Glad to see that ORBX is not dead for AFS2
A few weeks ago I saw their CEO stating in one of the posts of their forum that they have formed the team to build the Aerofly version TE Britain.
“The team has been formed and they have begun preliminary work.”
Surely orbx is not dead for Aerofly.
Everything can't be completed in the first two days. Time will tell. I was actually wondering about your call sign. Has anyone mentioned weight and balance?
Hi Ray,
Fuel and weight should come as one because they interact with each other closely. An isolated fuel system will be nothing but some diminishing numbers and will be pointless. I’m sure that’s not the way how IPACS build a new feature.
By the way I was not complaining about the missing of fuel and payload system in aerofly, just curious about how are they gonna to solve this problem without base in the Simulator.
Custom-coded aircraft systems
Fuel system (fuel pumps, selectors, crossfeed)
How do they add fuel system to this aircraft since there’s no fuel and payload system in the sim?
Here is the problem: As we all know streets light in Aerofly are composed of many individual dots which are placed based on road data. But each dot has the same brightness regardless of its distance form the aircraft. This result in an unpleasant scene that the edge of ground looks eccentrically bright due to high density of dots while it looks darker when getting close. This phenomenon occurs since the last summer update when streets light turned to be more distinct. It seems that this isn’t a big problem when you use a large screen but not everyone has a 25+inches screen isn’t it? So I hope the developers can take some time looking into this problem.
In addition, would you developers kindly be interested in spending some time adding taxiways light to some of the major airports in the old scenery such as KLAX, KSFO and KJFK? It will look great with those user-created street lights.
I always admire IPACS’ spirit of perusing perfection and that’s one of the reasons why I keep flying aerofly. However, isn’t it too idealized to achieve that “smart” pushback? The route of pushback can be pretty various and can be very complex in some crowded airports. For instance, in KLAX, planes will need pushback to leave not only the gate but also the whole terminal area to the taxiway, which means it involves two 90 degrees turns and much longer distance than a usual pushback. Of course it’s a long term goal, requiring some basic features like ATC or even precise data of each gates and taxiways of each airports. At the same time it can be a great challenge of you developers. This isn’t something that even large companies such as Microsoft or Lockheed Martin can easily do, and is very likely to lead to abortion. So is it possible to develope this feature step by step? Or we are unlikely to see pushback and many other features coming to aerofly in three or four years.
I remember last time one developer(Jan?) mentioned that the main difficulty of developing pushback is the adaptation over different aircrafts and different sizes of gates. Why not let the user themselves decide the distance of pushback and the angle and direction of nose turning as those PMDG models do? That may save a lot of work.
I think perhaps it’s wiser to expand the fleet to be as wide as possible rather than focusing on the A32s series. On the other hand, the devs are focusing on depth of simulation instead of similar models with different lengths.
Thanks Jan, that's really helpful.
No long ago since I surprisingly found that ILS in Aerofly works in a professional way
. And I think it's a good start of the radio system of this simulation, hopefully it will be more completed when ATC comes out.
But as I usually fly Boeing airplanes, honestly I'm quite unfamiliar with Airbus aircraft (more specifically, the a320). And when I tried to set the ILS frequency in the FMC, it always inform me that the format is wrong. It seems that it doesn't follow the "frequency/direction" format of Boeing aircraft or a "direction/frequency" format as I tried. What's the correct format?
The question has been answered in another post:
https://www.index.php?thread/13876-a380-pc-version/aerofly.com/community/forum/
Hoping this can help you.
There is a 747 on the roof
Such a pity, but never lose hope.
Since the A380 is one of the ugliest airliners ever, any news about the 777?
777 is my favorite aircraft, but on what basis do you think there will be news about 777 in Aerofly?
We're still not 100% sure if the A380 model will look good in VR, that's why we are still holding off.
That’s fine, thanks.
A380 looks stunning in the newly released Aerofly FS 2019! And with all the new features, including new sound pack, new throttle system etc., this aircraft is more and more like a one which could appear in PC platform. Surprisingly, three extra cameras are added to A380 and A380 only，letting me feel that the developers pay attention to this plane. So, perhaps one day we can see this beloved aircraft being converted to PC
? Is there any chance for that?
