Posts by W.B.

    Hi everyone,

    Have you noticed that the PAPI light became very ambiguous after the latest update?

    It seems that when the surrounding colors are white or yellow, the PAPI looks always all white(see this picture taken in Denver, the position of this plane is obviously too low).

    Even after zooming I still can't distinguish the light.

    And if the surrounding colors are green or similar, it seems to be a little bit more distinguishable but still not very good.

    I'm not sure if this problem is due to my screen or is a globle problem. Does anyone have any advice or comment:?:

    The planes are fine as they are. A meaningful update to me is where we get significant new sceneries, helicopters, and cloud/water management. This update is care factor zero for me and this whole sim is going the same way the longer it takes for REAL improvements to appear.

    In my opinion, the planes are actually far from “fine”. And I think an upgrade of the fleet, which if provide more depth of manipulation of the aircrafts is much more important than simply adding some new sceneries or a heli(although I look forward to them very much too).

    An improvememt of depth in aircraft is something really makes this sim competitive with P3D or X-Plane. Many flight-sim lovers are not interested in AFS2 because of the lack of functionality. And if IPACS make some improvement in that, Surely more players will come because beside a complete and professional experience of flight, we have the advantage in graphics.

    And this can lead the development of Aerofly into a positive circle, more players means larger market. Larger market means more third-party developers will get on board. By the time the problems for players will be “which scenery or which aircraft should I choose to buy” instead of “when shall the next scenery arrive”. And AFS2 will truly become a leader of flight simulators.

    So an upgrade of the fleet is absolutely a great choice and that might be a milestone of Aerofly. Nice work IPACS teams, you are amazing.:)

    I've been asking about this on the Orbx forum once a week now for a few weeks already and didn't get ANY reply. Not even a reaction to please stop asking. I am getting a bit worried here. But well, on May 21 John Venema posted this:

    "Netherlands TrueEarth for AFS2 is progressing very well, we are working on all the airports which as you may expect uses different tech to P3D. I have an alpha version on my PC and it looks superb and the FPS are amazing." I suppose they are silent because they are working hard. ;) That's something more developers do. ;)

    Thanks J,

    Since ORBX announced the AFS2 Netherlands TrueEarth with KPSP on the flight sim expo in June. I suppose the product will be released, sooner or later. But I must admit that what ORBX is focusing on now is their XP11 product. After all, it has a much larger market. Thus the process of developing AFS2 product could be slow.

    What about any of the NON steam related Orbx scenery like I have for fsx

    Of course a FSX/P3D or XP11 product can't compat with your AFS2.

    By the way, is there anyone who knows any news about the AFS2 version Netherlands TrueEarth? It's been two month since ORBX released their P3D version. I know they want to make this product perfect. But don't you think it's a little bit......too long??(

    Oh come on, everyone knows the capital of Nevada is Las Vegas!


    Actually it is Carson city. At first I thought it was Reno, later I found I was wrong. But definitely not Vegas

    Does FS2 detect collisions with all objects? The Golden Gate post made me wonder about the support cables (main & vertical).

    For most objects, yes, but trees and moving cars in some ORBX airports won't collide with your aircraft. And it seems that only a collision with the engine will cause the crash.

    Seems Florida contains many huge and complex airports. And that would cost much time to build. So just be patient. By the way, I appreciate that IPACS would choose such a challenging and attractive region, which will take them a lot of work to complete.(In contrast to ORBX, who always try to avoid large airports and choose rigional aps or samll airfields, although they do make them well)

    Nice work guys, and remember don’t launch this region for free again. We are willing to pay. You deserve it.

    As long as Schipol is as detailed as Denver Intl. and that would be satisfying enough. But the question is: what’s the meaning of an “upgraded” airport as they mentioned? Does that mean simply adding some features to the original P3D/XP airports? If so, it would be a disaster for AFS2 users because we don’t have airport in Netherlands for them to “upgrade” at all. We users don’t want to apply extra work to deal with the runways and taxiways ourselves. Hoping ORBX can provide an less amphibolic and more acceptable answer. After all, there’re dozens of regions like this to buy in the future.

    Which is actually possible: Let's take an example of Big sur three arrival of KSFO:

    The arrival start from BSR VOR, going through several waypoint from CARME to MENLO and finally intercept KSFO 28R ILS. All the waypoints can be found in aerofly, and they don't have conflict with the final approach(as shown in the picture)

    Well, as J van E mentioned, the final approach segment in Aerofly always start 10nm straightly away from the runway. But actually it varies from airports to airports. And the navigation system in aerofly is in need of improvement. Maybe oneday IPACS would add departure and arrival data for some major airports.

    For now, what only we can do is to check the chart and input waypoints in a standard approach or departure process manually. But still we can't have an approach like the one in the old hongkong airport. Although it's common in real world. I remember last time I flew to JFK, the A380 I took had a sharp right turn and immediately touch ground, Really excited.:P

    Hi guys,

    Recently when I played Aerofly I found a problem: Are glide slopes in AF2 the same as in reality or they are all identical?

    In the past I ususally flew 3000ft at the last waypoint to capture the glide slope. Because for most airports and runways that's the altitude of the start of the slope. However, yesterday I had a flight whose destination was Laguardia Intl. As I turned on the auto approach when ILS identified, the plane descend sharply to around 2500ft first and finally maintain virtical speed at around -800.

    Therefore, technically, need we check the real approach data before a flight to fly more accurately? And if we do check the navigation chart of real world airports. Will it works in Aerofly?