A320 performance

I believe he meant to say something in the line of what I once said too...

Well, I am probably a lot more known for being picky in my flight simulator choices than any other thing. I've used many flight sims, I believe all civil sims that were ever produced, some of which never really even left Alfa stage.

My simulator for airliners and particularly the Boeing 747-400 has been Aerowinx, since version 1, now on version X. For IFR I always used ELITE flight simulator, and am actually a beta tester for their line of products.

Of course I have used MSFS in all of it's incarnations and X-plane.

Aerofly FS1 was somehow a disapointment, not because of the flight dynamics, my very first item when evaluating a flight simulator, but rather becuse of the lack of further development. I eventually uninstalled it for good from my sim rig.

Aerofly FS2 is something I really believe IS different. I'm not comparing it to any other sim, but rather enjoying what it offers starting with the very good flight dynamics, the great graphics, the overall feel of being there.

When I read about the innacuracies of the aircraft models, namely the Airbus, I don't really get any sort of frustration, because in the first place I know from what I glimpsed already into the aircraft configuration files that it's going to be really fine-tunable provided good input data is available. It's not because the flight dynamics are lousy, but rather because there are still parameters that need to get their values adapted to better reflect the characteristics of the real aircraft.

Developing a complex Airbus or Boeing is something I am really not expecting from the Dev Team, but rather would like to see, with time, being dealt with by 3pds. I guess some are already looking at this platform, and among the Aerowinx PSX user community there have already been suggestions for building a visuals bridge for AEFS2 just like those available for FSX, P3D and X-plane, allowing to use the sim as an external visuals generator for PSX, which has limited outside views of the World.

All of this, and many more will be possible with a well designed SDK. The small team behind this project already made one available for those willing to explore it's possibilities, and contrarily to what happened with AEFS1 the pace at which AEFS2 is being supported is really promissing, at least for me.

Of course they have to bring users to the cause, and these days, while my preferred instrument panels are still my good old ELITE 2d panels if practising IFR is what I am up to, users want those fancy VR headsets they invested in to work with the games they are willing to try. Others, certainly a lot less, want the exact FMGS details to be programmed, or this or that flight characteristics to be exactly reproduced by the FD engine.

We can't have it all at the same time, so, what I think is, and Bear in Mind this is STILL OPEN ALFA!, let's calmly wait and see what the future brings, profiting from what is already possible.

Posts suggesting that the product is not up to the expectations on this or that aspects will, IMO, only help giving those in the fence good reasons not to support the cause of AEFS2, which is unfair!

Let's have patience - something guys addicted to games and computers really find difficult to do... (and of course, me included )

I had Aerowinx PS 2 and a cheap version of Elite which was quite nice José. I had the Jeppesen version of the IFR single sim' (what was it called?), its Bonanza was the best cockpit I think, that sim was good as the wind varied speed and direction during the ILS and kept the student on his toes at a busy time.

I'm not going down a 3D headset route at this time, I had inexpensive shutter glasses giving 3D MSFS about 15 years ago and the current high expense headset type is unsustainable in a popular market, it is the norm with any new high-tech development that the trail-blazers sadly pay heavily.
If the early 2000s MSFS could support shutter glasses and red/cyan glasses is it really impossible now for FS 2?

This sim must be at its best if it appeals to a wide spectrum of users and is not to be steered away from a demonised target group. Labelling some simmers as obsessive button pushers is itself coming from an somewhat intransigent off-centre position. Managing a complex aircraft involves a heavy workload of distracting technical procedures and it is a poor simulator that really dumbs everything down, aiming to flatter beginners or those just seeking shallower entertainment. It would be a calamitous statement of defeat if complex aircraft simulation is abandoned in some dogmatic commitment to cute and easy low market, low attention span casual-browser, mass-market gaming.
There is nothing more basic in 99.99% of aircraft than tuning in a nav-radio. If the big jets cannot have working FMCs at this time then the NAV RAD button on the CDU could be enabled. The LNAV function in the big jets is very welcome but did no one in IPACS notice or question the disabling of the manual nav-aid tuning in the basic jets?
I hope this is a temporary aberration but IPACS have not given much encouragement.

Your post cautions against demonizing any group, but then feels like it downplays the need of more casual simmers.....

This is pretty much exactly what I was cautioning against, and exactly why I believe the simulation market has become such a small niche.

There has to be a compromise, and if any segment becomes aggressive in the belief that only their interests are legitimate, then that by definition tends to delegitimize other users.

Historically, the result has been a slide towards the type of product that has a narrow focus and limited appeal, and while such products work out fairly well for specialized third parties, they do poorly for the program developer unless they have some sort of robust secondary market like military or flight training waiting to take up the slack.

Ipacs might pull this off since they have other lines of succesfull products, but I would be surprised if they wanted to give up broad appeal to instead aim for a narrow market.

I would say let them build a robust base that everyone can enjoy, and let third parties do the specialized stuff.

Quote from HiFlyer

I would say let them build a robust base that everyone can enjoy.

Well said, 100%!

Quote from Overloaded

Well said, 100%!

Yep! And yes, Jeppesen FlitePro ( I had it too, as well as the rarely knows RTS-Pro, and IFT-Pro in the mid nineties )

Yes José,
Getting a twin on one engine down to 250 feet with less than 1/2 scale ILS deflection was a 'heart' breaker, that really was the best sim of the lot. Being a single it only missed the bucket load of rudder (if you were fit) or lots of rudder trim and re-trim. I wonder if it works on Windows 10? I must have a copy somewhere. PS I was a mountain cyclist. Legs.