Aerofly FS Motion platform support survey

  • the one thing VR doesn't offer is the vertical sensation in the backside when applying collective.

    That was precisely what I had just finished building after months of development when the SDK changed and I never got to use it. My '007 G-Seat' is just a chair now.


  • It does look a very sexy chair though Phil, might even cure constipation as a side line =O

    Well if its good enough technology for the AW159...


    https://www.stirling-dynamics.…ts/motion-cueing-systems/ (scroll to bottom)


    My version's a wee bit cheaper.

  • Although there are not a lot of Moving Platforms out there, I would think that not supporting such interfaces would be bad. A lot of us are dreaming of this and you would take away this long term vision, one driver to buy this or other sims. Also all the examples of implementations on flight fares, shows or teams building their dream cockpit would vanish. I believe IPACS would make an error not supporting this kind of interface. It is ok, if this interface will not work for a small time span, if IPACS implement an IPACS high quality interface.

    My wish list for Santa Claus: Smoke for airshow displays, flight recorder to save and playback flights (and other things I don't mention... ok, multiplayer)

  • I have experience flying a P3 Orion with the full-size motion simulator at Brunswick NAS, and the motion information provided by the tilting platform does little to convey the G-forces involved in flying. It does provide feedback to the vestibular system about tilt, but that is a limited subset of the motion-related information involved in maneuvering an aircraft. And the visual system provides excellent information about tilt that can be so convincing we experience "movement" even when sitting in a stationary chair. This is due to the phenomenon of "visual capture" where vision dominates the other senses when contradictory information is conveyed to the perceptual system: for example, when the visual display of the flight sim shows the aircraft is turning, but the vestibular sense says the pilot is not turning. A good account of this effect is here:


    Visual Capture


    Systems designed for home computer systems would be even more limited than those used by the major airlines, and would appeal to a limited market as well. So I am not sure this is an area IPACS should assign a high priority given other pressing demands. Just my two cents.

    Although I don't have a motion platform yet I'd like to get one if I had the money for it because your argument about visual capture omits some aspects of flight simulation in a home environment. Your experience may be true for full scale flight Simulators or home cockpits where 🧒 have hardware for every button and switch in the real plane and thus can watch the outside view while turning knobs or flicking switches that are not within your line of sight. But in a VR motion setup you have to look at a switch directly to be able to use it. If you're flying in turbulent conditions your aircraft attitude might change without you noticing because you are staring at a gauge and don't see the outside while you are doing it this. I often found myself in a 45 degree bank or 20 degree pitch up after tuning in a new radio frequency because I couldn't see the horizon move while staring at the radio stack. To realize that you're leaving straight ant level flight in this case you'd need some kind of physical feedback, either from a motion platform or a control loading yoke, or even better both. That's why I think motion platforms should still be supported in the future.

  • Although I don't have a motion platform yet I'd like to get one if I had the money for it because your argument about visual capture omits some aspects of flight simulation in a home environment. Your experience may be true for full scale flight Simulators or home cockpits where 🧒 have hardware for every button and switch in the real plane and thus can watch the outside view while turning knobs or flicking switches that are not within your line of sight. But in a VR motion setup you have to look at a switch directly to be able to use it. If you're flying in turbulent conditions your aircraft attitude might change without you noticing because you are staring at a gauge and don't see the outside while you are doing it this. I often found myself in a 45 degree bank or 20 degree pitch up after tuning in a new radio frequency because I couldn't see the horizon move while staring at the radio stack. To realize that you're leaving straight ant level flight in this case you'd need some kind of physical feedback, either from a motion platform or a control loading yoke, or even better both. That's why I think motion platforms should still be supported in the future.

    I do not have a VR setup and have never tried one out, so my arguments don't apply to that case. But I can say that the full motion simulator I flew did not convey anything but tilt information (and some shaking to simulate turbulence), and I didn't find that added much to the experience I had from just looking out the window.


    But if the VR folks want it supported, I can't argue with that. :)

  • I’d be interested in putting limited retirement money into something that improved the Aerofly sim experience in new directions, VR seems a bottomless pit of expensive non mature development that might or not be availabe at a very different price point 5 or 10 years down the line.

