Posts by HiFlyer

    An interesting concept, but what I found most interesting was the way they could choose an instrument and get a closeup view of it. This seems like a very good concept to work around the screendoor effect in VR, and not too shabby for 2d either.

    Wanted the Devs here to see this. I think it would be very cool if you could just click on a dial or instrument and see it clearly.

    Maybe a lot of work to implement, though. :(

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Yes, zoomed out was clear. ;) It does make a lot of difference to the fps so I am curious how my upcoming Rift will perform... When I get my Rift, does it automatically go to the proper zoom when I run the Rift version of AFS2? Can you still zoom in and out with the Rift? Are there any specific settings, apart from SS that I have to take care off? I do understand that in order to prepare AFS2 for the Rift I should find out which settings work best with an all zoomed out view, right...? And that SS setting, can it only be seen when you have the Rift on your head?

    Pardon the abundance of ??? but I'd like to be ready for when my Rift arrives. ;)

    I will at least experiment with the shadows because somewhere else I read they can really hurt performance too and going from the max to meet already makes a huge difference. If I actually need 250 fps I see Iam on the edge already... (How the heck do people run XP11 and P3D in VR...?!)

    You can press the spacebar to recenter the rift viewpoint, and you really don't need a zoom function when you can just lean forward or side to side to see something..... Aerofly does allow you to adjust the size of the virtual space, but unless you feel like being an ant in a giant plane, its best to leave that setting alone. Pixel density will give you a clearer appearing image but can be hard on framerates.

    What did I miss.......

    By the way, you don't always need double the framerate.... Creating the stereo image is actually not as intensive as you might think in most cases, and if you can reach a steady 120/130 fps or so, you're probably safe for the full 90 in the rift. And even if you fall a bit short, ATW (asynchronous time warp) will most likely save you.

    By the way, Flyinside is a clever use of ATW to make a really low framerate appear to still be smooth, and without it FSX, P3D and XPlane would be pretty much dead in the water for VR. I kind of think they still are, even with it. :p

    A quick Video:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Issue still exists, and frankly the shimmering is so distracting that as you fly it constantly attracts your attention. Cockpit and aircraft shadows are very stair-steppy as well, and after fiddling with it for weeks it was just too much. I lowered shadows to minimum then deleted the func_shadowmap.tsm file from the sim.

    This removed all shadows of any sort, which is a shame, but at least the shimmering drawing my eye is gone.

    Hope a better shadow method is found in the future.

    I think the DD version would crush most computers. What about the Aerosoft version in FSX?

    Actually the DD version is relatively primitive, in that it uses a sort of google sketchup thingy where a large number of the buildings are one-texture and slightly misshapen due to it being based on imperfect digital scans of the city. Also a LOT of the buildings are floating in the open air, etc. When you take off from KLGA in DDs New York, the first thing you notice is several huge fuel tanks floating in the air right off the runway.

    Aerosoft NY has a similar issue where literally half the city is floating, and while a fix was promised years and years ago, it never happened.

    Technically, Aerofly New York pretty much wins any comparison hands down. Where DD New York stages a comeback, is in having a nice selection of unique building textures on selected iconic buildings. The buildings are also there in Aerofly: Just strangely textured.

    The other sims also have copious amounts of autogen to take up the slack in the otherwise open spaces surrounding a scenery pack such as New York. I don't see this as necessarily a "fault" in Aerofly, as much as a simple reality of Orthophotos that will probably end up being addressed by somebody like Orbx or an enthusiast in the style of TonyWob. Its early days yet.

    Besides: it must have to do with the need to get some extra funds but I much rather had seen the time and money spend on this DLC being spend on getting AFS2 itself better. There is still a LOT to be done. Don't get me wrong, as may (hopefully) be clear I do like AFS2 a LOT but it's clearly Early access yet and creating and releasing DLC for an Early access project...? That's a bit odd in my view.

    Of course, we all have priorities, and I think a smaller company has to remain concerned about cash flow at this sensitive point. I myself would never ever ever turn down a modern version of NY since I love the city and know it's a rare one to be tackled, so Kudos from me to Aerofly for choosing something so ambitious.

    I know they've mentioned in the past here on the forum that the scenery team is a separate unit whose workings don't interfere with the main team, so I myself don't really have worries about wasted resources, per se. This thread was intended more as the type of constructive criticism a reviewer might give, and I hope it's seen as such. In fact it was intended for somebody else at first, but was kind of large for a Steam message. :p

    What I'm really thinking is that if Orbx sticks to its stated plans, they will be stepping in relatively soon and producing scenery with their signature quality and attention to detail, at which point many things will probably be accelerating into higher gear for Aerofly and this early period will be be remembered as perfectly predictable teething pains.

    I have a lot of sims on my machine, including Xplane in various flavors, and also The Drzeweicki designs verion of New York, which I've been using as a comparison with Aeroflys New York, and I have a note or two to pass on to whomever is concerned.

    Overall, I would say that the Aerofly New York has superior craftsmanship: No, (or very few) floating objects, bridges nicely detailed etc. But while Aerofly New York is a bit better on technical merits, DD's New York is much more recognizable as New York to anybody who was actually raised in or simply knows that city fairly well. This is entirely due to the texturing, as it becomes very clear eventually that probably for efficiency's sake, Aerofly uses a limited number of repeating textures. In doing so, however you unfortunately lose more than a bit of the unique "Flavor" of the city.

    Far too many iconic and well known landmarks share the same texture set, and buildings that people who know the city would be looking for are oddly hard to find because the textures that make them unique are simply wrong. The Grace building, Times square, Madison square garden, the Woolworth building, The hearst tower (which is so unique nobody could miss it) American radiator, the AT&T building..... There's a good sized list.

    Oh yeah, Citigroup Center seems to be flawless white, like something from Star trek. :D

    I understand that it would be painstaking to modify them all, but if a good representative number, with their distinctive and unique coloring could be "corrected" it would go a lot towards the authenticity of the effort, and is also something that might be kept in mind for future Aerofly cities.

    Just a heads up, and no idea if you have the resources to address it, but if not, maybe some modder will eventually see their way clear to sprucing up some of these landmarks.

    Heres hoping!

    http://ny.curbed.com/maps/new-york-…uildings-mapped
    http://www.nyc-architecture.com/MID/MID078.htm

    EDIT! I was also bemused to note that while the Statue of Liberty was nicely done, the nearly as important nearby Ellis Island was utterly bare, and that straight across from them, Governors island was unfinished. Again, maybe a target for an ambitious modder if the devs are otherwise occupied.