Slow progress

  • Jan, it does concern me that in your roadmap and the one you linked to that multiplayer isn't even hinted at.


    Yeah, that is just my roadmap and currently it doesn't look like multiplayer is going to fall into my hands. I'd like to program the multiplayer but I have very little experience with network communication, it's just not my field, that's why its not on my list.
    I find a multiplayer feature essential and very important, I'd like to fly in formation with you guys or even share a cockpit :D


    Regards,
    Jan

  • "not a lot going on yet" - Yeah right, as if we haven't done anything in the past year. (no offense taken)
    "I pray you guys know what priorities are" - what do you want to say with that sentense. Is there some aircraft system you would like to see prioritised over the list that I've posted?


    I'm not a wizzard and quite a bit of the work I do will remain hidden for a bit until they are available for all aircraft or until they are finished. Until they are finished the public version won't see much of the changes. For example: The entirety of the A320 and LJ45 is already clickable in my developer version but not all of the switches have a function behind them yet. Don't forget that the C172 and B58 are already quite advanced e.g. full electric system, all instruments up and running. Apart from the engine things (mixture, magnetos) its just the GPS that kinda missing yet.


    The functions behind the yet unclickable switches will be implemented when its the right time and in the mean time I won't just fake them for the sake of seeing some outcome of the switch manipulation. We could rush into completing one aircraft but then we would have to do the same amount of work again for the next aircraft. So instead we are implementing a solution for each system that works for all aircraft. That takes a little bit longer for the first couple aircraft and doesn't look as fast from your point of view, but it will make the development faster in the long run. And more accurate than existing payware add-ons for the other simulators.
    I've stated my point of view above; I think the major system depth that is lacking yet is engine management and engine start/stop, that is basic stuff that we absolutely need.


    You can look forward to testing the autopilot update soon, I can't really praise my own work here but I think it will raise the bar quite a bit. Heck in some places I am even simulating the A320 autoflight system more realitic than all payware add-ons on the market (that I've tested) which shows me even they have not tested everything, especially the things that are not used on a daily basis. Without the FMS implemented in the Aerofly FS 2 at the moment some things will be missing yet but we'll get there, too.
    That a/p update will also include an entire remake/refresh of the A320 PFD and ND displays, making them look very authentic (almost pixel perfect in comparison to real world images) and also relatively complete in terms of functionality. There are just a few things missing like failures of the ADIRUs and non-computed data but that can be added relatively quickly later if that is even relevant for the default simulator.


    To answer your post quickly: we are working on it, please be more patient.


    Regards,
    Jan

  • Ah, those impatient users :)
    We also come up with revised SDK tools, this way you can easily get your own aerial images into the simulator.


    I now have reasonably good control of how to make airports. So now we're waiting for a good tool that can transfer aerial images into the simulator.
    Impatient users? Yes, and for very good reason! :cool:

  • Hartman,


    the tool for aerial images is already in the test phase. I'm electrified by the possibilities of it. If you want to prepare, take a look at FS Earth Tiles. This service is well known in the flight simulator world and will be as well for aerofly FS 2.


    Rodeo

  • Jan,


    With the A/P incoming, the status of core functionality is 50% lets say for an A320? That is a good rate, considering the quality.
    I appreciate that a lot. Keep on.



    just some thoughts here:



    "not complex things that block your mind.
    it is basic decisions on how to proceed.
    And could solve really simple."


    Base objective:
    What the users need are those elements that let them do something like a complete flight.


    The keys:
    The C172, A320, LJ45 and B747 are your stars, push these 4 to complete.
    I hate saying, one completed aircraft is better than 20 construction places.
    Because i understand the complexity of cross-related stuff.



    The Developer-User Process:
    You probably need to find a method of finding fields that help the users do more out of their flight experience,
    while they wait for the core implementations like the FMS, FPL, and the other main modules.
    Elements that help complete the chain of flight operations, not hard to do but effective as placeholders/Standby elements
    that round up the product from outside to inside.


    Remember the guys who put the carrier into San Diego's Bay (and New York's Hudson) ?
    That was a highlight for no head ache, quick meat.
    Get the A320 cabin done maybe.
    Finish 1 animated jetbridge that works (trigger when parking), cabin door, pushback. See what the impact is.


    I know you are breathing hard now, and you wish me cancer, since you want to deal with engineering stuff and not
    flight attendants, copilots, follow-me busses or jetbridges. But see the whole product and the waiting user.


    Question your methods and attitude:
    My best friends are Engineers. They are slow by nature.
    They get nowhere without good coordinators or a general manager who speaks all disciplines.
    Engineers hate time objectives. They play around for the play.


    NASA deals with that, ipacs deals with that, and every tech startup on this planet.
    Scrum posts seem cooler than thorough processes with clear objectives and an efficient project organization.
    (germ. verzetteln)


    Today i saw a documentary on Chicago's Trump Tower Construction Process.
    What makes this building so special is that it was built at double speed but double quality against every skyscraper before that.
    They made some really smart leaping with the overall method of the process. Like Toyota did 20 years ago.


