A slightly different way of letting IPACS know how patient we really are.

  • I define the priorities by looking at what is needed to enhance the experience of an IFR flight, nice to haves are indented:

    - Airplanes (DASH 8 is great, B737, B747, Learjet 45, A320 are ok. I reccommend before adding new planes to enhance the latter airplanes, engine start, FMS, lighting etc. I think to have only sophisticated, fully real airplanes can discourage new users. It would be good to have the existing airplanes in a simple mode, e.g. press S to start the engines, automatic flight plan creation from A to B. People can then change later to full mode)

    - Flight Plan (SIDs, STARs, fligt plans can be saved, maybe only for some chosen airports to start)

    - ATC (IFR clearance, Ground, Departure, Approach, Vectors to ILS etc, maybe to start with only between some chosen airports)

    --------------- Ground Services (at least push-back)

    --------------- AI Traffic (maybe leave to 3rd party developers to gain resources for other inhouse projects)

    - Night lighting (not just airports, but cities, streets, towns, cars)

    - Weather

    ---------------- Cockpitbuilder, make use of Saitek/GoFlight and other modules


    Regards,

    Thomas

    Regards,

    Thomas

    i7-14700KF @ 5.6 GHz, Geforce RTX 4090, 32MB RAM, 1TB SSD M.2, 1TB SSD M.2, 2TB SSD M.2, 32" Monitor 4K, Pimax Crystal

    Edited 2 times, last by TomB (September 19, 2017 at 3:59 PM).

  • FS2 is a primarily a FLIGHT simulator and not a sightseeing game.

    Flying into and out of Innsbruck I can tell you that you definitely don't notice any cars, trains or people, only a short runway and a narrow valley!

    Don't want to know what the framerate would do if all these requested gimmicks would be implemented.

    So great to read I'm not the only one thinking so.

    BTW the framerate in LOWI already drops dramatically compared to other places, pointing to the fact the scenery isn't necessarily much optimized - as long as the sim coped with it, they fed 3D objects, but it makes me wonder how it will behave once there will be a real scenery with 3D coverage, and not just a tiny patch of ground with hand placed houses...

    As well, I don't see the point in detailing inside the terminal buildings at Meigs Field. These are typical resources-wasting features that I would avoid in a flight simulator. I would have by far preferred they invested these time and resources in compiling higher quality ground textures rather than the coarse fs9-like ones and added specific 3D objects / landmarks that cannot be satisfyingly featured by the autogen layer once available.

    My 2 cents

    Config : i7 6900K - 20MB currently set at 3.20GHz, Cooling Noctua NH-U14S, Motherboard ASUS Rampage V Extreme U3.1, RAM HyperX Savage Black Edition 16GB DDR4 3000 MHz, Graphic Card Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080 8GB, Power supply Corsair RM Series 850W, Windows 10 64 bit.

  • If FS2 isn't supposed to be a "gosh - wow" visual simulator I don't get the point of using it. I don't want the interiors of buildings modeled either, but I can get far more realistic systems simulation from P3D today than we are likely to EVER get from FS 2 with its tiny team of programmers. If FS 2 loses its cutting edge visual advantage it will certainly lose me.

    I guess the sim is evolving away from the "real feeling of flying" that was it's original reason for being, or at least the user base is. We already have study sims for P3D and X Plane. This was supposed to be different. Let's not allow this to become another "I fly PMDG and since you don't you are a loser" situation. That may be extreme, but everyone reading this knows exactly what I am talking about.

    My 1 cent.

  • I understand the real feeling of flying, my first impression of mobile FS was just that. I was delighted to get moving nav instruments and that combination is really all that I want. The in house automated flight and auto-navigation leave me cold. I don't care what procedures some geek in Toulouse programmes into a 320, that is not what flying real aeroplanes is about, actually the current automated fly you through a mountain on long finals, fits in well with that 'computer knows best' disease.

    Some people in the Facebook Aerofly fan group were excited to see 340s on the ground, no harm there, now how about giving us a good old Boeing 707, warts and all?

  • Well, this thread has certainly prompted an interesting and shall we say a spirited discussion.

