Posts by W.B.

Quote from Tomfa

I don't mean to rub salt in the wound, but another example that's already been mentioned here: this problem also occurs in parking lots where parked vehicles end up raised. It can be fixed in the same way, but unfortunately, not without compromise.

Furthermore, if you happen to have MSFS, take a look at the KDEN parking lot; none of the vehicles were touching the ground.

Perhaps they've fixed it since then.

They definitely need to figure out a systematic way to correct all these terrain-related bugs given the noisy elevation data.

Quote from Tomfa

W.B. , I understand you very well, but we also need to be careful with this elevation issue, as I personally witnessed it with a third-party developer who conducted a very successful test for LSGG, for example, to correct the level of traffic signs. However, the flattening affected a large area around the airport, causing a difference in altitude for all third-party POIs (for example, helipad locations at hospitals). It's not as straightforward as it might seem.

With the internal data in a precision level of taxiways and runway maps, I think it shouldn't be a too difficult task to constrain the correction to the right area. They simply need to align the two types of data and correct the terrains. For example, for area 100m within any runway, taxiway or ramp, include them in the correction area, that should safely remove artifacts to the surrounding area effectively. And I don't see this a very difficult coding in any sense.

Anyway I don't think this is ever a technical issue, simply not receiving enough attention from the developers.

Quote from Jugac64

Our capacity of complaining is endless thanks for the patience and resilience IPACS team!

Seriously? What a sycophant... And yes, if something as basic as this not getting fixed for 5 years, they deserve to be complained and their customers are completely entitled to do so.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

This is a known issue at some airports where the elevation data is incorrect. Unfortunately there are still other high priority items we have to address first, because this issue involves more changes under the hood than would appear from the outside.

Ok thanks. Wouldn’t expect too much but hopefully we can get bug-free airports as a 2026 Christmas present.

Quote from Overloaded

Possibly the core of the sim is deemed to be irreparable and the lack of information might suggest that no attempt will be made to address the range of outstanding deficiencies?
There is bound to be some work already done on the eventual replacement to FS4 and FS global and perhaps any deficiency consideration is aimed at not having these problems appear in that development?
The only glimpse of their intentions that I saw was the comment that adjustments or repairs would need a time consuming gigantic screen and alteration of a mountain of data and they are not overly enthusiastic to start soon or to do it too often.

They now have data as detailed as the airport runway and taxiway map globally. Although I don't know what their data structure for the terrain is like, I don't see this a very difficult task. Simply set the mesh vertex value in the vertical direction to the same (maybe the average value of the airport coverage) for the airport and surroundings or apply a filter to smooth the values and prevent large gradient. Another solution is to also add models and texture for the area between and outside the runways, taxiways and ramp, like what's being done in those old Swiss airports. Anyway it's really frustrating that this seemingly simple issue never gets fixed.

I think the biggest problem might be that they don't think this isn't a big deal and won't bother working on it. If that's true, I feel really sorry for this simulator.

Quote from Overloaded

I was definitely not zeroing in on you but there has been a sort of ‘peasants revolt’ atmosphere brewing recently slagging how stupid the planes choice has been and how some coup junta or show of hands ought to control our new planes.

Let's keep the topic to the airport terrains. Thanks!

Quote from Overloaded

Can we curtail the increasingly self elevated presumptively entitled criticism of the new aircraft additions. I am glad to see the real variety of aircraft types in Aerofly, including the Me 262 imposed upon us through considered wisdom from above.
If the ‘fun game social multiplay’ party among the newer forum members had their way we would get nothing other than shiny white twin turbofan medium to large transports for years to come.
As it stands we get one seriously interesting plane for every half dozen new near identical spam cans.

Ok, agreed. The variation of aircraft types is indeed very important and users with different tastes should all be catered. I take back my previous comments on the Me262.

But they definitely should start working on fixing the airports.

Quote from 747

Something like this not ruins my experience with Aerofly. Fixes like this can take a lot of time, and I think that this isn't their highest priority.

IPACS, please correct me if I'm wrong with this.

So you mean they should leave there forever? I’m sure in this case you can always find something with “higher priority”.

They should at least spend some resources start the fixing and do it one by one. It’s been five years and not a single airport is corrected.

Hi,

Ever since the addition of European airports and later more global airports in the past 5 years, we keep seeing uneven terrain such as bumps or sunk in the airports around the runways and taxiways. They not only cause difficulty in maneuvering the aircraft (touch the engine and crash), leading to incorrect altitude callout and ground effect at landing, but also tremendously decrease the immersion of the sim. This issue pervades globally, even in many major airports:

LFPG, Paris (This is one of the first-batch global airports, still not fixed after 4,5 years...)

EDDF, Frankfurt (This is the #1 airport in your home country, IPACS, seriously?)

ZUTF, Chengdu (Call the trucks to remove those little hills of construction materials left by the construction team!)

RJAA, Narita, Tokyo

YSSY, Sydney

WMKK, Kuala Lumpur

These are just the tip of the iceberg. Basically for all airports, as long as they are not by the sea, have this issue, more or less.

As other users previously mentioned, these are bugs, NOT missing features, and should definitely receive higher priority in your workflow. As a user who's been flying Aerofly for over ten years, I support your decision to prioritize developing a widely demanded new aircraft such as the A350 and adding more systems depth. But spending the time and resources in developing a less popular Me262 than fixing these bugs makes no sense at all. Airports with even terrain should be something basic for a flight simulator.

So PLEASE, IPACS, don't keep your users wait for another year (or 5 years and more..., who knows). Correct the terrains of the previously added airports to complete them before adding new ones. This is a serious and critical issue of this sim and should definitely receive much higher attention than it currently does.

