Posts by Ozav8r

    totally agree! I have never flown the boeing 737, but I know that happens. The problem here is different. Try to take off this aircraft, and just when you feel you need to apply more back pressure, pull it full back!! Nothing happens, the attitude does not change, and thats not real!!!

    Thank you for your reply :)


    Hi Mario,

    Just given the 737-500 a whirl, and I see exactly what you mean! It's not right, but sounds like the good folks at Aerofly is onto it!.


    Also want to chime in and sing the praises of the Aerofly team for this big update. I am absolutely gob-smacked at how smooth it now runs in VR on the Oculus using Open GL. Got the black screen trying out Vulcan but haven’t had the time to try out different drivers etc. Having said that - currently no need or inclination to waste time on it. This is Perfection in VR you guys!! Love it, love it, love,it!!!

    Hi, nice work on this update. I am very happy that the boeing 737 lands really good now. But, during take off, specifically on rotation, the attitude still stuck so you can not reach a 15 degree attitude smoothly. Please take note of that. The take off on the A320 is OK. Thank You!!


    First Officer LATAM Boeing 787

    Haven’t had a chance to play much with Aerofly since the big update as I’ve been out on trips, but if what you describe in that you have troubles reaching 15 degree attitude for take-off “smoothly”, that sounds like they’ve NAILED it;-) Been a long time since I flew the 737 on the line, but that’s exactly how I remember it. You reach stagnation in rotation at around 8-10 degrees with an even backpressure, and it requires an extra “haul back” on the yoke to get it through to where you need it for rotation. I transitioned to A330 about a year ago, but spent the last 8 years before that on the 777 and it also exhibits some of the same characteristics in rotation - it would happily waffle along with the nose 10 degrees up during rotation, unless you made a concerted (that got turned into sub-conscious with “experience in type”) effort to bring the nose through stagnation in rotation.

    Hello Ozav8r, you can always e-mail me at: if you need additional help. Please provide me your date of purchase and (name used) and I will check your customer status. Looks like you found your original file download, it happens to me also. P.S. Thank you! :)

    Thanks a lot for responding - much appreciated. I’m away from my rig at the moment, but will try to dig out the email ai received or at least narrow down the purchase date (I bought it within days of its release). Would the order/invoice details have been sent from the email address quoted in your message? I did however find the original compressed file I downloaded, so if there’s been no updates since it’s initial release, I’ll just dig out the sound files I need from there and re-install. Thanks again!

    Do we know if Aaron has updated any of the files? Haven’t had a chance to re-install it yet, but found that particularly the Corsair engine sound is really “gutless” compared to what I’d expect the big mother-of-all-radial engines ought to sound like. I actually might use the engine sound from the Bucker Jungmeister as a replacement - inaccurate but way better sounding than the Corsair.

    So I wanted to re-install these sounds after the large update, but cannot find the download I purchased from Skysong Soundworks on my hard-drive. Nor can I find any email from Skysong or log in on their web-site (their web-site doesn't know my email address as a known customer - I could swear I registered at the time of purchase?!?) Can anyone remind me what the name of the original file from Aaron was call so that I can search it up!

    18,5K in this table signifies pounds of thrust from the engines (per engine). So in this case it would be 18.500 pounds of thrust. It is a required value on certain types. Important information, because an airline might have different configuration engines within the same fleet, or there could be engine specifications where an engine can be de-rated at a keystroke in the FMS, depending on field length, ambient temperatures, surface condition and of course MAUW (Max All Up Weight - total brakes release weight). For example on the 737-800 I flew for a number of years, our fleet had 26K engine (26000 pounds of thrust) that could be de-rated to 24K by the flight crew. The reason this is desirable is that you only want to produce ENOUGH thrust to safely meet the requirements of the 4 take-off segments, so that you could AT ANY TIME suffer a loss of an engine and have enough residual momentum (speed of an object at a particular mass) and thrust reserve to climb at a pre-determined rate to clear all obstacles (read - not crash;-)). And the reason why you don’t want to produce thrust in excess of this, is purely economical. The more thrust you produce, the higher the internal thermal expansion in the engine and - the hotter it gets, the more wear ‘n tear and maintenance is required for the particular engine. There is also a slight increase in fuel burn of course, but most important in this context is ongoing maintenance and engine rotable components and hot section life.