This new app seems to demand too high in hardware (for those clouds, shadow quality and buildings). I can’t even run it smoothly with an iPhone XS.
By the way, why the image quality is lower than before?
But wouldn't you prefer a more advanced route planning system over manually searching for waypoints?
We have to tackle the issues at the source not just cover the symptoms.
Well, it would the best if you can develop FMC, perhaps start with route planning page, which contains complete navigation data including STAR and DP for each airport. But meanwhile I suggest you to develop a feature which allows synchronization between the route in FMC with the navigation page, instead of giving up the navigation page directly.
In addition to airport searching, it would be much appreciated if there can be added a “waypoint searching” function in the navigation page. Since aerofly doesn’t have FMC route planning system, it’s really annoying to look for waypoints in STAR or DP on the map one by one.
I think it shouldn't be "I only use this simulator", each simulator has its strengths and weaknesses and the more simulators you own the better you fill in the gaps and eventually if you can say I can land a Cessna in each of the......
It makes sense, however, although I use both AFS2 and XP11 for now, I’m afraid many flight sim players wouldn’t think in this way. After all, not everyone have a computer with 1TB+ storage to accommodate all three platforms. Furthermore, quite a lot of efforts(and money) are needed to turn the basic sim program into the one we actually use. You’ll need to buy addon scenery and aircrafts and many other stuffs and install them, which are not only expensive and tiring but also hugely storage consuming(have a look at the non-AFS2 version of orbx TrueEarth product, they’re really hard disk monsters). Perhaps this is not the case for Aerofly since addons for this sim are few. But for XP or P3D/FSX, you know it.
There are in fact a great number of flight sim lovers in my country (China). And it’s definitely a big market. But I found most of the players in China would stick to one platform and add lots of addons to optimize it instead of taking advantage s from different sims. There’re even “P3D party” against “X-Plane party”. But sadly there’s no “Aerofly party”. In fact, most Aerofly players in my country are amateurs flying blindly on their smartphones and arguing with the others which of Aerofly and infinite flight is the best mobile flight simulator...
I tried to introduce those more advanced players Aerofly PC version in one of our domestic forums with a demo flight from Innsbruck to Amsterdam. It’s grateful that many people show their affirmation to this sim and it’s potential. But most of them state that unless the sim do better in functionality, they wouldn’t turn to it.
Indeed, we enjoy what this sim has brought us so far, but I sincerely hope more depth can be added so that Aerofly can be more popular and...... Besides, I hope the developers don’t be blinded by such excuse that “people can get what they want form different sims” but become more ambitious. If you don’t speed up and be more powerful, one day your advantages will no longer be there.
To make all 40+ airports in a region (500+ in the UK) to the quality of handmade individual airports isn't possible for a price most people would pay. I'm sure they will improve though after this first region release. Do you have a list of what you'd most like to see?
Unless Orbx changes their game plan, I doubt you will not be getting anything approaching high level airports as part of the regional scenery packs.
Well, I can understand why orbx do in this way and I'm always very willing to buy their individual airports. But as an airliner lover, I never expect them to build Schipol or Heathrow as a single product because such large airports are too expensive to build. Maybe I should just fly these airports in X-Plane.
In fact I'm not quite interested in other airports in netherlands except schipol but if one day orbx release an upgraded airport in NL, I'll still buy it. In addition, I find most people prefer flying between regional airports or even grassfield with samll airplanes. So maybe I should just get adapted to common flavor.
Besides, it's interesting that IPACS find a perfect balance in building these large airports. Either JFK, Miami intl. or many other international airports are built in good quality, not as detailed as innsbruck, of course, but way better than those in NL. Sometimes I'm happy to sacrifice scenery quality for airport details but that's definitely not orbx's style. And that's why I prefer IPACS scenery.
But in all, I appraciated what both IPACS and orbx have done so far.
