Simple Multiplayer?

I think it's a question of priorities and of course who has the loudest voice. I think it's safe to say that in the current flight simulation community the "I need more buttons to press!" guys are definitely the loudest and most likely to start trashing the metaphorical room if not placated.

For myself, I actually think multiplayer would be a huge selling point for just regular (non button pressing) flyers as well.

Take a look at the zillions of videos since FSX-SE went on Steam, and just about every one shows tons of people in multiplayer flying every which way with a total lack of regard for decorum and procedures sure to cause bulging eyes in some "Serious Simmers". :o

But those people are having fun, and boy, does fun sell copies!

I'll also throw in my own bid: I very much remember how much I enjoyed the Aerobatics missions in MsFligh. So sad so few people ever took the time to find out how nice the flight models were.

I'm hoping that one day Aerofly will implement this sort of thing as well.

I totally agree!! The most exciting feature for me is the smoothest, most fluid (awesome) VR flight sim available! FSX/P3D might have a tremendous amount of features but 200 to 300 fps single monitor framerates isn't one of them. FS2 with future improvements in VR hardware (resolution) will be the most fun and realistic flight simulation experience available - and flying together in formation with TeamSpeak or equivalent will be terrific. Four of us doing the Blue Angels routines over the water in San Francisco would be so amazing. I agree with the OP that the simplest of features that apparently IPACS already has the code for would be quite sufficient.

Dave

I totally agree, with an additional point of view: AFS2 could become a beautiful and easy pedagogical tool for air-clubs to practice radio com in realistic conditions on ground (classes).

I've been doing it with FSX, which is heavy to maintain. Beyond the multiplayer mode, it requests however 2 things:
1) One PC on the network must be able to get the position and data of each involved aircraft to play the ATC.
2) Changing the frequency on the COM radio must enable the corresponding channel in Teamspeak (there are tools doing that for FSX/P3D, but none yet for AFS2).

My 2 cents
Cheers
Antoine

I would also be very much in favor of multiplayer support. It may be an easy way of making the world more dynamic (without the need to create a complex AI system). Also it would be loads of fun

Nice suggestion about the different worlds Jan. I wouldn't like to fly among people who just do whatever they feel like. I do think an integrated audio solution would be nice as well. It could be integrated somewhere in the menu (but that would need some more thought...). Ideally I guess you could "tune" to the radio of every airport, either by a simple button on the map or by actually dialing a frequency. In addition, there could be some larger-region "info" channel etc.

Anyway, even a simple way of having multiple people in the same simulation would be a great first step

Quote from Jet-Pack

In the Aerofly RC 7 we had an inbuild voice communication system (teamspeak I think) but I ended up never using it because you were talking to everyone in the session and a lot of users had loud speakers and microphones active resulting in a lot of feedback loops. We always used Skype or some other external software for the calls with the huge benefit of not needing the session or the Aerofly running to speak to each other.

No need to bother integrating an inbuild voice communication system : Teamspeak is external and works superb, with many advantages over some other communication channels like Skype. For better communication quality and more realism TS also allows to assign a PTT key : think, press, talk, release...

In a first phase it could work parallel without any link to Aerofly FS.
In a later, more advanced phase the only needed link between AFS 2 and TS would be a plugin to switch TS channel according to the COM frequency you set in your aircraft.
SIMCOM does it very nicely for FSX/P3D.

Cheers
Antoine

Quote from CavendishD

Yep this is by far the best way to do it... No need to re-invent the wheel.

+ 1 for Multiplayer support PLEASE in VR will be awesome.

Our group (37 members) ALL will be Aerofly at some point and ALL will only become that IF multiplayer is provided. Else, it'll be me and ONE other who luv ya no matter what else occurs.

I think the case for Multiplayer is there FAR BIGGER that you think !!

BG2518-Bob

May I suggest the you guys have a chat with Peter ........ who I have supported.

http://pmem.uk/joinfs/index.html

He would be a very good addition to your team to specialise in multiplayer (collaborative flying).

BG2518-Bob.

Hi,

I hadn't really thought about multiplayer, but as I read through this thread I realised it would make a huge difference to the flying experience. Simply flying circuits with other traffic and having to make appropriate radio calls would be so much fun. Flying Nav flights with a buddy, competition flying with fellow glider pilots, the list goes on.

it would be amazing.

cheers

Bill

According to Cav, you ask multiplayer game, others ATC, others buttons and activate the existing ones; I, access to. . . ; others ... better night lighting, others, more DLCs, others ...

We all demand really important and very desirable requests and wishes, but IPACs have their own work script, which will sometimes change if any of our requests is really very important, but they have a lot more work than they can do . I am convinced that even if they were 10 times more technical staff than today, they would not be able to attend to the flow of our demands in a reasonable time.

Cav. that your demands are really interesting, of the most interesting that I have seen in this forum. They are for you and for many others, also for me, but not for all. Others have other preferences. I also know that adding all this ("Simple Multiplayer") to the current sim, would surely cost a fairly deep change in the company's plans and a considerable deviation from their programming. For you, for others and for me, it would be acceptable and advisable, but we do not know the IPACs script, and surely they have powerful reasons to not change course in their programming.

As a user, I am also trying to see (and also expose) the problem, from the point of view of the company, and it is not easy to decide for one of the many demands they receive from users. And, I remember that how many more customers (users), more and more wishes and requests for new projects.

Considering how much it lacks this sim to consider it relatively finalized, it produces vertigo. Everything done so far, in my opinion is very well done, but what remains to be done is much, much; even without taking into account our requests. I repeat: everything is well done and it is not easy to do "MUCH AND WELL".

I am sure that IPACS has a constant conflict between planning their own work and meeting our demands. How is that setback resolved? In the present circumstances, there is only one way: setting priorities. And ... how are priorities set?. This is the very difficult question: WHAT DO WE DO FIRST?

What you request Cav, I also fully subscribe, but ...but...but

Jeff, you who are the cook, tell me: how do you cook all this, and also, simultaneously?

Regards : Delfin

Thanks Jeff!