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

Quote from HiFlyer

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.

FSX is finally over IMO, as well as FSX SE (and FSW in the row).

P3Dv4 opened a huge breach by dramatically increasing the sim performances and bringing the long awaited 64 bits architecture, finally allowing editors to take full advantage of their raw material to propose real dense sceneries without collapsing framerates.

As an example, with my current PC I used to hardly get a stable 30 FPS from either FSX or P3Dv3 with a 1m/pixel photorealistic Switzerland covered with full density autogen (OSM base for buildings and Corine for vegetation), shadows casted by aircraft, ground and clouds, received by everything, real weather with broken cumulus ceiling and cirrus layer on top, ground and air traffic.

With the same scenery (not recompiled with P3Dv4's SDK) and equivalent settings I easily get >80 FPS from P3Dv4.

As we found out, recompiling sceneries with LM's P3Dv4 SDK tools brings even further improvements (as well as new challenges, since some old solutions have changed in the process) and heavy sceneries with millions of 3D objects behave wonderfully.

BTW, 40 FPS in FSX/P3D feels smoother than 120 FPS in Aerofly FS due to some micro-stutters and image hickups/tear-off in the latter when not limiting framerate.

As a result all third party editors are now busy updating their products for P3Dv4, widely considered the long awaited but really well-born successor of FSX.

Talking to several scenery editors, I really struggle to convince them AFS2 is worth a closer look.

Many of them unfortunately consider AFS2 is too far behind with an unsuited "all-in-one-project" scenery architecture, while LM provides an open platform with a complete, professional and documented SDK, without the need for external 1'5 kEUR/year licence 3D tools.

For many reasons XPlane 11 isn't an alternative to many editors, or only to feature some aerodromes...

I'm convinced Aerofly FS2 has the potential to become a great simulator, offering something slightly different, easier to access and maintain than XPlane or P3D. I love the fact that 20 seconds after the double click I'm ready to fly on cristal-clear textures with high ranging FPS.

I believe the AFS2 graphical engine will be able to smoothly display large, detailed and consistent sceneries (not just large desert areas or micro-patches of detailed ground in the middle of nothing) provided that they're correctly optimized. The real challenge for autogen optimization is the roof of houses. In that sense I tend to consider LOWI is quite sub-optimal, dropping my FPS by 60%. The graphical engine doesn't collapse thanks to the fact it's only a few sq km, but I don't believe in making a country-wide scenery like that.

My 2 cents...

Cheers

Antoine

Hi guys, my CPU is old.... but is still fine OC at 4.4ghz, P3DV4 is nice but I can't get the smoothness of AF2, far from it so I always end up coming back to AF2.

In LOWI, I get an easy 80FPS and 50 wile using Bandicam or FRAPS. In FSX LOWI I could not fly the big bird or more complex one, I was getting a OOM.

I also agree that sightseeing is one reason I use AF2.

I care only about one thing in a FS, quality of the ground. The rest is secondary (like ATC, traffic....)

Ben

Four

hey, five !

What I mean is please don't overload airports with too many useless details, they're just not the place to go sightseeing.

Please work on consistent detailed sceneries. Currently, only desert places are beautifully featured.

Cheers

Antoine

Six...

7

I prefer the flat foto textures if the alternative are generic houses, all with similar roofs/colours, independently whether you are flying in Switzerland or France, Germany, Italy or in the UK and completely destroying the great immersion.

Regards,

Thomas

Quote from TomB

I prefer the flat foto textures if the alternative are generic houses, all with similar roofs/colours, independently whether you are flying in Switzerland or France, Germany, Italy or in the UK and completely destroying the great immersion.

Regards,

Thomas

Well this is an old FS9-era argument. Fortunately enough there are sliders for autogen, both buildings and vegetation. Thus you can choose while in-game, with or without generic buildings.

No it's not: look x-plane, fsw and even p3d. One realizes that one is in a computer game. Especially if you know the reality. What do you think how many users around the world think that switzerland and the alps look like they do in these sims, but it looks quite different and it often does not reflect the reality.

Regards,

Thomas

Quote from Trespassers

hey, five !

What I mean is please don't overload airports with too many useless details, they're just not the place to go sightseeing.