    I hope ‘motion platform’ means an integrated seat, control devices and the display, feeling simulated aircraft motion but seeing the display screen independently fixed to mother earth would not convince.


    There is a PC based unified pod, panel, seat and screen motion simulator review video on YouTube from about a year ago which showed how the unit operated and how it attempted to semi-affordably emulate the concept of expensive six axis simulation of aeroplane motion sensation. This machine pitched and tilted a screened pod unit so that from the seat the exterior side view was largely blocked.

    I was not convinced that it tilted fore and aft to simulate acceleration or braking and when it depicted an apparently ballanced turn the YouTube reviewer (not a real pilot) said he could feel his weight hard on one side as if the pod tilted over sideways. Queries about this in the YouTube comments were not answered.


    All would be fine if it pitched gently to simulate normal climbs and descents, it would be proper if it tilted sideways to a degree that matched the displaced ball or slip indicator from un-coordinated flight and it would be really good if it swung the nose sideways to match rudder or torque pedal vigour or the sudden failure of a wing mounted engine. An uncorrected wing-engine failure hard wing over and out of control dive into the ground terror would be a bit much to expect.


    In a balanced turn the ear’s semicircular canals do not react (in a 3 degrees per second rate one turn) and the otoliths hardly respond, a rate two turn only feels 15% heavier and the direction remains straight down through the seat of the pants. I’m afraid that is what should also be simulated during the effects of prolonged radio and navaid adjustment! Wind noise would be a clue that the instrument scan or look-out had been lacking.

    It would be clever if the very subtle rotation at the start and ends of a manoeuvre could be simulated followed by slow sub-perception centring back to the initial position but that would leave an unrealistic side load during centring, six axis motion would be needed to reduce that.


    Tilting the YouTube ‘plane’ throughout a ballanced turn as a deliberate design policy would be just pathetic, it is the sort of shallow gimmick designed to impress the type of ignorant pre-teen school child that broadcasts authoratatively how realistic his social media entertainment subscription-charged multi-player interface with a superficial veneer of flight simulation is compared to boring Aerofly!


    I agree that good sound really is effective.


    Do the current motion platform offerings that ‘work’ with Aerofly FS2 get the required motions correct? I might be interested!

    Is it more D.I.Y. or commercial?


  • Although there are not a lot of Moving Platforms out there, I would think that not supporting such interfaces would be bad. A lot of us are dreaming of this and you would take away this long term vision, one driver to buy this or other sims. Also all the examples of implementations on flight fares, shows or teams building their dream cockpit would vanish. I believe IPACS would make an error not supporting this kind of interface. It is ok, if this interface will not work for a small time span, if IPACS implement an IPACS high quality interface.

    I don't say IPACS should not support interfaces like that. I do say it is up to the manufacturers of such devices to buy a copy of AFS2 and get their act together. Certainly they will need to consult with the IPACS team, on final integration but 'consult' does not mean getting the IPACS team to do the manufacturers' work for them. The team are very busy building us a brilliant flight simulator.:thumbup:

  • I don't say IPACS should not support interfaces like that. I do say it is up to the manufacturers of such devices to buy a copy of AFS2 and get their act together. Certainly they will need to consult with the IPACS team, on final integration but 'consult' does not mean getting the IPACS team to do the manufacturers' work for them. The team are very busy building us a brilliant flight simulator.:thumbup:

    I think that with hardware like this it is the software devs job to support the hardware....? You can't expect the hardware developer to create fixes for every software update out there. So it is up to IPACS to support motion platforms or not. Software changes more often than hardware. In this case a change in AFS2 made it incompatible with motion platforms: it wasn't a change in the motion platforms. I think. ;)


    BTW I posted earlier on that I don't care about all this but that was just because IPACS asked for our opinion. Of course I understand that it must be extremely frustrating that an update ruined the compatibility for motion platforms if you spend money on one. I would be extremely frustrated of an update ruined TrackIR support.

  • I use the DOF reality P3 motion rig with Simtools 023.1 and it works awesome with AFS2 It really adds to the VR experience flying any of the aircraft. I have mine set up mainly for flying the R22 but works awesome flying the F-15 or F-18 when pulling up to the vertical and feeling yourself get pushed back in the seat or coming out of a loop and feeling like your getting pushed forward.