Posts by jcomm

    Can someone explain to me if in order to have an install of AEFS2 to it's most up-2-date version, but without having to install the huge "Utah" scenery which came with the updates, I can simply install AEFS2 and tick only "Switzerland" ?

    Or in order to receive those core updates made to scenery, I really need to push Utah too ?

    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...

    I can imagine that's true, since the Glider community still gravitates towards Condor. Especially with Condor V2 starting to be a real possibility.

    BUT, I still think Ipacs can win the Condor Community if they try with 5 good gliders and well modelled thermals. Simplly because VR wins.

    The complexity of both Condorsoaring and SilentWings soaring simulators in terms of modelling of the atmospheric effects / characteristics important to simulate soaring are incomparably higher than what the model used in a generic flight simulator like AEFS2 offers...

    AEFS has a small team behind, concentrating already in a certainly long list of todo items, so, this task, followed in different approaches by SilentWings and Condorsoaring ( btw. SW also has progress towards a v2 ! ), is certainly not going to happen in the next years, if ever, so, I as a glider pilot will keep choosing either SW or Condor. I use SW with medium resolution satellite scenery and it's very good to feed the algorithm in which thermal ( and other kinds of lift , etc... ) is modelled and Condor when I want to fly online with other virtual glider pilots - usually colleagues of mine all around the World during their low seasons...

    I see your point, but I also fear that the formidable performance we now have in AEFS2, and isn't anyway comparable to what I had in AEFS1 can be justified not only by better / optimized use of the processing power of modern GPUs, but also due to a cut in the complexity of the weather, systems and even flight dynamics modeling simulation. Damage modeling also suffered, IMO, a significant simplification.

    I would like to be told I'm wrong by the developers, but I do miss the feel of the aircraft in some aspects as they felt in AEFS1 ( only the default, because I never bought the add-ons ) as well as some weather effects, mainly turbulence, but also ridge lift.

    I wonder if the changes in the FDM, just like the changes in weather effects, namely turbulence and variability which I felt were better reproduced in AEFS1, result from a simplification of the original FDM.

    I am disappointed for instance with the prop effects, namely on how they reflect on yaw ( they practically don't ) and are present mainly in rolling moments. I also find the ground physics and for instance touchdown is too tame, no matter with what v/s you touchdown, the aircraft mostly staying without any bouncing, no damage, nothing like we had in AEFS1...

    Link to a post I just left at another thread.…obatics?p=39868#post39868

    Yesterday after the huge install, I decided to give all prop aircraft in AEFS2 a go...

    Picked the C172 for a start, then the Extra 300, the Pitts, ...

    I find, in pretty much all of them, practically no yaw due to prop effects. There's roll, though, somehow even reminding me a lot of X-Plane pre torque-bug fix...

    It puzzles me how an Extra 300 requires practically no rudder input to counter the prop torque/ slipstream / p-factor ... both during the takeoff run but also inflight at high AoA / high power settings ?

    In the C172 I can fly "all day long" under various regimes, with the T/C ball centered and requiring only rudder input during turns, due to adverse yaw ( ? )

    Even thought this might be caused by some sort of "auto-rudder" mode, but it doesn't look like so, unfortunately..., unless that option mentioned in the above linked post may have something to do with it ?

    Might this also be the reason why I find the Extra 300 so mild in prop effects during takeoff, and inflight ?

    Takeoff run with engine set to normal takeoff thrust requires practically no rudder to stay on course and steer up to rotation speed, and inflight power changes translate mostly into roll, on practically all prop aircraft in AEFS2, there being prcatcally no hints of yaw / sideslip.

    The "ball" in the C172 stays pretty much centered all of the time, from takeoff to high power climb. Roll is most noticeable effect, requiring yoke to counter, but when wings are level, the ball is centered ...

    These "features" remind me a lot of X-Plane pre torque-bug fix ( thx to Murmur's proof of inconsistency :-) )

    Tried to play with some config file settings for prop and propwash, but no great results....

    Apart from Aerofly FS 2 - which I do not even have installed - I presently own only IL2 Battle of... and DTG's recently released and already great FSW, but my position regarding AEFS2 is that of someone who can own a Bugatti but can't take it for work every day...

    It stays, at the garage, for special moments, special needs of the joy of driving a Bugatti...

    Will it be updated ? For sure it will, but not at the typical pace simmers expect programs and their developers to bring them news, and I am very badly trained on that by 1C / 777 and their incredible update rate on the IL.2 Battle of series.... but still, AEFS2 IS AEFS2, and has a potential that I can only compare to that of IL.2 and DCS World flight dynamics and performance wise...

    It's my Bugatti :-)


    I confess I am enthusiastic about the upcoming DTG offer, and wish them the best. It would be great to be able to have there a Game platform to continue on the FSX track, which is still, after all, a good one for many users.

    I am waiting on AEFS2 though, although I fear the progress around here might be rather slow compared to what will probably be offered at the start for DTG's flight simulator.

    Only "problem" is that both DTG FSW, and P3D share the core flight dynamics of MSFS, which not being bad at all is, nonetheless, inferior in potential to what I've seen as being already available to model aircraft and flight in AEFS2.

    AFAIC, major problem with AEFS 2 for me is the absence of a perpetual daylight and Moon phase and ephemeris model. Just as X-plane it is restricted to some date / year and can't give us, based on any date and time, a proper daylight, including Moon position and phase, model. A mandatory requirement for me in any flight Simulator...

    Just open any ground, approach and clean file and you'll understand approach and clean are only presets configurations. For instance flaps extended, gear down, landing lights on, etc. for approach ; gear up, flaps up, n% power, lights setting, etc. for clean.

    So, no different dynamics or flight model, and no blending necessary, just presets applied depending on whether you start a flight on ground, in-flight or in approach...


    Right! That's it - how stupid of me :-/ Should have opened one before posting, but just read the Wiki, and it somehow suggest it's used for the flight Dynamics too.

    Thank you!

    TMD files, apart from the main / default one, can be used to express flight dynamics properties under three states - ground, approach, clean.

    I've been thinking about this approach and the limitations it can impose.

    For a start, how do these states blend as transition from clean to approach takes place ?

    And, why was it necessary to separately / so discretely, define the flight dynamics according to these three states only ?

    Is a normally flown Airbus not just a computer game simulation anyway? Who cares what such a dead experience actually feels like? The South Atlantic tragedy shows the result of completely removing the true flying experience and pilot involvement. I always feel unease on an Airbus.

    I have to disagree Overloaded... It's a great aircraft, IMHO.

    Having flown the Full flightsyms ( Thales and CAE ) I do believe that it feels just like an ordinary aircraft designed to make pilot's life even easier than it already is on modern airliners.