So I bought X-Plane 11...

  • ...and FlyInside to play in VR. I bought it as it gives me the whole world (not managed seemless tiles in GeoConvert), deeper sim systems and weather etc.

    Obviously it doesn't run as well as Aerofly, not even close!!!!!

    I have been faffing with addons etc for ages (GeoConvert asid,e this isn't an assue with Aerofly!) and i know it's impossible to look as good as Aerofly, except in the darker hours when it truly shines. But what I think actually looks pretty bad is the autogen, man is that nasty. Everything is very similar and very little looks as it should. Sure you can do overlays so there is nearly always a building where it should be, but it's rarely close to how that building should look.

    This has now made me feel better about the current lack of 3D scenery in most of Aerofly. If Laminar still get can't get it right after all these years, then IPACS would/will struggle.

    That said, I do love the traffic in the air and on the ground. @I can't go back on Aerofly for a while now I just bought X-Plane... I know the VR experience will spoil me and jumping in to X-Plane again after will look hideous.

    You may have noticed there's no real point to this post but it's 2:17am and I aint tired, probably due to all the Dominos pizza and coke earlier while watching King Arther (don't bother!!!!).

  • You are correct, there is no real point to this.

    Is there something specific that's frustrating you with Aerofly because I really don't quite understand this?

    I was tempted to just delete it because it has no true value to anyone but to respect you as a customer I chose not to.

    You need to understand that Aerofly is still in the process of being developed and I assure you that whatever is added to this sim will have passion behind it.

    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.



  • Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo just the opposite!!!

    I know AF is in its infancy and so of course on paper is lacking a lot compared to XP (for now), but back to back it's evident just how much better AF is at what it does do so far. Graphics, performance, and in particular VR performance, FAR surpass that of XP.

    I wasn't clear in my thoughts I guess, but I meant AP has spoilt me lol, it's hard to fly the Cessna in XP and not keep thinking "this just looks awful compared to AF".

    I plan to use XP more for learning aircraft systems etc, until AF adds a few more in due course (only as a sim hobby, no real life aspirations), and AF for when I want to enjoy, REALLY enjoy, flying.

  • I had a hard time trying to figure that post out so I though that I would just stay somewhere in between :)

    I'm glad that my spidey senses were off on that one.

    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.



  • It appears you have an outdated computer or perhaps a low end video card. I run Aerofly in maximum resolution with no worries at all. I also run X-Plane 11, an entirely different flight simulator to Aerofly. Having a full dashboard with operating gauges etc. takes care of some memory, plus there's the actual sim itself. Any low end machine is likely to have a problem running a program with so much going on.

    I purchased a new computer and decent graphics card specifically to run X-Plane 11 and then there was the extra bonus of being able to max out Aerofly. I enjoy flying both sims, plus every other decent Flight Sim available. Perhaps you should update your system, or better still write to X-Plane's forum and make your complaint, because it's wasted here. Oh yes, I'd recommend you be fully awake when you do.

  • I must add my two cents before this is deleted. :)

    Interestingly I have recently picked up X-plane 11 too, which I bought when it was still beta. The reason for my going back to XP11 is the opposite of Raging Beard: I found its 3D OpenStreetMap scenery facinating, and its Ortho4XP photo scenery is a breeze to make, without any bugs.

    Of course this is only temporary going back while I am waiting for IPACS to solve the GeoConverter problem, especially the one that causes pains when combining different regions, or the crash when doing very big regions. It's hard for me to get use to other sim's low frame rate when I have been spoiled by FS 2's butter smoothness.

    But I just can't help thinking if we had best of both: 3D OpenStreetMap scenery and dummy proof Ortho scenery tool as from XP11, and great graphics and performance as from FS 2. It is not impossible.

    3D OpenStreetMap scenery can be beautiful. Its placement of trees can be spot on and very effective. The buildings can also be varied if you have the right parameter and library, plus real landmarks.

  • After sitting in a 172 in XP a while, then jumping in to another 172 in AF, I am blown away. It must be some kinda magic, voodoo hoodoo, blood sacrifice shit to the FPS Gods to pull off that kind of performance in VR.

    We all know it's great, but switching from one to the other highlights just how great all over again!

  • If Laminar still get can't get [autogen] right after all these years, then IPACS would/will struggle.

    That is my biggest concern with autogen. The laminar guys are probably smart people and I don't know how much time was spend on that algorithm in total. But it has to be significant. If that is as good as it gets for a simulator that just relies on autogen than we are probably better off not chasing X-Plane. With more time spent, it probably can look better but is that worth it?

    Maybe purchasing 3D models of existing cities or real life databases for the real world houses would be the better option. That way you get all blocks in the right position and in the correct height at least, no need to generate their position first and guess the buildings heights. And with that correct positioning and some good looking textures we could have automatically generated houses that are not completely generated from scratch or open street map roads. I think cultivation is what that is called and as far as I know that can already be seen in Innsbruck. And Innsbruck looks quite good in my opinion, I could live with that :D

  • I didn't like XP11's autogen and also thought the World2XP autogen was bland and plain - an eyesore. However I am a big autogen fan, and I love Orbx's regional autogen with FSX/P3D. What they have accomplished though with Innsbruck and the upcoming Mieg's Field Chicago patch is incredible. I'm excited for what more Orbx will do with AF2, other third party developers and whatever else happens with 3D buildings in AF2.

    - Ashley

    P3D v4 / AFS2 / XP11 | Intel i7-4790K oc'ed @ 4.6GHz | 16GB RAM | 8GB Nvidia GTX1070 | Windows 10 64-bit | Oculus Rift

  • I own XP11 (and FSX and P3D) but none of them come even close to the sensation of flight Aerofly FS 2 is giving me in VR. XP may offer the entire world, as you say, but seriously, it has generic and repetitive textures, it looks extremely computer generated, the airports are flat and empty, so what use is it to have the entire world? The lights at night look totally awesome, I agree, and flying very low over a highway is great, but that's about it. The light at daytime looks nothing like Aerofly FS 2 does, which looks so much more real. Whenever I see pictures of XP now I find them to be bland, flat and dull. No real light. The same goes for P3D btw. Of course you can improve things by creating or downloading Orth4XP scenery but then still things look fake to me.

    The biggest problem obviously is performance. I tested this half a year ago or so and in XP with ALL options LOW XP couldn't come even near the performance that AFS2 gave me with all options at ULTRA. A world of difference. (I have an i7 4790K@4.5 and a 1080.)

    I have no problems at ALL leaving XP and P3D uninstalled. ;)

  • I reckon with the focus should be on replicating airports to supreme detail and the surrounding area. So you have gorgeous 3D scenery taking off and landing.

    High resolution satelite pics can fill the areas inbetween and once you are high enough it makes no odds. Hand placed 3D objects everywhere is what would really be needed but is obviously impossible, so don't waste time trying to polish a turd but rather put more effort into tighter areas.