3, but 1 is a close 2nd place...
I look at Deadstick as a possible month long vacation each year from AFS2 or 3 while I go flying in the back country of Alaska. I am not getting any younger
Awesome video, Ray -- thanks for posting!
Here is another aircraft for krzysk to add to his project list: a bush plane with a 980 hp Pratt and Whitney turbine:
The Draco is a custom built job with extensive modifications.
Manually tweaking the AO seems to be the best solution. I've brightened everything up and I think I've reached a decent middle ground. I'll definitely be tweaking this a lot more (and redoing some parts that didn't bake correctly) but I'm happier with the results.
Yes, that looks great!
Even if the real aircraft doesn't have aileron trim it should still be added for user comfort. Take the Camel or Jungmeister for example, it's nice to be able to trim them out for level flight, even though you would probably have to hold aileron in the real aircraft.
I agree with this, and I will again beat that dead horse for allowing mouse flight control as in FS 1. In that app, I never had to worry about messing with trim because if the aircraft deviated from level flight when the mouse was centered on the screen, I just nudged it in the direction needed to offset the deviation. For example, for nose high deviation just move it forward a bit and for nose low nudge it back. Right wing low? Move the mouse to the left just enough to offset the deviation, and vice versa for left wing low. This so much easier than clicking cockpit controls or pressing key strokes to trim the elevator and ailerons.
And before someone points out (yet again) how the mouse is needed to click on all those clickable controls in the cockpit, I will simply say I fly FS 2 aircraft and never use the mouse to do that at all (excepting for the rare case where that is the only alternative), preferring instead to setup keystroke controls for doing the required action. It seems to me that the decision to disable mouse flight control in FS 2 to monopolize it for clicking about the cockpit is an example of the tail wagging the dog...
And as I have pointed out previously, for people who actually prefer clicking on cockpit controls, it is possible to have a keystroke for toggling between the two modes: cockpit mouse control and flight mouse control. I can't see a good reason for taking a way one control mode, when both can be accommodated.
I only fly planes from inside the cockpit: I have the idea a lot of people like to fly the planes while magically hovering in the air, somewhere behind the plane, and in that case these models may be fine already! But not for my kind of flying. )
The only downside to cockpit flying is the cockpit covers so much of that beautiful Aerofly FS 2 scenery. Of course, that doesn't matter too much in this kind of flying where attention to the instrument panel is kind of mandatory:
Here is an update. I decided to just download aircraft and scenery again, rather than trying to transfer files from the previous version of Aerofly's package contents. Using the two paths above, I have been able to install aircraft repaints and scenery successfully.
Any Aerofly update path should simply just update files included in that build, but for caution you should still just back up your add-on folder just in case (even copy the folder onto your desktop). But to directly answer your question, no update should alter your add-on folders.
Didn't work, but see below.
On Mac OS you should not put user sceneries into the actual app folder. Instead use
/Users/YOUR USER NAME/Library/Containers/com.aerofly.aerofly-fs-2-mac/Data/Library/Application Support/Aerofly FS 2/addons
/Users/YOUR USER NAME/Library/Containers/com.aerofly.aerofly-fs-2-mac/Data/Library/Application Support/Aerofly FS 2/scenery
I just installed the new version, and none of my installs are showing up. So the problem now will be transferring the installs in the old version into the new file structure you are advising. But once that is working, it will be a much simpler setup to maintain for doing installs.
I see now that both of the target paths already exist on my Mac, but I had been creating the addons folder in the User's documents folder (as instructed by several authors), not in the user library. That is probably why it didn't work.
Thanks for the help! I always felt opening the package contents was not the right way to go.
On the Macintosh platform, the only way I have found to install add-on scenery and aircraft is to "Show Package Contents" of the Aerofly FS 2 application, navigate to the scenery or aircraft folder, and install the appropriate files there. If I create an Aerofly FS 2 add-ons folder in documents, and put the install files there, they don't load, probably because the Mac FS 2 app never looks there (as all files are self-contained in the app's package contents).
