Ultralights...

One more thing I would like to add here, and this particularly concerns the IPACS Staff.

I don't understand and maybe I never will?

Here, there are developers or (Author) private really PRO, I will not name the names, but they will recognize each other. Why IPACS, don't you plan to welcome them in your team in order to obtain more development, whether for planes, scenery, airports, 3D objects or others in order to benefit from a more advanced simulator.

This would certainly expand the clientele of this fabulous simulator in the face of current competition.

That's just my opinion.

Quote from Tomfa

But when there is nothing new, or nothing that can be repaired, customers lose patience and go elsewhere.

Unfortunately that's what happens very often here.

With so much finite software improvement time spent on features including Career Development, enhanced enablement of the just sit back and let the app do all the actual flying for you service, 3D opening doors and hatches and what looks like a specialist trailer offshoot from Euro Truck Sim 2 the perceived culture possibly hints at do not expect serious development in Aircraft System Depth, IPACS doesn’t rate it and that’s the way it is going to remain for the foreseeable future.

Aerofly’s Concorde is a fine technical achievement, a more significant nod towards the complexity in the real aircraft might encourage system hungry customers to keep playing ball with Aerofly. Simulating the nuts and bolts is just as worthy as humouring some target depth ideal target audience.

Following Jan and the visiting YouTuber navigating the complex jet transport to a challenging arrival was enthralling! The welcome YouTube video series gave us an unexpected insight into the workings of IPACS and upcoming simulator developments. Can this continue please?

The waypoint list navigation of Concorde’s inertial reference/navigation system sounds a bit like the relatively simple GPS from the FS2 Just Flight add on planes. Can we know if the GPS is tied to the FS2 Just Fly packages or if IPACS have a GPS or Area Navigation in the works for the FS4 planes?

IPACS’ YouTube opened Pandora’s Box, hope and expectation got out.

Looking at the official Aerofly Flight Simulator Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/@aerofly just confirms that primary development effort is for smart phone and tablet users who must mostly be native Germans since that is the language for the videos. My personal experience is that the TMD interface documentation is very poor, it consists of only an on-line wiki which does not even list all the TMD objects and for the ones it does have a wiki page for there are often parameters shown in the example code that have no actual documented definition, and it still seems to be FS2 information. Makes if very hard to troubleshoot problem issues in some of Mr Kaniewski's FS4 freeware tmd file conversions. If this is the only level of documentation on the flight model I very much doubt that Just Flight or any other commercial developer or even new freeware guys are going to be producing airplane addon products for Aerofly FS 4, any time soon if ever.

Quote from Oculite 1

From the casual flier point of view it's a good experience, From the VR user point of view it's highly immersive, smooth and enjoyable

You are exactly right! It's a great casual flyer flight simulation. Even without VR the photo-real scenery provided along with the improved autogen buildings & trees placement make it worth taking a look around in any aircraft that is good for flying low and slow and that has a good unobstructed outside view from inside the cockpit. Sadly, there is only the DR400 that fulfills this criteria presently and to have that you need to download, install, then run the FS 4 converter tool in the FS4 Aircraft SDK, which I don't think most people know about or want to take the trouble to do. That is why I am all for IPACS adding ultra-lite and LSA aircraft of that nature even if it requires an additional paid-for DLC. I very much dislike IPACS' focus on jet & turboprop commercial transports, WWI and WWII aircraft and jet fighters.

They made a wish here again

Hi Oculite 1

I don't disagree with anything you said, and you are absolutely right. I do not blame IPACS for that. This simulator certainly remains the most immersive, speed and fluidity, defying all competition.

Afterwards, you also have to take other parameters into account, such as traffic, water, the weather, which are non-existent, but which require a lot of resources. Not sure that after that we would still be in the top, level speed or fluidity (FPS) But for me, it suits me well.

I would add that the trees, mountains, or even the grass that IPACS provided on some airfields are of much better quality than MSFS or XP.

The shortcomings here are sometimes the lack of transparency towards the community when an issue is reported.

I also understand that IPACS is a small team, and may not respond to everyone at the same time, but we too are a small community compared to MSFS.

But how many are we

I'm talking about real Simmers, not just curious forum subscribers.

Definitely more people on the other side (Mobile version)

I think like everyone here, if a real problem, bug, or other that is good to report it, followed by an answer, if it is modifiable, repairable or not during a future update?

Nothing more.

But not to leave us in suspense, doubt or even false hope.

Today several people, including me, have highlighted on one priority which is Switzerland, as a BIG texture or even elevation bug is at this moment. (See other threads)

And to finish, do you know that Switzerland was the very first addons created for AFS, it starts dating...

