Posts by W.B.

    1.It is called flight simulator, not aircraft failure simulator

    2.A320 is now providing GPWS, and it’s better than any default models in XP11, P3D etc.

    3.Many of the aircrafts provide option to start cold and dark and engine can certainty be turned off.

    4.I’m sure you know very little about what aerodynamics mean. Whatever you preferred as a real “flight simulator” doesn’t provide aerodynamics better than Aerofly in a perceivable scale by non-professional users.

    5.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.


    This has been a problem for quite some time (so it has nothing to do with the alpha update).

    I thought it will vanish with the next update, but it doesn’t. Any idea how to solve this issue?

    What I have watched happen is that new users come on board and are ecstatic (like me in January 2017). Over time these users become frustrated with the lack of progress and drift away, to be replaced by a new group who are in turn ecstatic, who then repeat the process. This has happened several times.

    And time after time there are always “users” trying to defend IPACS and criticize those who show their concerns, their worries, and misinterpret it as “a way to ask for what themselves demand”.

    Perhaps they are agents sent by Laminar Research or Lockheed to blind our developers and control the forum, so as to prevent Aerofly from true progress.:D

    Almost every time I start up Aerofly FS2 - I choose Steam "Offline Mode". What does it mean in this context? ;)

    As long as Aerofly FS2 does not have Multiplayer - "players online" is not very relevant. What matters - is whether IPACS is comfortable with the financial statements (income vs. expenses). My impression from the outside is that they have good control. And I support quality over quantity - even though I know that quality is time consuming.

    Steam has default settings of starting in online mode, most people won’t intentionally start offline. Even if many players launch Aerofly in offline mode, let’s thus multiply the number by 3, it still has only two digits. While the online player number for FSX and XP11 is usually between 1000-2000, I believe there’ll be quite a number of going offline so the number can be even larger, according to your theory, which still far outnumber ours.

    There might be quite some number of mobile players, which on the other hand makes IPACS “comfortable with their financial statement”, I guess. But don’t you afraid the PC version of Aerofly eventually turn into an HD mobile version? (That’s also what I hear from many simmers why they refuse to try Aerofly). And that’s what seems to be happening. I’m afraid this will lead PC version into a dead end because one day when the VR and frame rate advantages are caught up by other sims, what can drive IPACS to keep paying attention to PC considering their mobile version is so profitable while PC version has so few users?

    If you think that FSX / FSX-SE, P3D, X-Plane, etc. are better for you - then switch over.

    While we all want to see more users to switch to Aerofly, you tell the (already small) player group to switch over? Aerofly doesn’t have the privilege to be so arrogant as the player number is already pity. Each time I get access to steamdb, I’ll get shocked and frustrated because Aerofly is always the game with least players online on the list. Usually no more than 50 globally. GLOBALLY!!!

    Don’t reduce the circle any further, please. I would miss IPACS’s steak one day and by that day there may be no chance anymore.

    Do not be like rats lining up for a run at the hawse hole, but be supportive and encourage one another here. This is a good sim with a good group of developers and users. My thanks to all. :)

    We are constantly supporting Aerofly and the group, we defend Aerofly from insults from players of other sims and try to propagandize it to bring our sim more user, we buy nearly all addons even if some of them might actually not interest us to support the developers. However, blindly comforting the developers and suppressing different voice as you did is not favored, from my point of view.

    The team is small, I agree

    The works are hard, I agree

    There’re some intrinsic coding problems that cause some features hard to implement, I agree


    But so many years of no big features such as weather, ATC? Two years since they release any new scenery? The update now seems to become only once a year? And you now tell the users to shut up and keep the developers in some comfortable zone? I can sincerely tell you that being noisy is being supportive, because we are still interested, and we worry. You might be happy when one day this forum is silent, don’t you? And I favor the users to bring some stress to the devs, it’s a critical time in FS history, you being sluggish, you will be out of the game. No matter how many excuses you have.

    And I really hope IPACS can slap in my face and show me how naive and stupid those words are one day using their new product, maybe a brand new, powerful and beautiful Aerofly FS 3;).

    I have the same problem, occasionally. Airports area images seems to be intentionally lowered in Aerofly to create a flat ground. So that’s model loading failure, not elevation problem. Last time it occurs to me in LAX, along with all autogens.

    Try reentering the game and the problem should be solved.

    You can’t expect Aerofly downloading to take fully advantage of your bandwidth. The present speed (around 4-5Mb/s) is already improved and in my opinion, is generous. The downloading speed used to be 300-400kb/s and it took more than two days when I first downloaded Aerofly.

    Learning from steam database, there are usually no more than 50 people simultaneously in Aerofly, while the figure for X-plane or FSX is at least 1k. That’s sad.

    What’s even more sad is that I feel the PC version is becoming just an HD version for mobile one. This is quite understandable because, after all, IPACS has limited resources and they need to run a business. What this actually reflects is that we don’t get enough third party support. But look at the figure above, no wonder we can’t get support. No player->no developer->no player->...... I just hope one day Aerofly can break this loop.

    Another specific problem is how scenery is made in Aerofly. Pure photorealistic scenery does bring a lot trouble. Let’s take the example of the latest Paris VFR. I heard many complains about lack of reasonably detailed airport(especially LFPG) in this scenery that blocks the players from buying it. To make a scenery in Aerofly you need to do both airports and scenery while in the other simulators you only need to do one. A lack in either of the two features will incur refusal from customers, especially those who are new to Aerofly or has potential to try Aerofly. Somebody may mention fscloudport: There’s no deny that it’s a brilliant website but I’m sure most people prefer airports with taxiways. I wish IPACS(if possible) can develop some kind of kit as shown in the previous airport episode of Microsoft simulator preview. The edit of airports in it is so convenient.

    And by the way, speaking of orbx, I met an issue that in TE NL, the sim would not obliterate the buildings in distance that I already passed by. That causes after around thirty minutes of flight, the frame rate drops from 150fps to 40-50 FPS because almost the whole country is loaded. I can even see from Amsterdam to Rotterdam at 1000ft. Is there a way to solve this problem?

    Incredible! The giant city looks so nice at both day and night. Looking forward to see more great sceneries from this amazing developer group.

    The only problem is that maybe texture for taxiway and runways can be added for LFPG later? It even has very nice terminal and it’s a little bit sad that this lack of feature makes it one step from perfect.

    I feel that this survey is a playground of a clique with some members such as xplane, orbx and those frequent participants in the FSexpo. Only less than 18k respondents (and the respondents are majorly their customers). The number of FS players in my country alone is more than that, and I doubt 99% of them didn’t take that survey. Not to mention many in others.

    They list infinite flight, xpmobile but surprisingly didn’t add Aerofly mobile as an option. Clearly Aerofly mobile has great number of users. I don’t know how much did infinite flight and XP fund this survey but I’m afraid this survey is with bias and intend to guide the market and customers to fit the interests of certain developers. These statistics are far from convincing to depict a map of the whole FS market.

    So to IPACS teams and all Aerofly enthusiasts: don’t be bothered by this result, one subjective and limited survey absolutely can’t deny the fact that Aerofly is a great sim and the future is hopeful. But on the other hand I do feel Aerofly need to advertise itself more.