Jan, I was looking the new MS Flight Simulator. It's impossible not to compare, and I realized how the clouds does the different in the general graphics.
Any chance to new clouds, even new textures?
The first rule of FS2 Club is you do not talk about MSFS Club !!!
But since you already have lol they may be pretty clouds but you can't fly through them inverted. Next!!
For me, cockpit shadows are the only unrealistic element.
The only solution that I can see is to reduce the shadow quality in main.mcf to 1
<[int32][graphics_quality_shadow][1]>
main.mcf is located at ~/Library/Application Support/Aerofly FS 2
With me it works without problems.
Yes there was a 7.8 MB download and now works well. An awesome machine.
Unfortunately on a Mac, the EC135 is no longer functional for me, neither alpha nor beta.
I've tried trashing main.mcf but still the impressive 3d Stop sign. The R22 works very nicely though.
The trouble seems to begin here:
1.71-tmmodelmanager: loading dynamics begin 'ec135'...
1.73-tmfile_properties: WARNING: property 'EventModeSwitchedOffLateral' is not a member of type 'mode_annunciator_ec135' hash=11805263664507508915.
1.73-tmfile_properties: WARNING: property 'EventModeSwitchedOffVertical' is not a member of type 'mode_annunciator_ec135' hash=4096542859514932704.
1.73-tmfile_properties: property |EventModeSwitchedOffLateral| not found in this context |mode_annunciator_ec135|
1.74-tmfile_properties: property |EventModeSwitchedOffVertical| not found in this context |mode_annunciator_ec135|
1.74-tmmodelmanager: ERROR: object 'CDU' not found
Safe return is brilliant, although AFAIK it is not traffic-aware and cannot respond to ATC instructions.
I think Garmin G3000 & Safe Return in Cirrus Vision G2 is the first to be traffic aware via ADS-B and alerts ATC though yes it seems it will select the safest flightpath and not respond to ATC vectors although given the documented capabilities, that would seem to be achievable without too much difficulty.
When someone hits the button, the system selects the airport that has the best combination of runway length and a clear approach relative to the weather conditions. It then steers the airplane on a descent, alerting local traffic and air traffic control to the emergency via preprogrammed text and spoken-word messages it can voice itself over the radio. It deploys the landing gear, adjusts the flaps to maintain lift as the airspeed slows, and uses precision GPS, along with radar information, to bring it down at the exact right spot. Though the system can shut down the engine if necessary—important for aircraft with spinning propellers—Cirrus elected to keep its single engine running after the stop, since it is mounted on top of the aircraft and thus won’t hurt anyone approaching or exiting the plane. This keeps the climate control active inside and allows for taxiing if the pilot or passengers are able to do so.
Perhaps we could ask a little bit less than true aviator competence from George? If he would do what the captain wanted he would have fewer altitude and speed violations in controlled airspace and he would be safer in terrain more mountainous than Southern Florida
.
Perhaps George has a new higher qualification pending?
Maybe so 
It crossed my mind that Co-pilot Reckless George Shirtpants has already been reprimanded and cut back on the hard spirits before flight. He seems to be a little less reckless although I can't be sure.
That's a very interesting idea. However, given that no commercial aircraft manufacturer has managed that yet - if they had they would be offering single-pilot cockpits - it's perhaps more a subject for doctoral research than a realistic feature request for IPACS. FS2 would be an excellent platform to demonstrate such an AI copilot, in the same way that DARPA recently demonstrated a (fairly basic) AI fighter pilot.
There's now the Safe Return feature option on the Garmin G3000 which performs Emergency Autoland in the Cirrus Vision G2 & other aircraft types. That level of capability allows the possibility for single pilot operation.
I've flown with Xavion on an iPad around my local airports. Conducting simulated emergency landings, it certainly adds to situational awareness and confidence which I think would be magnified in a real emergency.
As you say, FS2 would be an excellent platform to demonstrate & reinforce emergency as well as normal flight procedures. It's not a stretch to imagine that possibility in the future.
This is Safe Return in the Vision G2.
I'm wondering, what does the video have to do with the thread? It only distracts from the actual question and it doesn't even refer to Aerofly.
Fair enough. I guess I was trying to show a professionals view of how real simulated systems are. Wrong sim I guess but that would be very interesting to see - real pilots examining the best of realism in Aerofly.
Flight simulators are, by definition, all about the replication of conditions, requirements and procedures of real-world flight. Of course the focus in Light Aircraft GA & Military is more on performing Stick & Rudder VFR oriented manoeuvres & procedures while the Heavy Aircraft simulation realism is based more in the detailed replication of NAV, Autopilot & other IFR related systems.