    Cheers - Eivind

    Just some real-world input (I'm a former Q400 captain). The 25.000' "limitation" on the Q400 is not predicated on aerodynamic or engine capability. The Q400 is indeed the most massively overpowered aircraft I've ever flown, ( I spent the last 12 years on Boeing 737, 777 and A330, but their power to weight ratio at normal operating weights pales in significance to the Q400). The real reason the Q400 is not certified in most configurations to go above FL250 (25.000') is that most operators specify the aircraft with a less capable and cheaper passenger oxygen system and as most operations are on short or medium length sectors it just makes sense in dollar-terms. Hope that clarifies it. Cheers!

    "The next update will likely be the R22"

    Excellent news, getting my hands on a heli in Aerofly makes me giddy with excitement 😋

    They're aming for the pro market, not us desktop pilots. 100k is peanuts if it's a valid training tool.

    You’re exactly right. It’s a different market, but as the ambition level (and requirement in this professional market segment) is a flight model that realistically emulates the true nature of a R22 - it will certainly benefit all of us, once its released to the community. I truly hope that the good folks at IPACS are considering early (Alpha) release to get it into the hands (and get the feedback from) the wokka-wokka enthusiasts among us;-)

    I got a preliminary quote from Brunner for a complete VRMotion 200. They will ONLY sell it COMPLETE, including computer hardware and software, controls, seat HMD etc. You might like to sit down before you read on - US$ 100.000 to 110.000 was the price quoted!

    I have a very basic NextLevel motionbase going at the moment, but the realism it adds is quite amazing, particiularly combined with the Buttkicker and Gametrix JetSeat. Still use the Oculus Rift, but impatienly waiting for the Pimax 8k kickstarter pledge to come good. Currently looking at both the MotionSystemsEU 6DoF base, and an Australian manufacturer called CKAS. I’m sure the Brunner will be the “RollsRoyce” as it has force feedback controls etc. but I like to tinker and put stuff together myself, so the “completeness” of the Brunner platform doesn’t really appeal to me. I really like to get the R22 in Aerofly though, as helis is the only thing that has me coming back to to X-plane. There’s just so much beutiful scenery waiting to be explored in a rotary wing in Aerofly, so hoping an early access version isn’t TOO far away!

    I find it hard. I tried several times (and keep trying now and then) but it's so unstable in comparison to fixed-wing planes. I actually can fly it over a certain distance, but hovering and notably landing is quite hard.

    Add the fact that most of us (including me) don't have helicopter-specific hardware like collective and have to rely on poor substitutes.:(

    Kind regards, Michael

    I have just ordered and are about to receive a B206-collective but have had very good results on a adapted solution, using the CH-throttle quadrant as a collective, mounted sideways. Just got a very lightweight PVC tube as an extension, gaffer-taped to the handle on the unit itself. It looked wonky, but under the hood it doesn't matter right!?! Anti-torque pedals from VKB are fantastic, you'll find them on the store just north of $200. For a cyclic i have been using the Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS with an extension - not perfect, as it has a rather large springforce towards centre, but this is alleviated by the extension and kinda works OK.

    As any real helicopter pilot will tell you - “if you can fly a Robbie, you can fly anything!” The smaller they are, the less inherent stability they posess and a Robbie helicopter in Aerofly FS2 would be a VERY welcome indeed. Waiting with baited breath!

    I'm going on strike!! Gonna be sitting in the middle of KEGE runway with 747 until we have a chopper in AI'll

    I'm going on strike!! Gonna be sitting in the middle of KEGE runway with 747 until we have a chopper in AFS2 :evil:

    And I'll park an Airbus right behind you;-) The need for a chopper in Aerofly FS2 - any chopper, is now pressing and urgent! The ONLY reason I still occasionally return to to X-plane and P3D is for rotary wing flying. The stuff that is ready for exploration in Aerofly is stunning. C'mon developers - port across a 406 from X-plane, or a Robbie from P3D. Anything will do - and we'll pay top dollars for it as well!!