Please work on consistent detailed sceneries. Currently, only desert places are beautifully featured.

Cheers

Antoine

what exactly is "useless" to you?

why not sightseeing? i thought that has been cleared up, we do want sightseeing.

Tres, so many things i disagree with what you guys speculate around with, can't list it all.

ipacs is a rather closed business model and can in no way be compared with the 3rd parties architecture

of other sims, You guys keep projecting legacy matters onto aerofly anyway, on and on and on,

i don't get it.

LOD is the key for your performance matters, you get your desert at FL350, i get my chopper run at 20ft, that is what ipacs wants.

I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. The use of the term "sightseeing" as a pejorative kind of set me off, and I apologize if my post has contributed to any disruption here in our little pond.

I can't imagine what were in the posts you removed, and I don't want to know. I just wanted to speak up for those of us, many of whom are early adopters, who think that "sightseeing" is an integral part of the FS 2 experience. Isn't that why Orbx got involved with FS 2? Why buy an Orbx add-on if you aren't interested in "sightseeing". That is what Orbx is all about.

Anyway, I love the sim and use it everyday. Keep up the good work.

Bill

Quote from drhotwing1

Thank you all for being a loyal family to us and for your continued support even if it's taking a little bit longer than some of you might want.

For me, personally, it's long since stopped really being a matter of time. All our old sims are still out there and useable, and theres more than enough stuff to occupy me while Ipacs does its thing.

If I do have a worry, it's that you guys keep enough excitement going that people keep buying copies and giving you the capital to reach your goals.

As long as that's good, I'm good.

Quote from HiFlyer

For me, personally, it's long since stopped really being a matter of time. All our old sims are still out there and useable, and theres more than enough stuff to occupy me while Ipacs does its thing.

If I do have a worry, it's that you guys keep enough excitement going that people keep buying copies and giving you the capital to reach your goals.

As long as that's good, I'm good.

Me too.

Quote from Almdudler

LOD is the key for your performance matters, you get your desert at FL350, i get my chopper run at 20ft, that is what ipacs wants.

I'm not interested in FL350 at all.

I like to fly VFR at typical VFR altitudes, just like I do IRL.

With the current lack of 3D coverage, only desert areas currently look really great for VFR flying and, of course sightseeing : e.g. Death Valley, the Grand Canyon, Monument Valley, or the Alpine peaks of the Swiss DLC are just gorgeous.

The naked photo texture unfortunately tends to ruin somewhat the low altitude experience above densely populated areas, it has been so since the beginning of photorealistic sceneries with FS2000, BTW it doesn't make me feel any younger... The sprayed trees over cities/railway yards/highways make it even worse.

IPACS is working on an autogen solution, the so-called cultivation tool. Let's see what can be achieved, I'm really looking forward to it !

The future will tell us what details are useless. Personally I don't see the point in detailing interiors of a terminal that cannot be seen from my aircraft, but if it doesn't cost any performance I'm fine. If it eventually causes stutters during final approach (when AFS2 gets loaded with complex surrounding sceneries), then I will call it useless.

Large aerodromes are typically the most critical places for fluidity because they usually feature a higher density of close and detailed objects compared to what must be displayed en route, and most of them aren't usually optional.

For instance, the amount of buildings in LOWI doesn't react to the buildings density slider : either you have the full LOWI, or no LOWI at all, you cannot adjust the complexity to your machine.

I simply recommend to first focus on the base scenery and see how the sim handles it before to work on to many details.

Please don't take it personally. I'm totally fine if you have a different perception, and everyone has their own expectations from Aerofly FS2 and what gathers us is we still believe in it.

It will be successful if it gets flexible and accessible enough for a wide community with different aeronautical perspectives to find in it what they're searching for.

Cheers

Antoine

Even ORBX or others bigger companies have their hand full right now trying to cope with P3DV4....

Now wait that it become V4.1 or 5... this what I hate about P3D.

Take only the Majestic Q400 who is not V4 ready, same for the Aerosoft A320. My beloved QW 146 who will never be V4 ready.

At least with FSX all that is working fine.

So this thread is about being patient. I am.

I think that for now we can swap between other Sim and be perfectly happy.

One thing I don't want to loose with AF2 is the smoothness....

Thanks, Ben