    Trump, Apple, Google, Tesla, they inspire us of never argueing with patience. ;)




    What means complete?


    users' point of view? engineer's believe? promises and roadmaps?


    priority?


    now, it's the engine start-up, the push-back that is needed. Just these 4 aircraft.

  • Almdudler, did you read his post at all? Jan stated that he's working on the implementation of a system framework that can be used on ALL aircraft (including future ones), how about you leave the decisions on what work needs to be done to somebody who actually knows what's going on and has the full picture.

  • Hi Almdudler,


    the Carrier is nice and all but the user made one doesn't move and doesn't have any catch hooks or launch catapults. In another thread I've gone into more detail on how much work will need to be done to make a realistic carrier: wheel physics, catch hook and cable physics, catapult physics and sturdy gear, not to mention the tiggers would need to be defined, e.g. how do you align the aircraft with the catapult or how do you tell the aircraft elevator to move up / down without any buttons :D


    Push-back is also something that I would like to see. But right now we can't even stop the engines, I kinda want to start my engines whilst pushing back. And then we'd also need doors to open... I'm hoping we can implement something like GSX for the Aerofly FS 2, just better without the need to decide what to do. If I start at the gate I dont want to select the option "boading now please", similarily when I arrive at the gate the deboarding should go automatically (e.g. the jetway should be moved to the entry door automatically. The doors should be handled by the simulated crew as well, I don't want to open doors from within the MCDU/FMS how unrealistic is that?)


    "Finishing" the four aircraft you mention is also my intention. We need platform demonstrators and those aircraft would be the logical choice since we have enough technical documentation about them, real world pilot contacts and they all fly today which makes it easier for us to potentially get a ride along. But things like the engine start stop and mixture, etc. we will need to implement for all aircaft in the sim. If a hydraulic system is missing, ok, I might be able to live with that, but as a user I at least want to start up the aircraft realistically, taxi out, fly without failure simulation maybe (default aircraft...) then come to land, park the aircraft and shut it down.


    Our A320 is maybe 15% complete compared to the real world one, maybe half way of what you would expect from a default aircraft. Needs fuel, electrics, hydraulics, bleeds, terrain radar, wx radar, gpws, etc. yet, then I'd say it's good enough for a default ("finished"). There are just so many systems on the real world aircraft, we will never be able to fully model all of them, no one is going to pay for that. It will take more than 7 years (see the FSLabs A320) to simulate maybe 85% or 90% of the systems. We obviously can't go to such depth for all of the default aircraft (at least with the small team right now).


    Regards,
    Jan

  • To the guys who doubt themselves singing the praises of AFS2; I honestly believe you have seen the potential and are 100% correct about this being among the leading sims of the future. We just have to wait, and that might be a couple more years before it is what you might call release version. Keep the faith, but people will be impatient and expect miracles instantly, so don't be surprised when they are cynical.


    To the devs, my opinion is to just keep doing what you are doing, there are clearly many good things in the pipeline and your energy is best spent writing code. However, don't underestimate the power of a little communication here and there to keep people on your side. A quick dev post here and there works wonders.


    I think once the OrbX stuff is published, a lot of simmers will sit up and take notice as that is a brand they know very well.


    Personally I'm happy to let AFS2 bubble away in the background and grow out of sight, it's not like we are short of stuff to do in the meantime. Hang in there everybody, it will be worth it in the end.

    i7-7700K/Gigabyte RTX2080/Win10 64bit/32Gb RAM/Asus Xonar DX+ Beyer DT990 pro headphones/LG 34" UM65 @2560x1080/Rift CV1/TM Warthog+VKB MkIV Rudder pedals

  • It has been said in this thread (trespassers=Antoine): "The big strength of successful sims is users make it the sim they want (within performance limitations, of course)".


    I would say: "The sims of success, is when it has all the features that users want." If a sim has all that and a reasonable price, success is guaranteed; But to succeed, their designers have had to work hard for many years. That is currently impossible because it would require enormous capital and an immense army of planners, designers and, above all, programmers to satisfy all the characteristics that the current simmers demand (and are
    more every day). That is why, currently, all go to the market with the condition of "early access", as companies involved in these projects, neither have large capital nor sufficient staff, either in quantity or quality.


    Nowadays for a sim to really have success, it should have a quality and quantity of huge features, because huge are the demands of the simmers (and ... more and more every day, since the experience they are acquiring with different sims, Year after year, makes them more and more demanding).


    And this is the big and difficult question: How can IPACS meet the multiple demands that users present? Of course, priorities must be established. How?. It can be very simple: to do a survey in this forum, to present a list of improvements that will be made and that the users would respond according to our preferences.


    And I wonder: Would this information help IPACS to perform its work according to the priorities decided by the users themselves, taking into account that most of the simmers of FS 2, do not participate in the forum ?.


    Well, it might be interesting to reflect on this possibility.

    Regards: Delfin

  • John, you think wisely. I would however add the aim of an early release is to get users involved, with feedback, but also with funding. Aerofly doesn't need to be finished soon, it may remain an early release for years provided it keeps evolving and the community keeps growing and getting reasonably satisfied. But if IPACS remain silent and distant I'm afraid this will fail...