    AFS2 pulled me in with its extremely smooth flight due to the outstanding frame rates and the beautiful high resolution photo real scenery with its more than adequate number of 3D modeled airports and cities in the provided scenery.

    I was very happy to see the development of Geoconvert, and look forward to it's continued improvement plus the addition of more scenery building tools for those who want to use them. As for future development of AFS2, I get that there are many different aspects of flight simulation that appeal to those who love flying, and I would like to point out that those features are already available in current and other sims. I would have preferred that the small team continue on the path it started with; the development of more scenery regions like the original ones provided, continual improvement of the aircraft provided, and continual improvement of the weather system. In other words, keeping AFS2 on track as the delightful visual experience it is. I have no need for an ATC system and the months the team has spent working on it I would have preferred to see spent on the weather system and more scenery regions.

    It is my hope that AFS2 will not go under; that it will continue to gain users who appreciate it's value to the flight sim community and it will begin to add the aspects of it's beginning that made it so appealing in the first place a priority.

    Ken

  • FS2 is a primarily a FLIGHT simulator and not a sightseeing game.

    105OE and Trespassers, fully disagree with your statement, if i may say.

    first: flight and flight simulation is indeed connected with sightseeing, and very much so. Unless you fly IFR at dark night (no moon, no stars),

    neither ground traffic potentially hits your plane while at the gate.

    It sounded like you do real flights around the Alps, so you should be very aware of the visual orientation business.

    No instrument replaces the eye in such environments.

    Trains, Flags, and other moving objects (cross-directional) are a tremendous enrichment of the flight feel, and part of the pilot's visual references,

    which to provide as navigational assistance as well as entertaining objects to reflect the real world is the highest goal in flight simming.

    Using Elite-Trainers in closed rooms or hydraulic CAE-tubs may do their part of the training, but the flight sim business covering the worldwide home

    entertainment market

    touches 95% of the gaming expections rather than the simple Instrument reading. That includes every visual activity in and around the airplane, which

    is connected to your role as a player. So, i was very very shocked reading your statement. Let trains be. Together with street, water and air traffic they

    contribute to a "simulated world" experience, that shows signs of life. This may not be as important for Flight level 350 upwards, but certainly for VFR

    simmers and of course helicopter pilots.

    second: it is my understanding that ipacs has not defined its final objectives for what this product is supposed to be at the end. It may have began with the

    architecture of a Flight Simulation, but give it a chance to be what it can be.

    So, if we end up in a first person pilot being driven in a crew bus to the plane, entering the aircraft before we begin to feed some FMC or

    buddy up with flight attendants, don't get surprised, could happen, let it happen. Cause we want it? Cause it can be done? who cares.

    third: the market allows half a dozen leading edge products in this field. As the 2 founders are physicians, i doubt that airplanes will be the sole definition

    of a thing that can move. Yes, they are dedicated to aviation, as we all are, but this engine allows to drive anything if my impressions are correct.

    Ipacs has jumped into a leak, and we all are invited to fill it, with what we can get and what's on our minds. if it is Baloons, no problem. If it is street or rail traffic, no problem. Why not let it happen? Let's do it. Say yes. The Sky is just the limit.

    fourth: i run aerofly on a pc that is as old as you would think it was built by the old greeks, and i have no noticable frame rate impact when approaching LOWI.

    If framerates are your concern about featuring life, we need to see where things have to become optional. Traffic is certainly something that should be

    able to size up or down, depending on your computing power. Ipacs will consider this at all times, i am absolutely positive.

    Edited once, last by Almdudler (September 19, 2017 at 6:35 PM).

  • Well said Almdudler. Very much along the lines of my thinking and expectations. I have been flying real world aircraft my entire life, now I prefer to enjoy the golden years doing things that I enjoy seeing and doing.

    Regards,


    Ray

  • Hey guys,

    Yes, there will be increased system depth and we will improve the other aspects step by step in a natural way. We aim to create a simulation that provides the easiest way first and then provides options for those users that want to go deeper and care about all the complexity, I think automated engine start will be a thing of the future but you will also be able to start engines manually, we are working on an improved version of the copilot overlay that will make it easy to fly on some sort of simple autopilot with the press of a few buttons and then provide easy access for more advanced things like LNAV/VNAV. We aim for a simulator that is both accessible for beginners and provides enough customization for experienced flyers.

