Will Aerofly FS2 be a Blockbuster or a flop ? It depends on IPACS

  • Hi All,


    it's clear even to stones that Aerofly FS2 has a huge potential but in the last 20 years of flight simming we have already seen too many times products with a high potential sinking without a trace.


    The question this time, will FS2 be the king for the next 6-8 years or will it sink without a trace ? It depend solely on IPACs decisions, I think everybody here agrees.


    To make a long story short, this is, IMO, what is needed to decide the future of this product :



    1) add SID and STARS which belong to Navigraph data with of course a working FMC on airliners


    2) add a robust and flexible wx engine with powerful graphic clouds, rain, snow effects. Also on glass shield.


    3) Release a powerful SDK


    4) Extend the gorgeous graphic at least to 3-4 EU countries ( not only Switzerland !! ) an also to 3-4 USA sates within the base package, the other ones may come via payware addons.


    5) Add a decent ATC that knows in real time where planes are and where they need to go, altitude included of course.


    6) ILS must work



    If IPACS will be able to do that they can sell the game even to 70-80 bucks and it will become a Blockbuster for the next upcoming years for sure.


    If IPACS won't do all of these features, well, it will remain a mobile arcade app only



    IPACS, owners, devs, forumers, further comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated.


    Thx

  • I completey agree to your statements. This a a huge chance for IPACS, even more, as AeroflyFS2 is getting quite good press now. In addition, I feel your list makes much sense. I would add:


    7) Add some kind of OSM and/or Autogen3D buildings


    8) Add moving structures (AI planes, cars...)


    I don't expect AeroflyFS2 to become king anytime soon, however would wish it a respected place and following besides the well-known titles.


    Kind regards, Michael

  • Helpful points there Mark_V. You try inputting the ILS frequencies with the mouse wheel over the radios? I have my num pad setup for autopilot inputs and the 2X3 key block for course/obs. Not including even a rudimentary guide seems bizare, I found tips off the web after using it for days half-blind!



  • Agree 100%, excellent additions, thanks for that. You have also highlighted a very important point, even if it seems a minor one that's a fundamental one instead.


    IPACS has to hit the iron until is hot, otherwise it will be definitely too late.


    I am now curious to know IPACS opinion too.


    Guys, feel free to let your opinions flow, we have to try to help IPACS now to check how they will react.


    I think that the timeframe to decide if it will be a blockbuster or not is quite short, before November I would dare to say.

  • Helpful points there Mark_V. You try inputting the ILS frequencies with the mouse wheel over the radios? I have my num pad setup for autopilot inputs and the 2X3 key block for course/obs. Not including even a rudimentary guide seems bizare, I found tips off the web after using it for days half-blind!


    Well, I think we have to wait for the full release, I guess IPACS is still filling the list of the existent " bugs " mixing it with a to do list about new stuff.


    Being pragmatic I would say the gap to fill to succeed, is not an easy one, but only IPACS determination can make the difference, even because we, as community, are definitely well determined :)

  • Well, I think we have to wait for the full release, I guess IPACS is still filling the list of the existent " bugs " mixing it with a to do list about new stuff.


    Being pragmatic I would say the gap to fill to succeed, is not an easy one, but only IPACS determination can make the difference, even because we, as community, are definitely well determined :)


    Honestly, I think a main feature is that Ipacs has to become much better at communicating. Over the years I have seen them be reticent of communication to the point of appearing to almost forget their own forums, much less communicate in any other way, and without effective communication with the flight simulator community, in many ways the product becomes nearly invisible.


    I'm startled how many people on various flight simulation forums remain generally unaware of the existence/release of the product, and in an almost exclusively FSX oriented community, how quickly that lack of communication and knowledge can lead to dismissal with barely a glance.


    I suggest somebody from Ipacs appears on some of the prominent forums to open a line of communication and SELL THE BENEFITS of their product. Talk about future plans and possibilities. Inspire a vision of growth.


    DON"T just sit here quietly like was done with Aerofly 1, and sink into obscurity with barely a ripple. Take a clue from DTG and be active, and aggressive.

    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

  • We will publish more details from our planned Roadmap soon. Communication is a difficult thing for us. We are a small team and we simply cannot monitor all the various platforms where people talk about our simulators, it would bind our resources too much. You already see that here: Some people write on Steam some here on our IPACS forum. Keeping them in Sync is time consuming. Watching even more forums, e.g. AvSim is just not an option for us. Its better to be inactive there so people know they should rather post here or on Steam.


    Anyway, we will publish more details soon. Expect to see a small update this week that addresses a few issues reported by users. After that it is our intention to offer an initial version of our SDK. We also plan to add a free DLC to add higher resolution aerial images. When this is done we have to check all the other requested features, like ATC and so on.

  • We will publish more details from our planned Roadmap soon. Communication is a difficult thing for us. We are a small team and we simply cannot monitor all the various platforms where people talk about our simulators, it would bind our resources too much. You already see that here: Some people write on Steam some here on our IPACS forum. Keeping them in Sync is time consuming. Watching even more forums, e.g. AvSim is just not an option for us. Its better to be inactive there so people know they should rather post here or on Steam.


    Anyway, we will publish more details soon. Expect to see a small update this week that addresses a few issues reported by users. After that it is our intention to offer an initial version of our SDK. We also plan to add a free DLC to add higher resolution aerial images. When this is done we have to check all the other requested features, like ATC and so on.


    This is a prefect example of great communication, thanks, much appreciated, keep up the good work and the good communication !! :)

  • Fair enough for me.


    Really looking forward into the future of this rather promising platform.


    Keep the good work.

    1983 ......……....2012.…………….......2018...

    fs1 ===>     MS FLIGHT ===>   WT 1.83

    Start ... Hope ... Realization ...

  • I really like the sound of IPACS reply above, especially the bit about ATC. This single feature is the main reason I have not invested in Aerofly FS2 yet. Also the lack of proper "dynamic" oceans (not just a static photoscenery of water) is a bit of a dissapointment but I am sure this will be a success in the end, just not there yet.


    I am perfectly fine with AeroflyFS only covering the southwest USA. If nothing else an ATC system might be a bit easier to implement for a smaller area. I remember Flight Unlimited 3 so many years ago, the ATC was so far ahead of its time.


    Mike


  • While I do not disagree with the OP and obviously would be very happy to see all these features implemented, I think that priority should be given to more in-depth systems. ATC, AI, SID/STARS, weather engine, more US and EU regions with high resolution are all welcomed, but they become useless if you have to fly a Baron without a basic feature like mixture lever. The same applies to all other aircraft I tested so far. Only a very small amount of features are actually modeled. As they are, the hangar models are not very different than the FSX base package, except of course for the stunning graphics.


    In-depth systems is what really makes the difference between a flight simulator and an arcade game. IPACS can achieve this goal easily by opening their door to third party developers. Some of them proved to be able to create models incredibly close to the real world counterparts, despite the strong restrictions placed by an obsolete engine like ESP.


    The potential here is awesome. I really hope IPACS will make all the required steps in the right direction to bring Aerofly2 to the next level.

  • While I do not disagree with the OP and obviously would very happy to see all these features implemented, I think that priority should be given to more in-depth systems. ATC, AI, SID/STARS, weather engine, more US and EU regions with high resolution are all welcome, but they become useless if you have to fly a Baron without a basic feature like mixture lever. The same applies to all other aircraft I tested so far. Only a very small amount of features are actually modeled. As they are, the hangar models are not very different than the FSX base package, except of course for the stunning graphics.


    In-depth systems is what really makes the difference between a flight simulator and an arcade game. IPACS can achieve this goal easily by opening their door to third party developers. Some of them proved to be able to create models incredibly close to the real world counterparts, despite the strong restrictions caused by an obsolete engine like ESP.


    The potential here is awesome. I really hope IPACS will make all the required steps in the right direction to bring Aerofly2 to the next level.


    Yes, I see that the same. I don't think many external add-on developers will be attrackted if you can't lean the engine or turn it on and off at least. Sure, by the time they have their first aircraft where they actually are ready to add stuff like that IPACS will probably already have implemented more system depth, engine start and and so on. But I think Add-On producers that already created study-level add-ons like PMDG, A2A, Majestic and so on, wouldn't want to start developing if they knew that what they can do it still somewhat limited - I don't think it would take that much programming time to get to that final step. But I am very much looking forward to the SDK, I am very keen to find out if I could already pull of features like shared cockpit if it really becomes possible to send data from and to the simulator. Its probably only a question of time until someone figures out a way to animate AI traffic or have Vatsim support and stuff like that.


    Cheers,
    Jan

  • Well, of course your suggestions are correct but I preferred to focus more on the " big picture " rather than minor details, even if fundamental like f.i. the mixture.


    Of course a VFR pilot needs to fiddle with the mixture and of course an liner pilot need to fiddle with the FMC but I would prefer IPCAS to focus on bigger aspects like ATC, wx etcc first, even because I think there will be always time and room for adding a mixture, while, if the simulation misses at all an ATC, that can not be achieved so quickly and easily later on.


    Told that, I agree that what you have suggested have to be part of the next update, at least the basics stuff like the mixture et similia.


    Just to let you know I only fly PMDG planes in P3D, therefore I know what you mean in terms of instruments and procedures fidelity, without them we are talking about arcade stuff, I agree.


    Told that, 3rd parties can hopefully inject later, just like default planes of FSX vs third parties ones.


    Cheers

  • FS X is made by a big company Microsoft, IPACS is much smaller and to get AeroFly at level FS X was in that time, IPACS need much more time en us to support the IPACS team and realize not hit them in the face "you don't have this and that already"


    FS X was delivered as a default simulator. Many years further it is of that level you like it to be used right now, but still not at that visual level IPACS can deliver to us. Big plus for IPACS is the computer specs we have today


    We need to spread the word of IPACS, (AeroFLy FS 2) to build on. Maybe then future investments like the big player devs realize "yes its worth now". For example Razbam is developing for DCS.

  • We need to spread the word of IPACS, (AeroFLy FS 2) to build on. Maybe then future investments like the big player devs realize "yes its worth now"


    Agreed, I am already doing that and also in facebook there are groups like FS Enthusasts that are promoting Aerofly FS2. Btw those Enthusiasts guys are excellent people !


    Now, it is up also to IPACS to deliver, even if they are a few, they could hire dozens of souls, if they will perform like we want :p

  • finish the aircraft before focussing on next steps.


    if the FMS is not yet finished, it's because there is no overhead radion navigation system implemented.
    nothing to fiddle yet.


    Priorities:


    1. Set up a NAV-module. Add NAV-planner.


    3. Complement FMS and ATIS-systems.


    2. Add ATC-management (voice).


    4. Refine visuals.
    Meteo (Clouds and Shadows and eventually Rain).
    Rectify Terrain issues and shading.
    Add Roads, Bridges, Streetlights, Palmtrees/Biodiversity, Coasts, Bridges and Obstacles.


    4.Complement current aircraft functionalities.
    Engine Startup and Shutdown Sequence. And FMC.


    7. Add Ground Life (airport operations and highways)


    8. Add Air Traffic.


    9. Add maps.


    10. Improve GUI and base functions. (save a nav-plan, save a mission, delete an aircraft, etc.)



    keep in mind at all times:
    why has this simulator been created? to be different and better than FSX.


    QUALITY BEFORE QUANTITY





  • i disagree.


    Please do not add autogen. It's ugly and kills framerates.
    We don't need another FSX.


    Revised. Please, do not add Autogen.


    Michael

  • Re FMCs, there must be some way to input nav radio frequencies in the big jets. I don't know how it is done in Airbuses but there is a non flight plan direct entry mode on the Boeing Control Display Unit, just tap the NAV RAD button and type the numbers. It would be a very long overdue solution to the permanently wrong 417 ADF frequency displayed for years in Aero 747s.