Another related bug is when switching to the developer camera (e.g., in replay mode), the airports is reloaded. At some airports, the ground level is suddenly changed and crashes the aircraft.

In addition, there are many incorrectly placed autogen residential buildings around/within the airports which hugely decrease the immersion. For example:

VHHH, Hongkong

Hopefully all these bugs can receive your attentions and get fixed soon.

Thank you very much!

Quote from alphasixx

Lack of addressing bugs. There are so many bugs which are not being addressed for months and even years, that it’s a bit disappointing to see. A320s still suffer from ridiculous descent rates, RNAV approaches are unusable, visual bugs in the flight planner, scenery has very large objects and ‘hills’ that cover airports making it impossible to taxi at times, and so on. Bugs should be a number one priority as they inherently affect the playing experience. I can’t believe that sometimes I would search a bug up which I experienced in the sim, and see a thread from 2021, with the bug still not being fixed.

Completely agree

Quote from emfrat

IPACS do quality work, and …

By quality you mean airports with bumps, hills and incorrectly-placed objects everywhere?

Quote from Tomfa

The airport in question you mentioned in ORBX for AFS2 was KSEZ-Sedona, but the project was ultimately abandoned.
But you have a similar one, perhaps a little less detailed, for FS4.

On the other hand, regarding Hawaii-Honolulu, the one partially implemented by chrispriv and ApfelFlieger is quite successful! It's all topped off with a mix of FS4.

https://flight-sim.org/filebase/index…s-4-2025-08-05/

https://flight-sim.org/filebase/index…rts-2025-08-05/

Regarding the others you mentioned in the United States, I don't have enough knowledge, and I'm not an American player, but they will certainly be modeled in 3D later.

Display More

Thanks!

For the orbx airport, I’m sure I’m talking about KJAC, still remember a thread with some early screenshots on the orbx forum.

Quote from divadlav

I believe that Hawaii was added recently...

If you mean autogen airports with inaccurate terminals, ramp and taxiways and no runway markings, sure...

Hi,

I’m curious if it’s possible to get some update for the rest of the major US airports? The updates to airports are globally for several years and the expansion to the original US scenery seems to have stopped for a long time. The last time should still be the PNW update. There was a global airport autogen update yet the generation quality seems awkward. I’m sure there are plenty of US players of this sim and would like to see the US scenery getting some updates (ideally also with some POI updates).

Some suggested regions/airports:

US east coastal states: Atlanta, charlotte, full Florida (Tampa etc.)

Hawaii: Honolulu, Kahului etc.

Alaska: Anchorage, Fairbanks etc.

Vast number of airports in the middle-east region in US: Dallas, Houston, Louisville (UPS homepot), Detroit etc.

Some regional airports can also be very interesting, a top choice would be Jackson Hole, which has a gorgeous Grand-Teton view approach. I remember orbx used to plan to make it for Aerofly but sadly they’ve stopped development for this sim for many years. Would love to see it happen in Aerofly though.

Thanks!

Quote from Jugac64

Hi W.B., does the sim run well in your laptop with all the parameters at the maximum? What workload do you have under this setting? I have seen that in VR you can increase this easy 1.5 to 3 times, depending on the program. A laptop I think is not recommendable for VR, permanent heat could damage it.

Hi, thanks for the reply. I don’t think it’s due to the performance of my laptop. Previously I usually run Aerofly on a 2K monitor in all ultra settings and it is getting 100 fps+. Quest 3s has a resolution lower than 2K and my hardware should be able to handle it well. I also tried to lower the graphics setting but the jitter is still there. I did have a smooth experience after I turned off the high quality anti-aliasing for the first time but the jitter occurs again after I relaunch it another day. So I suspect it is due to a software issue.

Thank you for bringing up the topic. I was actually preparing to create a new thread but now I can post here.

On contrary, my recent experience with VR is very poor. There are frequent jitters, especially when I rotate my head. I earlier found that turning off the high-quality anti-aliasing solved this problem but after a relaunch the jitters happen again.

I’m using Quest 3s with a thunderbolt 4 link cable. My GPU is RTX 3080Ti laptop, not quite powerful but should be able to handle Aerofly at the Quest 3s resolution smoothly (I tried to reduce the graphics settings, no changes). All drivers are up-to-date.

I’m curious if anyone had similar experience and knows a solution? Thanks.

Quote from MathXx54

I can run PlayStation games on Meta Quest, so Aerofly, which is an optimised game, I thought the Meta headset was more than powerful enough.

What games? In 4K or 5K VR mode? Do you think your Quest stand alone can run Red Dead 2 in 4K with a 150% field of view? And I don’t think Aerofly can be better optimized compared to normal games. Since you need to render that many objects (buildings, trees) while in normal games you can actually play many tricks to avoid rendering that many objects.

I believe IPACS have the statistics of aircraft usage and time count for all users. That I suppose is the dominating factor of what aircraft to make in the future. If the Q400 is much less popular than other types of aircraft like 737 and 350, they probably won’t make it no matter how much you personally like the ATR series.

Besides this, please let the developers build some planes they like and put that over your personal preference.

Carriers require implementing features like catapult and arrestor cable, which can use a lot of work. Besides, there are certainly many other features with higher priority on the list, especially given such features seem to be out of the scope of general flight simulator like AFS.

Go to DCS if you are on PC or carrier landing for mobile.

It looks like in the beta update the A380 is updated. However, the tilt angle is still not fixed. I implore the developers to take this issue seriously. It’s a feature many users care about. And it’ll just take a little effort.

Hopefully this can be adjusted with the next update. The 747-400 tilt is also inaccurate though. The outer two sets in reality has more tilts while the inner two has fewer than in the game.