Posts by uoutoftoon

    So has anyone flown Switzerland DLC lately? For me it's be a few months and I need to get something clarified as I am noticing some seriously nice quality I never noticed before.


    Is it me or is this DLC just a whole new level since it was first released? Seriously, I have been enjoying the many new Helipads IPACS has delivered along with their awesome new R22 in the region and I can't for the life of me remember so many of the airports being upgraded as I am finding. Has this DLC been given some upgrade treatment over the past year?


    I mean look at the detail of Altenrhein in the attached screenshot. Reflective surfaces, benches, flowerboxes, photoreal and accurate to real-life buildings....this is not limited to this airport alone. It seems half of the airfields in the DLC are more sophisticated then I remember them months ago. So devs, am I imagining this or has much of this been improved without the fanfare I would think it should have received.


    I want the best for Aerofly and commend IPACS on the work they are doing. For $19.99USD Switzerland DLC is one heck of a value!and flying in Switzerland DLC recently with the R22 is a true joy.

    Ken,

    Great job on the South Florida TL add-on! I am totally enjoying the work you put into it. It certainly contributes to the immersion factor and, I would say, adds a little bit of that very much need "life out there" feel to the sim at night.

    Thanks from one appreciative simmer :thumbup:

    A shout out of commendation to the IPACS team that produced South Florida DLC. Having spent a lot of time recently with ORBX True Earth Netherlands and recently coming back to South Florida I found myself inadvertently comparing the two and wanted to say I am quite impressed; IPACS really has a lot to be proud of, even against the juggernaut that ORBX is.


    My post is about the little things. In both products above, the lack of taxiway and runway signage at most airports is something I would really like to see addressed in AFS2. It may just be me, but those little signs add a lot, especially lit up at night. Haven't they been a staple of flight simulators for a long time? They help me find my way around and just make a flat landscape a bit more dimensional. It seems to me that this could be one of those items that IPACS routinely implement in the near term while work continues on bigger features. I'm sure it means going back to default scenery and already released DLC and doing updates of the product, but I hope that will happen regardless. If that is not on the table, I would like to request IPACS consider adding signage as standard in future products. Sometimes the little things can make a big difference in how a product is perceived and the lack of signage at airports has always made the sim feel more unrefined than those of us who love AFS2 know it to be.

    The windfarm is a unique model created specifically for PSP...

    What great feedback Jarrad. To know more about the intricacies of development helps me appreciate even more the quality of work we are treated to in this scenery pack. Thanks for keeping the performance high, now I get why animating the wind farm was not done. Keep up the good work!

    Works somewhat as you would want, yet this is dependent on aircraft as some switches are not mapped yet. I would say it is about 50% usable. For example in the C172, lights work but magnetos, avionics, and pitot don’t. I hope, and expect, this to slowly improve as IPACS continues to implement functional aircraft knobs and switches.

    Just a question that has been on my mind regarding the camera chase view (especially the one where you can pan around the aircraft). Why is it that it is fixed to the airplane and not just a steady cam? When the airplane shakes due to wind or thermals the camera also moves with it causing a distracting movement to the entire scenery - to my eye this looks very unnatural.


    I have followed other threads on this forum about future improvements that simulate cockpit shake, rattle and roll. What I have read makes sense that within the cockpit IPACS wants to virtualize the entire aircraft shaking not just a head cam shake, but with some of the outside views I really find myself not wanting the camera to be attached to the plane and rather want it steady so I can watc the plane itself move about independent of my view.


    I ask my question as to why it is fixed in part because I have read some reviews by simmers who fly XPlane that are critical of AFS2 flight dynamics - I often see their posts being directed at the external camera and how unnatural the aircraft looks flying through the air. If I am correct in XP the camera is stationary in some external views and the plane is free to move about while the scenery stays steady giving what I find to be more enjoyable.


    Any thoughts from the devs or other users? Is this just the way it has to be, or is there room to modify this should it be something others want to see changed.