I just hope this problem will be solved by IPACS in the near future.

Waiting for the sequel...

Thanks

Tomfa Although it is a just a little bit off-topic for this thread, I read your Switzerland quality thread and too tell you the honest truth as I see it, Jet Pack who is the official IPACS company representative for this forum kinda gave you the answer to your request already in his post RE: Image quality comparison of Switzerland

My interpretation being a native US English speaker is that he is saying that IPACS only licensed the various Switzerland imagery used for FS 1 for FS 1 only and the imagery used in FS 2 for FS 2 only. So IPACS can not just turn around and use the Switzerland FS 2 imagery in FS 4 without paying for another license specifically to allow use in FS 4. But that is economically infeasible for IPACS since they already paid for a complete Western Europe imagery package from another vender which already included Switzerland even if the new imagery package with respect to Switzerland is inferior. So they are not going to do it since IPACS doubts enough people are going to be willing to pay for an extra Switzerland only DLC to make it justifiable from a profit (keep the lights on and meet the payroll for IPACS employees) standpoint.

Edit: If you have a true product defect bug to report, I feel that it is better to send an email to Aerofly tech support because IPACS will enter it into their internal bug tracking system and you will get a email response and updates as the bug report is processed. Also you can create a support request at the Aerofly.com support center https://www.aerofly.com/ticket/index.php

Aerofly Support email: Aerofly Support <support@aerofly.com>

jayeye2011 Thank you for your feedback.

But I don't think you quite understood the problem?

TomB however answered and explained to Jet-Pack (IPACS) in the following line:

Post

RE: Image quality comparison of Switzerland

[…]

This reply does not make sense to me. The swiss images are the same old images as in Aerofly FS2 (and I guess Aerofly FS1 too). They are from 2003 what is already an imposition, especially for VFR flights. They are by far not actual. I am sure IPACS can offer us the same levels as in Aerofly FS2. The images are from Mappuls AG in Lucerne as one can read in the about. I can imagine that actual high resolution images are expensive, however IPACS already bought the images for Aerofly FS2. If…

TomB

January 15, 2023 at 11:22 PM

and also on this line in image:

Post

RE: Image quality comparison of Switzerland

I have to come back to that issue because I think it is not taken seriously by IPACS.

Here is a screenshot from the area of Trasadingen TRA, an important VOR for the north approach into LSZH (Zurich). The resolution of the Aerofly FS4 images are not suffucient in this region. However if I add the swiss images from Aerofly FS2 into the eu folder from Aerofly FS4 I get in the border regions these blurring areas. This is because the border images (all levels) have blurred parts. The reason is that…

TomB

January 18, 2023 at 12:21 PM

I believe that this makes it a priority and fundamental problem and in addition, in a clear and sharp image which should be resolved as soon as possible, right? Therefore, no response until today???

To also come back to your suggestion by e-mail to IPACS technical support, this has already been done on November 07, 2022, the same for the return of technical support on November 08, 2022.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Here are their answers:

Thank you very much for your feedback and suggestions for AeroflyFS4. Our developers are continuously improving AeroflyFS4 and your feedback will be forwarded to them for their future consideration.

We will forward your feedback directly to the developer.

But please note that the scenes in FS1 were fixed in one daytime. Since FS2 you are able to change the daylight and by this the texture is different.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

That's it, but sorry to contradict you, for me it's not a clear answer.

And if Switzerland were to remain like that today, without any significant change, any problem, we will leave it at that and we will do with it.

But I also hope to see some video clip on youtube about it.

Have an excellent day

Quote from Tomfa

Afterwards, you also have to take other parameters into account, such as traffic, water, the weather, which are non-existent, but which require a lot of resources. Not sure that after that we would still be in the top, level speed or fluidity (FPS) But for me, it suits me well.

Yes the "USP" is clearly the good programming and the fast loading times and smooth display (especially in VR)
and immersive flying feelings / physics ... also with "not 5000,- Computer-hardware "

Could it be solution, to make a "switch" inside the Sim ... so that you can activate more things .. .like traffic, people, whatever .. that your ressources on your hardware is adjustable ... inside the sim .

Then everyone can decide whether they prefer to have less FPS and more features.

I think this is makeable in the software ?

I hope in the FS4 world for (switchable) driving differnt cars, vans, bus, trains, boats, running people, bicycles , gangway , suitcase van

"LIFE on earth"

Quote from higgy

Then everyone can decide whether they prefer to have less FPS and more features.

I think this is makeable in the software ?

