Aerofly FS 2 is on the right road

  • I spent an hour in FSW, and now I get a much stronger sense that IPACS is doing things right,and I am loving Aerofly more. I have been playing MS flight simulator since version 4, but there is no going back.

    There has been a long dispute in the simulation world: Quantity or quality.

    FSX/P3D/XP have the whole world, but generic scenery out of the box. Aerofly has only a few region, but very high detailed.

    Which is better? Which one to choose? All are right. FSX/P3D/XP are right to give a backbone for the 3rd party developer to fill in the blanks. IPACS is right to give a few seclected high quality region to start with, and then expand them gradually, which is especially a good strategy for a small team with limited resources and recognition.

    There has also been a dispute over generic or photoreal scenery. I think the answer is now more clear: photoreal wins, especially with 3d photo real buildings as seen in the Aerosoft NY DLC.

    Generic scenery is the natural product of the old age when computing power is weak and harddisk capacity is small. When computing power grows and HD storage increases many folds, the taste has changed.

    Especially as Google Earth is rolling out more and more high detailed world in stunning 3D, people are more and more accustomed to photoreal scenery, and can't go back to the monotonous generic world of the past.

    I have stronger sense of this change as I was playing FSW last night. It just looks so...FSX, the land, the buildings, the moutains...they all look so artificial. I am spoiled by Aerofly, and I simply can't go back.

    I think the ultimate future of flight simulation is to fly in the world of Google Earth 3D VR, but that will take time even though the data and infrastructure are already there. Before we reach that goal, we can have something between, and that is the road Aerofly FS 2 is going.

    Of course photoreal scenery is not enough. We need more autogens and better trees on top of that, but that is not unrealistic to achieve. And the cooperation with ORBX combines the best of both.

    Despite different voices, I really think you are on the right road. Keep up the good work, and many thanks!

  • Some facts...

    .) In XP you can also get excellent scenery using ortho4xp and w2xp or even simple osm.

    .) Both XP and AEFS lack seasonal effects.

    .) Both XP and AEFS lack the possibility to set a precise date of flight, and get the exact daylight and Moon ephemeris for that date / time.

    .) In XP weather modelling is ahead of AEFS, including - but not only - the possibility of using real world weather injection.

    .) In XP aircraft and systems modelling is also way ahead of AEFS.

    .) In XP there are AI aircraft ( very unsuccessfully implemented by default IMO because the main developer wanted them to share the same flight dynamics model as user aircraft... very heavy on the computing requirements... ) and also cars on roads, etc...

    Flight Dynamics - the aspect that interests me the most - look powerful on both sims, although following different approaches, even if both based in the decomposition of an aircraft into various lift / drag / thrust generating elements.

    IMO, X-Plane 11 is still a more interesting option, but AEFS has the chance to become even more interesting...

    Use your flight simulators with a well defined purpose...

    Don't expect them to be "perfect" or to fully cover all aspects of simulated flight...

    Try to enjoy it instead of stressing... ( in few words - don't be like me ... )

  • Frui.

    I want to congratulate you on a well thought out, deep and really well written article. As far as I'm concerned you have clearly thought this through, about the future of Flight Simming.

    Well done.


    Computer: PB Gaming 62000 Skylake Core i5 6600, Quad Core 3.3Ghz with Premium Cooling, 16GB DDR4 Gaming Ram, 250GB SSD, 2TB HHD, N'VIDEA GTX 1070 8GB GDDR5, DIRECTX12 Gaming Graphic's Card, VR Ready, Windows10 Home Edition, 64bit, 2 x 24" Widescreen HDMI 1080p VDU's

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Amateur Radio Station: ZL2BMH

  • Thank you Taranakian! I am indeed thinking not just from the perspective of flight simulation alone, but from change of aesthetics because of technological development. We are entering into an age of "Simulacrum" as described by French philosopher Baudrillard. People are more and more obsessed with "the real" of multi dimensions.
    I forgot to mention VR, which is the same embodiment of this tendency, and Aerofly FS2 is also ahead of time in this regard.
    Next generation graphics + smooth framerate + photoreal scenery + Orbx + VR = Future.

  • There was a comment from John V at ORBX that properly set out the status of what is going on. The concern is/was that AeroFlyFS2 is a game, and you notice most of the posts say they are "playing". JV said out right that P3Dv4 was a true simulator worthy of serious flight simulation. He also said that AeroFlyFS2 was a great casual simulation. Just the fact that the software is on Steam almost prevented me from even looking at it. Had it not been the involvement of ORBX I would have never even visited the web site. The impression I get from John, is this is a sim for casual flying....As an instrument rated pilot, I can relate......getting an instrument rating halted the "fun" part of real flying.....According to John, jump in and fly...I like that. But in order for this to succeed as a "second" sim, flying on kcars will be a must, all my PFC controls must work and I want representative GA airplanes. It doesn't make sense to have Jets in a VFR sim, and if the accent is on the scenery, then viewing it from 30,000 feet at 400+ mph doesn't quite float the boat. I have to agree, a VFR, GA simulator could be fun, but we are going to need some positive direction. My interest is flying is in the Bush...Alaska to be specific, and back when you actually flew the that means the 50's 60's and 70's......Beavers. Otters, DC-3, twin otters. Additional scenery like the offerings from RTMM...all VFR, all well done and in my opinion something to work for. I realize that AeroFly is just really getting started, I can only hope the future is positive.


  • When somebody says it's a Game because it's on Steam, do they realise, that X plane 11, FSX, DCS World and FSW, they are all on Steam. Does that make them games?

    Never let the fact that something is on Steam prevent you from trying it.

  • There's a whole simulation category on steam, full of just about every human activity that can be simulated. Steam also has lots of pro graphics software and all kinds of tools, it's way more than just games if you actually look.

    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

  • Windquest.

    Please explain to all of us why you don't like Steam.

    I have read more than one article, in fact someone started a poll, about the quality of the Steam products as if they have a drop of quality related to download and boxed versions. The result of the poll was well in favour of the Steam Edition looking better on the VDU. The articles I read confirmed this point. Now this was only a couple or so months ago. You may well have had an issue with Steams quality back a few years ago.

    Another reason I prefer Steam, is that if you wane then wander away to another hobby (as people tend to do), Steam continues to update your selected games/sims, so that on returning you are right to go, not spend wasted time catching up.

    Like you, I also prefer to start a plane properly, park it properly and know all the dials on the dashboard and how to read them, and read an Airport chart and land within the confines of the chart. This I hope will not be taken from what appears to be an amazing experience in AFS2, where the scenery to me ( I don't have 3D or P3D at this time but hopefully soon) is just sensational (many thanks to Jarrad Marshall).

    However, feeling like you do about Steam, you are wrong, and I invite you back to have another look. I don't really bother with their forums as I believe they contain to many brats, whereas these forums you learn from.

    Good luck what ever you choose.

    Taranakian. (Jim).

    Computer: PB Gaming 62000 Skylake Core i5 6600, Quad Core 3.3Ghz with Premium Cooling, 16GB DDR4 Gaming Ram, 250GB SSD, 2TB HHD, N'VIDEA GTX 1070 8GB GDDR5, DIRECTX12 Gaming Graphic's Card, VR Ready, Windows10 Home Edition, 64bit, 2 x 24" Widescreen HDMI 1080p VDU's

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Amateur Radio Station: ZL2BMH