    I like Aerofly cause I am:

    - free from the frustrations of stutters

    - free from the monotony of Land-class based scenery

    - free from endless hours of config tweaking

    - free from reality (VR is just that good)

    - free from poor textures as aircraft and scenery by IPACS has a high standard for quality

    - free to use zoom and actually see what is in the distance

    - free to change time and visibility so readily

    - free to enjoy more flight time as fast load times and relocation of aircraft is speedy

    - free to enjoy variety in life, as the robust fleet of default aircraft with continual improvements is notably strong

    - happy to support the efforts of a team that has proven itself sincerely dedicated to the community and does incorporate our suggestions!

    +1, Thanks to IPACS - this one is fun to fly. I may not have noticed it before, but I can even shut the bird down and start up as well as fiddle with more of the gizmos on board!

    theveyre is right - it is the pan speed associated with the assignment of Pan to the POV hat switch on my Saitek Yoke that I am inquiring about.


    You are correct the mouse pan is indeed very responsive, the hat switch pan is so agonizingly slow in comparison. Perhaps it is just some hard coded computation for the sensitivity of that key assignment. The exterior pan feels about right. Changing the "sensitivity" in the control panel for my yoke does not improve things.

    Good day Devs,


    Did anyone have a chance to look into if we could speed up the pan of the camera in virtual cockpit?

    Jeff, had to edit my last post a bit, so perhaps re-read as I found my initial optimism was a bit premature. Attached is my problem Main.mcf (changed extension to .txt)


    *Indeed the (I) information panel is the toggle between a problem and no problem for me - weird :S

    So, I did a reinstall of drivers and deleted Main.mcf - this resolved the issue but only when the (I) Information Panel was active. If I turned it off the whole transparent/flashing thing began. With the panel active the problem was still evident when using Camera (3) (exterior no plane) and facing into the sun...the flashing began and it was transparent (so you may try that view Jeff if you are having a hard time replicating).


    No, TrackIR. Using Steam edition.

    Confirmed NVIDA control panel in default state.


    Hope that helps.


    *I tried putting back the problem Main.mcf in place of the new clean one and that indeed recreated the problem. I can attach that for you if that would help you troubleshoot.

    Good day,


    I seem to be having some erratic behavior with the moving map (M) after the recent updates. I wanted to report what I am getting, but also ask what I should expect. Is the map supposed to be translucent or solid? The translucent is hard to read, but the flashing (see below) is obviously an issue.


    In cockpit view Moving map will

    a. Flash rapidly if POV is facing into the sun

    b. Be very translucent and difficult to read when not facing the sun

    c. Be solid (as it used to be months ago) and very readable at two very narrow unique pan points (@45 degrees L/R behind the pilot, not related to sun direction)

    - see attached pics


    *I am using OGL, most settings Ultra, and have tried different shadow options with similar results. I have 1060 card with updated graphics drivers and tried removing some config files as suggested in other posts but problems persist.


    In external view I tend to just get the translucent map. On some flights I am finding it starts translucent and then changes over to a solid map. What is up, is it just my rig? What is it supposed to look like - I thought I read somewhere IPACS was making the map more translucent due to user request - is that true?


    Thanks for any insight or comparisons from other users :thumbup:

    My thanks to IPACS for their outstanding update in July 2018! This update included the addition of Hide/Show yoke click spots in applicable aircraft. Not only does it function as I was hoping,to provide better visibility of gauges and switches for those of us who like that option, but they went so far as to make each yoke hide independently in aircraft that feature a co-pilot seat. This attention to detail and response to user feedback/requests is something we should recognize and commended them on!


    Long live AFS2!

    Jeff,

    It seems apparent the restoration of a clean main.mcf file is a reliable solution for a number of graphical issues. I wonder if consideration might be given to incorporating some automated means, from within Aerofly, to click a tab to "reset/rebuild main.mcf" or something of the sort. Not that it is hard to find the file and do it manually but it may be a convenience of help for many users and a way for folks to self troubleshoot. Just a suggestion to consider. One of the things I enjoy most about Aerofly is trouble free operation and no config tweaks.