My question is this: if I install the new version for the mac (Version 2.4.11) will that create a completely new application what does not include my installed add-ons? Or will the installer look at the old version (2.4.5) and transfer the add-on files I have put there to the package contents of the new version? It obviously makes a big difference to me, as I would not want to have to reinstall all the add-ons again. It took several weeks of work to build...
Although I don't have a motion platform yet I'd like to get one if I had the money for it because your argument about visual capture omits some aspects of flight simulation in a home environment. Your experience may be true for full scale flight Simulators or home cockpits where 🧒 have hardware for every button and switch in the real plane and thus can watch the outside view while turning knobs or flicking switches that are not within your line of sight. But in a VR motion setup you have to look at a switch directly to be able to use it. If you're flying in turbulent conditions your aircraft attitude might change without you noticing because you are staring at a gauge and don't see the outside while you are doing it this. I often found myself in a 45 degree bank or 20 degree pitch up after tuning in a new radio frequency because I couldn't see the horizon move while staring at the radio stack. To realize that you're leaving straight ant level flight in this case you'd need some kind of physical feedback, either from a motion platform or a control loading yoke, or even better both. That's why I think motion platforms should still be supported in the future.
I do not have a VR setup and have never tried one out, so my arguments don't apply to that case. But I can say that the full motion simulator I flew did not convey anything but tilt information (and some shaking to simulate turbulence), and I didn't find that added much to the experience I had from just looking out the window.
But if the VR folks want it supported, I can't argue with that.
The Mac OS has a nifty feature, where you can hold the control-key down and scroll to zoom in (and out) on a specific area of the screen. So you could expand the Flight Information display selectively, although other areas in the image may expand off the screen. But it would allow you to temporarily zoom in on a particular piece of information, and then zoom back out again. Here is an example of a zoomed image:
I don't know if Windows has a similar capability. If not, an app might be available to do the same thing.
That was precisely what I had just finished building after months of development when the SDK changed and I never got to use it. My '007 G-Seat' is just a chair now.
Well, that is one way to do it!
I have experience flying a P3 Orion with the full-size motion simulator at Brunswick NAS, and the motion information provided by the tilting platform does little to convey the G-forces involved in flying. It does provide feedback to the vestibular system about tilt, but that is a limited subset of the motion-related information involved in maneuvering an aircraft. And the visual system provides excellent information about tilt that can be so convincing we experience "movement" even when sitting in a stationary chair. This is due to the phenomenon of "visual capture" where vision dominates the other senses when contradictory information is conveyed to the perceptual system: for example, when the visual display of the flight sim shows the aircraft is turning, but the vestibular sense says the pilot is not turning. A good account of this effect is here:
Systems designed for home computer systems would be even more limited than those used by the major airlines, and would appeal to a limited market as well. So I am not sure this is an area IPACS should assign a high priority given other pressing demands. Just my two cents.
I'm thinking the Wilga should also be a good STOL package for all those short and high Lukla airports.
Yes a "typical" landing speed of 30 mph for an aircraft that large and heavy is amazing -- those two wings must generate a lot of lift!
The An-2 should be an outstanding addition to our Aerofly FS2 fleet. Wait 'til you see how much is packed into the cockpit - all for the single pilot.
Yes, the An-2 would be a great addition to the FS 2 fleet!
We have an aerodynamically stable and flyable aircraft.
That's right, the Spitfire no longer thinks it's a rocket destined for Mars.
All praise Jan!
So this is now working in FS 2? When is the release date? It looks great!
I was going to try to create terrain scenery for the Edmonds, WA area including Paine Field (if possible). But my searching suggests Aeroscenery is only available for the Windows platform. If that's not true, could someone let me know? And if it is true, how much work would it be for one of the members in this forum to do it for me?