    Another example: You will always be able to create a new flight plan with very few clicks. Select the aircraft, click the start and destination airports, than magic happens and you get a full route with everything planned for you. We will probably select SIDs and STARs automatically for you in the future and calculate the fuel and possible payload etc. so that you can definitely reach the destination. You then will also see options to change the flight plan around, change the runways, SIDs, STARs, add waypoints in between, add more fuel or take some away, make the plane empty, fly as heavy as possible. We also plan to enable full flight plan programming via CDUs for those that want to do this sort of stuff. And when you then click on the runway you will be ready for takeoff, as always. If you don't want that, you can click on the parked aircraft on the map and specify if you want the full "cold and dark" or just the quick turn around so that you don't have to click that much but can still do push back and engine start.

    I'm not sure when we will get there but we're certainly moving towards a user friendly, yet hopefully very detailed and very realistic simulation. So there is nothing to be afraid of, the future of the Aerofly probably has both to offer: deep systems and easy of use for those that don't yet know how to handle all the system depth. Maybe an intelligent copilot that deals with all the stuff you don't want to do, automatic engine start is just one of the things I'm thinking of right now.

    In the mean time the scenery guys will probably add more airports and expand the regions and there may be auto gen to fill the empty gaps, this may also include improved night lighting, street lights along the roads, etc. we'll see. We're not sleeping, all of us are working as hard as they can to improve this sim.

  • i am so confident when reading you guys, guess we just need to continue being patient.

    i hope ipacs will tell if help is needed or ideas need to be discussed on the user side.

    Such an incredible and addicted power group on this platform that can assist with real world issues, use it.

    Ray, you are my windsock. Jan, your visions are very much of what we are looking for, and one day i will get my scroll zoom, sure about that :))

  • I could't resist.. :)

    Lot of you guys make hell of a sense to my opinion but if I'm being very honest (as early access user should be) I need to raise my concern about IPACS team capacity..

    Don't take me wrong, I'm sure they are doing their best ,sleeves up deep, in tasks that everybody "needs". However watching the progress, taking basic maths and "to do list" in consideration, I can only predict this beautiful project to mature within next 3 to 5 years.. My problem is that in five years time, this amazing engine will be way out of date, replaced by different technology. We all witnessed this with MSFS. There's always a threshold you can't cross. This particular time is where VR drives hardware and software developers crazy. Many technological "miracles" will surface and general computing performance will multiply many times over short period of time..

    In that respect I would suggest to IPACS to finalize the basic core of the sim with highest priority.. Maybe even boost the progress with Kickstarter, expanding their's team, speeding things up a little.

    It's not that we aren't patient, there's simply not enough route to drag this cart along..

    Regards Jay

    Over and Out

    Jay

  • 105OE and Trespassers, fully disagree with your statement, if i may say.

    first: flight and flight simulation is indeed connected with sightseeing, and very much so. Unless you fly IFR at dark night (no moon, no stars),

    neither ground traffic potentially hits your plane while at the gate.

    It sounded like you do real flights around the Alps, so you should be very aware of the visual orientation business.

    No instrument replaces the eye in such environments.

    Hi Almdudler,

    Thanks a lot for sharing frankly your view, I think it is very constructive and this thread seems the perfect place to disagree or not.

    I understand your point regarding the "sightseeing" aspect, it's pretty much true in cruise flight VFR navigation - where Aerofly FS2 could be outstanding with its high framerate and cristal-clear photo textures.

    But for that purpose sceneries need to be convincingly consistent, not just flat phototextures on an elevation mesh, with sprayed trees on it.

    It needs an extensive 3D coverage with vegetation, buildings, landmarks, powerlines, etc. Ground traffic then also brings an interesting touch of life, especially on highways. BTW This was a feature I first thought stupid as FSX came out more than 10 years ago, and that I now definitely miss when it's lacking.