One feature of FS2 that has always interested me is George the co-pilot. Observing his airmanship skills or quite often his complete lack & disregard is both interesting and at times amusingly curious.
FS2 has a huge advantage here. With refinement, after sending George back to flight school - and a reduction in salary - George the co-pilot could demonstrate real-world procedures as skilfully & accurately as possible, at least in some scenarios but hopefully available at all times to demonstrate gold standard airmanship. Of course, a skill adjustment slider could work well too, demonstrating exactly what not to do :? Maybe not I guess.
The point is the FS2 is more versatile than ever now, as physically & visually accurate as always but now also procedure realism adds another dimension. How can it get better?
Don’t blame your hard landing to the sim, blame your maneuvering. In fact the high frame rate in Aerofly gives you better control of the aircraft when it comes to subtle control. You certainly can’t perform a beautiful landing in a 20fps- orbx TE KSEA in XP11.
Precisely right. Knowing the aircraft, airport, ie. wx, pressure altitude, ground effect, spoiler efficiencies if equipped, sink rate at throttle approaching idle etc & so much more in the realm of airmanship. To me that seems well duplicated in AF2 with aircraft types I've flown. Next most important factor - frame rate. So having flown XP, AF and real for years, AF2 feels more like reality not even considering the huge VR frame rate advantage in AF2. Realistic SIDs & STARSs, traffic, ATC, dynamic wx etc & just maybe there'd be no question as to which is maximum reality.
During replay or during normal flight?
I had to check - during replay not during flight.
Is it just me or did somebody forget to fasten the Fenestron hub cover?
Fortunately it seems to have a bungee cord safety attachment.
Aerofly FS is designed for beginners to get right in and fly without being overwhelmed by settings and configurations. Having only the basic settings also keeps everyone uniform and to avoid potential performance issues.
Please keep in mind, even though you may be more experienced with flight simulators there are many that are just starting out and would get into trouble quickly if there were many settings to mess with.
I wasn't meaning to suggest that all of them should be visible. I'd say Vulkan toggle & Shadow quality wouldn't be likely to get many or any into trouble.
Actually I think HDR toggle makes more sense than Vulkan toggle but possibly both would be helpful to many and not difficult to grasp. Of course I follow your reasoning either way.
FS2 is visually spectacular although exaggerated or incorrect graphics & effects settings & defaults greatly detract from that experience.
I’ve tried quite a few combinations on my setup and seem to have found a balance of realism vs frame rate. Cockpit shadows with some settings & aircraft are particularly exaggerated & unrealistic due in part to over contrast.
Questions:
Why hide these settings in main.mcf ? Why not put them in the UI like say in Settings ? And have several defaults & possibly Auto calibration ?
>
<[int32][graphics_frame_rate][0]>
<[int32][graphics_quality][2]>
<[bool][graphics_use_custom_settings][true]>
<[int32][graphics_quality_texture][2]>
<[int32][graphics_quality_terrain_mesh][2]>
<[int32][graphics_quality_terrain_images][2]>
<[int32][graphics_quality_shadow][4]>
<[int32][graphics_quality_map_resolution][2]>
<[int32][graphics_quality_obj_density][2]>
<[int32][graphics_quality_msaa][2]>
<[bool][graphics_trees_enabled][true]>
<[int32][graphics_quality_tree][2]>
<[vector2_float64][graphics_glass_transparency][0.1 0.75]>
<[bool][graphics_hdr_enabled][true]>
<[float64][graphics_hdr_strength][0.3]>
<[float64][graphics_content_scale_factor][1]>
<[bool][graphics_show_pilot_body][false]>
<[bool][graphics_use_vulkan][true]>
<[bool][graphics_vulkan_mt_display][true]>
<[bool][graphics_vulkan_mt_smr][true]>
Feels real. Very impressive.
Having had some freaky spiders in my cockpit for real, it's this shadow that I want gone :0
I am not talking about embedded music but the ability to load in your own choices and with an on or off switch like in Vehicle Simulator.
Like in Steam ???
For noobs like me... What exactly does this do?
I could be wrong but it seems to be a currently supported replacement for depreciated Saitek panel software. I think that is for more complex panel setups?
I have a Saitek X65F stick and throttle which seems to work perfectly with FS2 as is.
only Rudder Pedals you need
I have some old ones can't even remember what they are. They always seemed to be the weakest link in realistic control without feedback - even more so than the stick.