    Delfin, you're comming to my point : IPACS shouldn't want to do everything on their own but make the platform as open and flexible as possible for users and add-on makers to get involved with easy access step. Then users will be enabled to make it the sim they want, or at least work in that direction.


    The all-in-one-project architecture of the current SDK philosophy makes me really wonder how add-ons are supposed to successfully interact. There are no obvious layers, exclude possibilities, priority settings, etc. (for instance, how can I change the ground markings of an existing but inaccurate airport without redoing the whole airport?) and the heavy&expensive CAD tools needed for any single modelling makes it out of reach of most users.


    Ok, a new SDK is due to come with tools to build a ground photoscenery (but still no talks about building + vegetation autogen!) let's wait and see.


    Cheers
    Antoine

    Config : i7 6900K - 20MB currently set at 3.20GHz, Cooling Noctua NH-U14S, Motherboard ASUS Rampage V Extreme U3.1, RAM HyperX Savage Black Edition 16GB DDR4 3000 MHz, Graphic Card Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080 8GB, Power supply Corsair RM Series 850W, Windows 10 64 bit.

  • To the devs, my opinion is to just keep doing what you are doing, there are clearly many good things in the pipeline and your energy is best spent writing code. However, don't underestimate the power of a little communication here and there to keep people on your side. A quick dev post here and there works wonders.


    I would like to add that I agree that you should keep doing what you are doing. You know the game plan and the long term road map for development. Having said that, I must agree with John, that it is important not to underestimate the value of a little communication along the way. If people hear from time to time what is being worked on, what visions you have for future development, and what progress has been made, they will be much more accepting of the time being spent, and more patient with the development process.


    I work for a company that is known for involving our customers in the development process for new products. Doing so pays dividends both for us and our clientele. We know what our customers want and need, and what they have expectations of. Our clients in return have input in what we create, and ultimately, what the final product will represent when the time comes to decide where to spend their hard earned resources. This is a true win-win for everyone (except perhaps for our competition). Partly as a result of these types of extra efforts, our customers have been known to wait long periods of time to receive their products, but they are willing and understanding of the wait because they understand how complex the process is, and what efforts are being put forward to deliver the finest product possible in the most reasonable time frame. Communication is the key!

  • We do our best to inform everyone of upcoming updates. I'm an alpha tester and work directly with the IPACS team on many fronts including but not limited to maintaining the Wiki and upload/download forums. . I have to say here that there are only two core programmers currently developing Aerofly FS 2 so everyone should expect that progress will be a little bit slow at times, especially with the amount of detail and precision being added to this title. It's also critical to focus on how the resources are allocated internally. One of my primary roles is to inform users of what's coming down the pipeline and I do so the best that I can. I personally spend a lot of time on here and on the Steam Aerofly FS 2 forum as well, mostly on Steam as that's where most new users with issues tend to post first and they need additional assistance. I'm a little baffled that many still mention about IPACS being quieter that one might want even though everyone is clearly informed whenever something worthwhile is ready for the public. I do feel that excitement for Aerofly FS 2 should be spread around out there and that's where all of you come into play. If you are excited about where FS 2 is headed then make it known everywhere you can. Spread the word instead of just complaining how DTG markets their product and IPACS doesn't because both companies have different approaches (and DTG has many more members). This is a marathon, not a sprint, and I can say this with certainty, IPACS is ready to win the long haul.

    IPACS Development Team Member

    I'm just a cook, I don't own the restaurant.
    On behalf of Torsten, Marc, and the rest of the IPACS team, we would all like to thank you for your continued support.


    Regards,


    Jeff

  • There you go, if AF2 only has two core programmers, then that makes it even more impressive, an indy title mixing it with the big boys. I'll tune in to the Steam forums a little more if that is a good place to read discussions. Thanks for the info Jeff, keep up the good work.

    i7-7700K/Gigabyte RTX2080/Win10 64bit/32Gb RAM/Asus Xonar DX+ Beyer DT990 pro headphones/LG 34" UM65 @2560x1080/Rift CV1/TM Warthog+VKB MkIV Rudder pedals

  • interesting info, thanks Jeff.


    i remain curious how Marc and Torsten receive direct feedback, since they are not on the forum.


    They both monitor the forums and respond when necessary but most of the issues derived on the forums are fielded either by myself or Jan. Anything noteworthy or if a bug is detected I pass the information directly to Torsten if I can recreate the issue on my end. For those that contact IPACS support directly, of course they are also handled on an individual basis.


    This is all in effort to keep the programmers focused on,well, programming. This gameplan is yielding good results and allows for them to punch out rather complex updates in a timely fashion.

    IPACS Development Team Member

    I'm just a cook, I don't own the restaurant.
    On behalf of Torsten, Marc, and the rest of the IPACS team, we would all like to thank you for your continued support.


    Regards,


    Jeff

  • Then I'm waiting in "shocking" excitement. Will this new tool be incorporated into the existing "scenery-tool" (just one tool instead of two tools)?


    No, since FSET or any other earth service is involved, this process has to be separated into different steps. :cool: