• How can I create and add road-objects to the game?

    I would love to have the main U.S.-driveways implemented as objects
    including multi level storaging at conjunctions.

    i am familiar with 3D creation, but have no clue about ipacs' data types.

    Near Airports areas and Approach Finals could become enriched.
    Imagine you crossing busy highways while on final.

    Examples of where already implemented:
    - SFO (San Francisco West Access to Terminal Main hall)
    - San Diego Coronado Bridge

    Some examples where to be implemented:
    -Final Rwy 26 Burbank's Bob Hope Airport
    -Final Rwy 27 San Diego International
    -L.A. area

    current views:

    Can somebody help me?

  • Jan, wollte Dich fragen:
    Wie gross ist eigentlich Euer Entwicklerteam?
    Im Abspann des Spiels sind wenige Namen, die tolle Arbeit hingegen lässt
    vermuten, dass viel mehr Leute daran arbeiten.
    Warum macht Ihr nicht mal einen behind the scenes oder making of thread wo die fans euch mal sehen?

  • If you seriously are into developing addon contents, you might ask IPACS. They already have a prerelease version of the SDK which they sent to interested 3rd parties for evaluation.

    And on your last question - I am afraid the names on the closing credits just are it. IPACS certainly can't be compared with ACES & their heirs. They even more need our support to get better known.

    Kind regards, Michael

    Intel i7-6700K 4.0 GHz / Asus MAXIMUS VIII RANGER / Kingston 32 GB DDR4 / Samsung SSD M.2 500 GB + Samsung SSD 1 TB + Intel SSD 500 GB (AeroflyFS2) + WD HD 6 TB / EVGA GTX 1080Ti 11 GB / LG 34UM95 3440 x 1440 / HP Reverb / Win 10/64

  • Thanks Michael. Very promising. Despite, i am not comparable to pro developers,
    i pick up smaller stuff and try to make it a feature. Example: The highway-thing.
    So i can easily wait for the official SDK and try stuff the silent way.

    If i grab my AC3D-stuff out of a 13 year old box, ok, i would go and contribute
    with stuff others won't think of.

    My deepest sorrow is that a small team would eventually do economical mistakes
    or take wrong marketing decisions. After all, we want this thing to be successful.
    So far, all we can do is buy a copy of the game. The rest is guessing.

    Sell as many copies as possible to create a user base, use a structured way of market the further developments.
    Find the thin line between surprise-promise-and hold. And get people talk about it. Yet there is competition out there.

    To date, the ipacs team has done many wonderful things, i am not worrying about the
    product side. Yes, there is small things that could be done differently, but the key stuff is excellent.
    They must stick to what is really essential and maybe ignore 95% off wishlists. Consumers are bad advisors.

    Surprise is on ipac's side, virality will do its rest thru the web.
    They are the first fully virtual flight sim product, rules of marketing have changed.

    "...get better known"
    as i mentioned, we guess around. We have no indicator about their current success. Therefore it's unfair
    to think about support methods or giving them advise which they don't need at all.

    But yes, we stick to them and interact where possible so they stay on the right track.

  • Hi,
    yes the names in the credits are pretty much the entire team. I haven't mentioned yet that I am also part of the developer team in this forum because I don't want everyones suggestions in the forums funnelling just through me because I am quite active here. Also people would take my opinion as official words which is also not my intention. So I am paying attention to what IPACS has officially announced and quote their statements when somebody asks for a feature. But I also like to add my personal opinion since I am a long-term Aerofly user, an external add-on developer for aerofly 5, RC 7 and FS and also did quite a lot for the Aerofly development and community even before I was even part of the dev-team by giving support here in the forums and creating an Aerofly Wiki page that can give very helpful help in a number of topics.

    Back to the topic:
    Yes IPACS has always put quality product as top priority but internationally they are not very well known yet. The Aerofly FS 1 had always huge potential and the Aerofly FS 2 now has even more potential to become one of the larger sims on the market. And as an external developer I would like to develop study-level aircraft, once the SDK is released. Even the Aerofly FS 1 would be capable of study-level aircraft but the number of functions are limited to the joystick buttons, since there are no clickspots yet. With the clickspots of Aerofly FS 2 you can simulate any system that you want. You could even theoretically create your own flight controller, as I have shown years ago in the aerofly RC 5 (autmated towing aircraft). You could even implement a walk-around quite easily where you would "touch" on the control surfaces to wiggle them and check the play and what not. But I am very keen to find out what other external developers would be able to do with the SDK. Oh yeah and with the SDK and its data-connection to the outside you can probably do anything, really. Maybe even a simulated push-back truck or service vehicles that approach the airplane, who knows.


  • Jan, we are famliar with your role and we highly appreciate it. You are well known to customers.

    I see 2 faces of further development.
    One is linked to commercial success requirements,
    the other is dealing with rapid content extension with the help of SDK-users.

    I can not talk for their commercial strategy, and or whether they run a license-revenue thing or not,
    but the SDK-side can boost content and product awareness. Control it!

    The marketing side is rather easy. If U.S.-customers have not paid enough attention to af, better talk to a marketing specialist.
    Now, not later. Some gaps are obvious and some rapid corrections may need to be done, always depending on
    where ipac's target is. What is it that they want to achieve.

    Allow SDK-devs, but make sure it all follows the final objectives. All measures must run to the same target.
    ikarus's long year experience from the RC-side currently meets the Sim-market, which is a totally different story.

    I have a feeling that ipacs has not yet fully defined where they want to go.
    It seems like they launched a probe, then they listen to the market, then they create some ideas, and so on.
    Honestly, this is not wrong at all. I even like it better this way, it has that kind of geek style, a bunch of tech-nerds
    who want to do something great. Lovely really.

    What the rest of us needs to know: is help needed or not? if yes, which type of help.

    You will find enough SDK-developpers who will contribute, my guess.
    Will you also find a longterm objective which fits the market?

    What i usually do with projects: I start the alphabet with Z.
    Z is how the product or service should look like. At Time +X.
    The result is based on arguments that explain why.
    The why involves customers and the markets, real life developments, etc.

    All in between is a simple business mindset, including a resources plan,
    a marketing plan, a financial plan.

    Not sure how you got me talk about that stuff, weren't we speaking of SDK ? :rolleyes:

    If SDK is made for hobby geeks, i suggest to start a project table. Who works on what (*1).
    If SDK is made for commercial developpers, create a partnership program, that defines requirements and costs.

    *1, fields of developments (assuming we talk about a classic flight simulation):

    - NAV Partnerships available
    - ATC
    - Meteo (Skies, Clouds, Weather Information Systems), Partnerships available
    - Roads and Vegetation
    - Traffic and Life
    - GUI, UML, usability
    - Study Level Module (Visions Tests that use af as dev bed)

    Before going to these things, some proof has to determine.
    E.g. damage modelling, correction of physics (stalling ??), Interaction of in-game-content, etc.

    You would not test drones with af2, if af2 is not proof, Jan.