    Currently AFS2 is outstanding in desert areas - I very much enjoyed a beautiful flight over Death Valley, the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, etc. as long as I avoided Las Vegas or California that ruin the experience... Flying within the Swiss Alps is also gorgeous in AFS2, but urban areas as well as borders of the Swiss DLC unfortunately totally ruin it.

    Adding buildings to the Swiss DLC means adding several millions of 3D objects, it definitely needs strict optimization not to collapse the sim on the best PC.

    My concern was framerate at LOWI drops down to some 110-130 FPS on my PC when I get 350-400 over other places like the Swiss DLC or southwest US, just due to a few square km of dense buildings and an airport. OK, 110 FPS is still good, but what would it mean for a country-wide scenery ?

    Airports are a place where fluidity is of paramount importance for the flight experience. Flying a final approach in LOWI is sure not the place where I want to spot trains and buses on the ground down there, my full attention goes to flying my aircraft down the glide to the runway, holding target parameters, keeping situational awareness, see and be seen.

    Cheers

    Antoine

    Config : i7 6900K - 20MB currently set at 3.20GHz, Cooling Noctua NH-U14S, Motherboard ASUS Rampage V Extreme U3.1, RAM HyperX Savage Black Edition 16GB DDR4 3000 MHz, Graphic Card Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080 8GB, Power supply Corsair RM Series 850W, Windows 10 64 bit.

    Edited 2 times, last by Trespassers (September 20, 2017 at 3:02 PM).

  • It needs an extensive 3D coverage with vegetation, buildings, landmarks, powerlines, etc. Ground traffic then also brings an interesting touch of life, especially on highways.

    Cheers

    Antoine

    what you are saying Antoine is absolutely right.

    i drive an old GTX470 with low Rams and AMD, and of course my game settings are not highest nor i run VR.

    Game performance is outstanding as a consequence.

    Most people buy expensive video cards and expect a good performance.

    All i do is basically clean performance killers across the system, and keep a combination of hardware components that transports the right amount of data.

    Regarding your Details Coverage:

    Flight levels are a principal way of building segments. Overflying Mojave at FL350 does not need trees.

    However, getting yourself into a helicopter would require a close up world of details, at least 50 meters in diameter ground level.

    At that point, you don't care about buildings beyond the next hill. Arma III is nice in that regard. I love a realistic vegetation mix and fly low with agile choppers.

    I think LOD has easy principals and with the lean code ipacs obviously has written, this will not be an issue like in other games.

    Find the performance killers in your system and the right settings. Verify a smooth transmission of dataflow from disk to cache to memory to graphics, check Dxdiag, check drivers, CPU-Videocard-Drive must be in top sync.

    I would love to upgrade my hardware to something like you own, so i can run all current releases in the genre, but i hesitate until i am sure i find the best possible combination.

    On youtube i find some really nice videos, mainly for xplane11 and DCS. So i ask them for their specs to gather a safe purchase list.

  • Don't want to know what the framerate would do if all these requested gimmicks would be implemented.

    I would guess still stomp every other sim out there's FPS into the dirt. :whistling:

    Don't know why you are having such FPS problems, i do between 130/200fps on average over NY unless I get wacky and fly down between the buildings, so I think the problem might be on your side.

    http://imageshack.com/a/img922/8232/VRV5mu.jpg

    http://imageshack.com/a/img924/3042/kHBaae.jpg

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

    Edited 3 times, last by HiFlyer (September 20, 2017 at 8:00 AM).

  • I have absolutely no idea why you think that I'm having FPS problems.

    From what I've read so far, even with the most powerful PC you can't even set all the graphics to Ultra in the New York area in VR and that's in an absolutely sterile environment with zero moving planes, cars or trains.

    But of course you can keep dreaming.

    Because my settings over NY are at ultra, and seeing as I get well over 90FPS in 2D, I have no problem maintaining 90FPS in 3D.

    I was just pointing that those FPS are perfectly possible today, and you don't have to be dreaming. Anyone having problems meeting those FPS probably just needs some systems upgrades or a diagnostic.

