Posts by BG2518-Bob

    It is all very hobbyist and niche and doesn't bode well for the future of what I envisaged as a professional flight sim.


    As an end user I'm happy to pay for professional scenery that has the ability for others to fly within the same environment with the same visuals.


    I say this because a multi-user sim is where this has to end up if it ever is to viable long term. Otherwise it'll stay hobbyist.

    Here you go.....


    Throne Thumper



    Much better than ButtKicker


    Also "mirroring" of audio is built in to win 10.

    SOUND

    RECORDING

    STEREO MIX

    Go look it up.


    Also use Adobe Audition or similar to edit various aircraft sound files to increase bass component and relative volumes as you see fit.


    AWESOME experience.


    BG2518-Bob.

    Its a shame multiplayer VR hasn't been given the attention it deserved to attract and retain users. Well, I think you've missed a trick on this one as folk are finding Multiplayer VR in P3D and/or FlyInside via joinfs to be functioning well. The USP of VR in a sim you had is rapidly running away as a lonely activity. I am feeding this info back from the various groups of folk I know.

    Do you see the Aerofly FS 2 program starting and then shutting down or is it not even appearing?

    It was not even appearing.

    When Aerofly starts a log file is generated in your user documents (tm.log). Usually at the end you can find what caused Aerofly to crash if it actually did.

    That wasn't helping.

    Also check your graphics card drivers, they are usually the issue.

    It wasn't the issue.

    Sorry for that. We have fixed this issue in the latest build.

    This was the issue I assume i.e. at your end.


    Note:

    I saw the update happen (very quick small update initially) and it was after that that I tried running the program.

    Even after a full reboot - no change.

    I had to "verify" all the files of the app.

    No message of any errors after 30 mins or more of verification but the app now works.


    Awful.


    But now working again.

    Sir, Yes sir! :) He has valid points and a lot of experience on both platforms so I was just going leave it at that anyway.


    But the purpose of this thread is to show that there are plenty of sims out there today and people tend to chose their favorite and only that one sim and stick with it. Knowing the pros and cons of the current sim platforms can help users to take a step back and look at the variety of sims that we have and try multiple platforms. I'm quite happy that there are multiple platforms out there and we aren't stuck with the issues of one particular software, we can just use another sim and enjoy it's benefits.


    Obviously Aerofly should eventually be the best platform out there with as few issues as possible :) I think knowing the competitors well and learning from their mistakes can help Aerofly succeed.

    Actually, the original purpose of this thread was simply to inform for the value of IPACS and us users and in no way do I consider that polite "Discussion" thereafter is a sim war. Jeff, you have this wrong my friend.

    All the flightsims may come at once but none offer what I want. Aerofly has the best performance but lacks a lot of things and some of what it misses won't be here anytime soon: I don't expect for instance a good weather engine within a few years. Seriously. I am beginning to doubt if I want to wait that long and if I can stay entertained with what it offersright now. I already noticed that I quit flights before I land because I get bored. Other sims may have things I want but lack performance. Or good looks. Or good VR support. But even good VR isn't too good, really: current VR tech is nice but not good or great.


    Yes, I am becoming a bit negative lately when it comes to flightsims.

    I have felt exactly the same and it's probably because I O/D'd on virtual flying over a number of years.


    J van E, if it helps, I found that if I put simming down for a week or two every so often this regenerates my interest and a small flight is all I need thereafter for my fix!


    I'm finding VR multiplayer with our group to be the most rewarding thing of all and P3Dv4 does that well via "JoinFS". Our group does this twice a week in the most interesting of places in the world where one of us produces a flight plan for the "1 hour flights" and then also does some minimal research about the area and then gives us all a mini lecture amid lewd jokes and general laughs.


    It's good for the soul.


    We all so much want to do this via IPACS.

    I was simply showing the range of possibilities via voice and that is an OPTION for the user.


    Nobody has to work the way the commands allow.


    As I said I'm all for CHOICE.


    I see I have none with my request and I'm considered mad because my PC heats up like the devil's playground itself when 2.0 setting is used. Perhaps that will change when I change my PC for about another £5k at Xmas.


    I know through my experience with Carenado Aircraft in P3Dv4 in VR where the pitfalls will be for glass cockpit operation in VR and IF AeroFly want to help their users in the future regarding fast accurate control of such devices then my thoughts are an option to use or not. And NO, don't use IF you've something better up your sleeve which I'm happy to eventually see.


    I'm all for "as real as it gets" and will happily nod to my keyboard to change frequencies in my glass cockpit in the AeroFly future if necessary. Just saying, I don't have to do that in P3Dv4 NOW if I don't want to.


    In case of doubt, I am chilled and love AeroFly.


    BG2518-Bob.

    The Q400 on setting 2 is SO much clearer for the 30 seconds I dare use it.


    The CDU would be impractical to work with leaned in or not.


    The VR view also needs a "freeze" facility so one can work with whatever controls without the effect of the environmental movement.


    It's "feedback"


    BG2518-Bob

    You STRONGLY recommend to leave that setting at 1 in the program and I KNOW from experience of using it how good the higher value can be and I KNOW also WHY you don't recommend changing it as it fries the GPU (even a 1080). So, on my medium based PC I'll do what you say in the game and not above.


    In the meantime, would it actually hurt to incorporate the zoom facility in the VR environment for those who don't want to use their PC to make toast?


    Plus to be "close" to the area of concern for controlling that e.g. a GPS is almost a necessity. Why would I want to / have to lean in to get that ability to control it?


    Not arguing on how you may want us to use it, just giving "honest" feedback from a practical user.


    :)


    BG2518-Bob.

    FY interest a vid I did when I first started this in P3D.



    So, you can get an idea of where I'm going but obviously I'm focused solely on and in VR now.


    The concept of a Co-Pilot I think is still cool but not 100% necessary and not all the abilities shown are actually needed e.g. throttle control but could help those with disabilities enjoy FS2 of course.


    Cheers.


    BG2518-Bob

    Sorry if the title sounds complicated but what I'm doing isn't really. I'll explain so I can ask my question.


    I have a full set of functionality from voice control within P3Dv4 currently via the key bindings that that sim uses.


    I'm trying to implement as much of that for AeroFly FS2 and will have a lot of questions sometime later, please.


    For the moment, I'd like to ask IF the simple 2D functionality of the ZOOM (function/action) can be implemented into the VR environment. This is NON-Functional at the moment but IS within P3Dv4 and IS VERY VERY useful.


    As you'll be aware, the resolution within Oculus isn't as great as one would hope for and operation of various cockpit switches/controls generally is more difficult in VR than it can be IF some "quick" zoom functionality is available. That is what I have in P3Dv4 and, trust me it works fantastically via voice control.


    E.G. "Zoom In (a bit, a lot, more)", "Zoom Out (a bit, a lot, more".


    This just about one of the most simplest functions that have a considerable positive practical upshot.


    Other questions are likely to be based on the nature of the function i.e. if it is "toggle" like G for gear or can or should be based on a detection of state so voice commands can reliably say things like "Gear UP" or "Gear DOWN" and be certain of the result. Do you see?


    Anyway, this is all very satisfying currently with some obvious wishes so it can work that much better.


    Cheers.


    BG2518-Bob.