Posts by W.B.

    Indeed, I think there are two factors, if ameliorated, will make Aerofly looks much more realistic: clouds and roads. Now that street lights can be implemented based on road data, perhaps it’s viable to do the same with road texture. Hoping the developers can pay attention to this.

    I remember last year around the time when R22 was released one of the developers (Jet-Pack?) stated that IPACS have more sceneries to come. By now over half a year have passed, however, neither IPACS nor orbx brought us a single new scenery. Fortunately we have Lukla as a small comfort. But more new sceneries will be much appreciated.:)

    Greetings,


    This has been a problem since AFS2, that you need to try downloading for many times before success. But now the situation is even worse in AFS2019. I’ve tried seven times, each time it stopped at around 60% and sharply increased to 80% and then stop forever.:( I doubt this is a regional problem because it only seems to be common with our Chinese users. Any suggestions or solutions toward this problem?:)


    Regards,

    I’m a little confused by the term “Pacific Northwest “. Does that mean northwest part of the US including Washington and Oregon or just Washington or also include some part of Canada like Vancouver?


    Besides, now in the sim the image resolution in these two states seems to be higher than other undeveloped region. I was thinking whether it’s part of IPACS’ plan and it will be IPACS to make this scenery instead of orbx. It’s kind of good thing if it’s true because we can get more detailed airports.:)

    • and, just as we are talking already about it, NYC as well

    I believe it’s more realistic to port simpler scenery like Nevada or Arizona. Because in recent years there will be no mobile device capable of running such complex scenery like NYC. I even cannot run the default scenery smoothly with an A12 chip.

    What expectations do you have of the high resolution? In this case, it means 1 sqm/pixel and not: You can read the car-signs! ^^

    I was expecting 1m resolution photos like those in Utah and Colorado but I doubt whether they are in this pack. It looks like about 2m/pixel which looks good at cruising altitude but not quite satisfying when approaching or taking off.


    Maybe it’s my installation problem. Is there any way I can reinstall a DLC in steam without needing to download the content again?

    Why can’t I find much difference after I installed the 58GB high resolution texture pack for SW USA DLC? Where are these high resolution photos applied?


    The image folder for USA (.../Aerofly FS 2 Flight Simulator/scenery/images/USA) is now 116GB, I believe this DLC has been successfully installed.

    I had flown Aerofly PC version for nearly two years with my old laptop before. With its Nivida MX150 GPU and 8GB RAM, I can still run all scenery except NL TE with high graphic settings at 30fps+. But can only run X-plane 11 with minimum graphics setting at around 25fps and mantain for at most half an hour before the computer get too hot.


    Last week I bought a new laptop with RTX 2070MQ GPU and 16GB RAM with a 144Hz display. Today I finally finish my download (it’s really slow to download Aerofly from steam) and had a try a moment ago, only to be astonished! This laptop is not a top one but can still run ANY scenery at 100fps+ with all ultra (+insane shadow) stably in Aerofly. It looks amazing on an 144Hz screen. On contrary, due to CPU limit, I can only run around 25fps with a medium-high graphics in XP11. And the graphics quality itself is far worse than aerofly.


    I just want to say thank you to all members of IPACS for presenting our players such an incredible Simulator. In the future, with more depth and features added, Aerofly will surely become my ONLY flight simulator. Really looking forward to that day!;)

    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? :huh:

    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.

    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.

    No long ago since I surprisingly found that ILS in Aerofly works in a professional way:thumbup:. 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?