    Even better, looking ahead at VR technologies like upscaling (in the Pimax) in combination with ATW and eventually things like foveated rendering, I don't think Aerofly will have to many difficulties maintaining the necessary FPS in 2D and VR even with additional systems and etc.

    Just my 2cents. :)

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

  • I don't think that is realistic to believe that all these requested features can be implemented without a significant performance loss.

    The problem is, FSX is over a decade old. For instance, would you compare the performance of a decade old computer (or even graphics card) to the performance of the today's latest tech? Most people would say of course not, yet, after years of FSX dominating the market, many users still seem to work with an assumption that sim is still near the pinnacle of what's possible.

    I dont think thats the case at all, but only time will tell.

    In the meantime I could lose 100fps from Aerofly due to systems complexity (or whatever) and gain them right back simply by turning down or off shadows. Thats a lot of strategic depth the sim can afford to lose before things get dicey. Far more than any other sim we have out there, and that's mostly because unlike our legacy sims which are still largely CPU dependant, AF is a modern program that actually makes good use of today's hardware.

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

  • 1.As I mentioned above, it's similar with x-plane and DCS and both aren't exactly old.

    The core of X-plane is actually decades old, and is still hampered by its need for backwards compatibility.

    DCS, on the other hand, should be a case in point: clouds, complex aircraft, ai, road traffic, water.... essentially the works, and all at a very nice speed in VR over a very detailed rendition of Las Vegas. The catch is, they needed to go back to the drawing board and create a new, modern engine (EDGE) to do it.

    That doesn't make sense IMO. Where do you stop with decreasing the excellent visual quality/features when trying to compensate for the loss of performance?

    Well, I find that P3D is nearly unplayable FPS-wise with too many shadow settings active, and Vr is..... a work in progress. Aerofly, I can still get very high FPS even at maximum (insane) shadow settings.

    Should FPS ever actually become an issue due to increased.... whatever, I would gladly trade some shadow fidelity for FPS and I believe still be better off graphically than I would be in any of our modern sims other than the new DCS.

    Certainly I think I would have to trade away less than I already do now in our current sims.

    DCS points the way, showing what's possible with a more modern graphics engine that's willing to truly drop quite a bit of backwards compatibility in order to step into the future and really take advantage of modern hardware.

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

  • In regard to the "addons add complexity and that slows down the sim":


    Hmm, not that much of an issue from my point of view. I think the add ons aren't that optimized maybe or the actual connection to the sim slows everything down. As far as I know a lot of aircraft add ons do a lot of computation outside of FSX in their dlls and in X-Plane you have lua scripts I think. That could be the reason why the performance takes a hit but I'm not too familiar with their architectures. Not my job to build aircraft for the other sims :)

    All I can speak of is my years of experience with Aerofly aircraft development. At the moment the engines swallows everything I throw at it. There isn't actually that much computation needed in our architecture, we have our simple building blocks that run relatively short code, only through the connection of them we build up the complexity. So the code is still simple and very optimized because it doesn't have to check a lot of things, each thing does their intended purpose and we're good. Even talking about other complex systems like fuel, electrics, etc, we have already added that in some aircraft and it's still running just fine. I think the engine will be able to calculate even double or three times the dimension of freedoms that we have right now, no problem. As long as it stays in the engine and we don't do crazy stuff to waste computing power, e.g. having a weather or terrain radar scan every cubic centimeter, there shouldn't be an issue. We can just implement things like weather and terrain radars the way they work in the real world: scan from left to right and back and then there won't actually be a performance hit. I think it's stuff like that where the add-ons for other sims may not have enough access to the core and thus need more computing power, e.g. to run a weather radar.

    For the future we will probably just keep adding building blocks and with that you can create your aircraft in the tmd files. We/You can create insanely complex systems with failures and what not and you don't have to code anything, just connect the objects that exist. This way performance stays very good and is not an issue. We may have to add dll support in the future, but then performance could decrease if the other end doesn't code it properly. We can't control what code they run outside of the Aerofly and if they don't optimize it and do crazy things like wait for a download or a file to read or something, sure that could slow things down.

    But just us adding complexity the way we do it now, will that slow us down? Na, we're good!