I hope in the FS4 world for (switchable) driving differnt cars, vans, bus, trains, boats, running people, bicycles , gangway , suitcase van

"LIFE on earth"

Very good question, and good suggestion. Many would certainly like it too, after that it is up to IPACS to decide if it is feasible or not?

While of course maintaining the power of this sim card. I have a doubt, but I am not an expert in physics.

In any case, I get this with MSFS, but to be honest, I come back here, because this power, I find it nowhere else.

Well, I imagine the IPACS Aerofly FS 4 product manager is looking at this thread with amusement and thinking to him or herself, "Small number of comments by the usual cast of suspects, oh yeah this would be a real money maker...we will get right on it...NOT!"

With a certain distance, that does not go back to yesterday, which they always read with ...

Quote from jayeye2011

Well, I imagine the IPACS Aerofly FS 4 product manager is looking at this thread with amusement and thinking to him or herself, "Small number of comments by the usual cast of suspects, oh yeah this would be a real money maker...we will get right on it...NOT!"

Most users dont write here ...

But I think there are many thousend who will pay a 10 or 20 Euro DLC if its good ...

But as I write ... its risky ... they have to work .. and in future they see if money comes back

But I think so ...

As owner of an ultralight aircraft, I would also be very happy if an UL in AF 4 was available. The DO 27 from AF 2 is not an ultralight, but at least a slow plane with a lot of windows for good sightseeing. I tried to convert the DO 27 to AF 4 without success. I think that's a trifle for someone who is practiced with converting.

Quote from Challenger2

The DO 27 from AF 2 is not an ultralight, but at least a slow plane with a lot of windows for good sightseeing. I tried to convert the DO 27 to AF 4 without success. I think that's a trifle for someone who is practiced with converting.

The aircraft conversion requires that the intermediate files be generated from the original 3D CAD files (i.e. Blender) using a FS4 plugin which is what the converter wants to see. You cannot convert a finished user installed FS2 airplane directly. So the only one who can do a Do27 FS4 port is going to have to be the original author who I think is no longer present.

Here is what I think it would take for IPACS to offer up an CFM Shadow Ultralite addon:

IPACS Marketing Guy: " Hey, our Apple IPad focus group say that FS2023 users really really want to see a CFM Shadow in the App store"

IPACS Aerofly Product Manager: "Holy Cow, Batman! It'll be ready for upload to the Apple App Store by the end of next week,,, Believe It!"

IPACS Aerofly Product Manager: "Oh, as long as we're doing it, might as well sell on the Steam store for 20 euros"

IPACS Marketing Guy: "Man, that's cold. We only charge 2 euros in the App Store"

IPACS Aerofly Product Manager: "Yeah, but those Steam guys are a bunch of A-Holes"

Quote from jayeye2011

The aircraft conversion requires that the intermediate files be generated from the original 3D CAD files (i.e. Blender) using a FS4 plugin which is what the converter wants to see. You cannot convert a finished user installed FS2 airplane directly. So the only one who can do a Do27 FS4 port is going to have to be the original author who I think is no longer present.

By doing some research here, you will certainly find, or at least part of the answers to your questions.

Quote from higgy

Most users dont write here ...

But I think there are many thousend who will pay a 10 or 20 Euro DLC if its good ...

You are absolutely right Higgy. Even 30 euro for a DLC, as long as the quality is there, no problem for that.

As they say: You can't make omelettes without breaking eggs.

Quote from Tomfa

By doing some research here, you will certainly find, or at least part of the answers to your questions

Well, if you know something don't keep it to yourself as inquiring minds want to know how to convert and FS2 airplane without have the actual 3D CAD program source files.

A slight correction regarding my remarks about requires 3D CAD files for FS2 aircraft to be able to convert to FS4. You actually only need the aircraft's FS2 plugin generated Intermediate 3D Model files (.tgi file extension). These are not included in the user install package for the aircraft. Even Mr. Kaniewski does not include his 3D model source files or the .tgi files in his GitHub repository.

According to IPACS you can reuse the following FS2 files for the FS 4 converter tool:

You can leave the following files unchanged:

• Raw sound files (.wav)
• Raw texture files (.bmp, .png, .tif, …)
• Intermediate 3D model files (.tgi)
• Aircraft options file (option.tmc)
• Aircraft clickspots file (controls.tmd)

Updating Aircraft for Aerofly FS 4 | Aerofly FS

So the files missing in the user install package for the Do 27 (or any other aircraft end product) are:

The Raw texture files, Raw sound files, and Intermediate 3D model files The .tmc, .tmd files are part of the end user aircraft install package.