, P3D,...), I'll just call them FSX, I which they would just all join their forces to create a better FSX with better frame rates and better looking terrain. With addons like PMDG or FsLabs and A2A the FSX platform is pretty much maxxed out. And it is really nice to have study level aircraft. Then there is X-Plane which has a good physics engine, much better than FSX, awesome night lighting and again could have more realistic scenery. It could be done better, right now both FSX and X-Plane don't look photo realistic I think.


    And then there is Aerofly which could do better in Scenery as well. There are so many airports but it is hard to find one that looks good. The other day I was trying to find a smaller airport for the LJ45 and was a bit disappointed with the airport overall quality. There are nice buildings and static aircraft and nice ground textures and materials. All they have modeled is actually quite good but it is the quantity of details that makes the airports boring. When I taxi on the ground it looks good when I look towards the terminals, though it really could use more life like aspects, parked push back trucks, baggage vehicle trains overall more ground vehicles. When I taxi out to the runway things start to look very flat, it's just a 2D plane with sharp textures on the taxiway but washed out textures right beside it. The runway textures could use some more tire markings, especially to indicate often used high speed taxiways, it's like they removed them on purpose and it now looks less realistic and less used. No taxiway signs yet that could make it 3D (they will probably be generated in the future, so why bother creating them manually), no taxiway lights (3D models) and also no grass or any 3D mesh that shows: here ends the taxiway and you're about to head into rough terrain. And the real world apron is anything but flat. You tend to go up a slope towards the stand, usually you go through a downspout (where water collects) which can be quite bumpy. I miss that. And airport buildings (red white with antennas on top), where are they? Some airports have them modeled but the majority could use some more. It just doesn't look right as flat as it currently is, I agree it would be nice to have more "finished" areas. In Innsbruck you see all of that: grass, signs, a lot of parked vehicles and even moving traffic. This is how I expect all default airports to look like, or at least the more commonly known ones like KLAX, KSAN, KSFO, LSGG, LSZH, etc. It can't be that difficult to throw in a lot more static things, create a database of vehicles and just flood the scenes with them, throw in some grass between the runway and taxiway to fill that empty flat gap. Also some light masts would be nice to give the airport more height...


    Before adding new areas I would like to see the current areas being improved. Add more life to the airports, make the odd looking flat areas between the taxiway and runway disappear, it ruins the experience for me. Next step could be to define taxiway edge lights, add in vehicle path ways, more static vehicles, more airport infrastructure, more attention to detail in general. The overall coverage is really good and for a lot of the smaller airports the quality is what I would expect. It is just that there isn't any airport, except Innsbruck and Meigs that look convincing in the overall picture. The terminals, runways and terminals are fine, the rest seems missing, which makes it look incomplete to me. It's details like: not finding any parking spot with my 747 (all are blocked by either jetways or other airliners) or having to taxi for ages from that one and only white starting point on the airport, not realistically filled stands (often very few parked static aircraft, sometimes to many in one place without leaving convenient gap for my aircraft to fit in). Too few starting positions on the ground, LAX has only one place on the ground to start at, apart from all the runway starting positions, just one, for the entire LAX airport. It's little things like that which pile up. Like searching for 1h 30 for a descent looking airport for the Learjet 45 tutorial with a good starting location on the airport with not too far of a taxi...


    Enough of this negativity, I'm happy that the Aerofly FS 2 airports look much more realistic than the default ones in the other sim platforms. They have pretty consistent quality, a lot of smaller airports are modeled which is nice and you will find place to fly to and from. What they have done is in good quality, it's just that there are too many things missing in too many airports for me to say: "that is an overall good looking airport". I would like to see more completeness in a trade off for fewer airports.


    And again, this is my personal opinion...

  • For a small investment one gets Switzerland with smaller airports with a nice look for the LJ45 e.g. LSZG (Grenchen) and Berne (LSZB). I think LSZH (Zurich) is very well done with luggage cars, ground vehicles. Of course things are still missing like taxi signs. But I agree the terrain between taxiways and RWYs is the pixeled foto ground and should be replaced by grass textures. Also the runways are often just what the satelite pictures offer and bumpy. But as you say the overall looking is very realistic. In other sims I am always aware that I am just in a computer world, in Aerofly FS2 I sometimes forget it.


    Regards,

    Thomas

    Best regards,

    Thomas


    i7-6700K @ 4.0 GHz, Geforce GTX 1080, 32MB RAM, 500 GB SSD, 1 TB SSD, 1TB HD, 32" Monitor 4K, Oculus Rift

  • All the flightsims may come at once but none offer what I want. Aerofly has the best performance but lacks a lot of things and some of what it misses won't be here anytime soon: I don't expect for instance a good weather engine within a few years. Seriously. I am beginning to doubt if I want to wait that long and if I can stay entertained with what it offersright now. I already noticed that I quit flights before I land because I get bored. Other sims may have things I want but lack performance. Or good looks. Or good VR support. But even good VR isn't too good, really: current VR tech is nice but not good or great.


    Yes, I am becoming a bit negative lately when it comes to flightsims.

    I have felt exactly the same and it's probably because I O/D'd on virtual flying over a number of years.


    J van E, if it helps, I found that if I put simming down for a week or two every so often this regenerates my interest and a small flight is all I need thereafter for my fix!


    I'm finding VR multiplayer with our group to be the most rewarding thing of all and P3Dv4 does that well via "JoinFS". Our group does this twice a week in the most interesting of places in the world where one of us produces a flight plan for the "1 hour flights" and then also does some minimal research about the area and then gives us all a mini lecture amid lewd jokes and general laughs.


    It's good for the soul.


    We all so much want to do this via IPACS.