Oh my god Oh my god Oh my god!!!!!!!!!! The winter is getting so warm now!!!
Thank you so much IPACS
Posts by W.B.
-
-
i dont need a roadmap
Maybe you don’t, but Aerofly does.
-
IPACS developers are perfectionists, they want everything they released to be sound and elegant , and they did. I admire their spirit and capability very much.
Although this can really slow things down, in my opinion, such pursuit of perfection is what bring us love Aerofly so much and altering it with numbers of new features is improper because it may cause Aerofly lose its pros and become mediocre. (Although the developing speed is indeed too slow
).
However, what really makes us players who really want a brighter future of this sim is that the developers don’t seem to have definite plan or goals and stick to it. What exactly makes IPACS so secretive and so shy to tell even a little bit of what to expect with us? Even though you have very limited resources, you can set lower goals each year and our players can absolutely accept it and are patient for the next update and keep loyal to this sim, as long as we know there is a goal, as long as we know this sim is not dead!
Indeed, the long-term thriving of a sim depend on 3rd party devs. and recently we have very active community developers. But before the sim itself become strong enough, how can we expect its future to be supported by 3rd party developers?
Anyway I don’t feel Aerofly is on a healthy growing path. IPACS, please!!! Plan the future of this sim we all love carefully, stick to it and be brave to post it, letting everyone know. There’s nothing to lose, only bringing more attractions and (to be frank) sales and money!
-
At the very beginning I expected orbx to develop O’hare as an individual product or someone else to do that to extend this DLC. That’s funny......years ago we expected so many from this sim. But now......whatever.
-
Actually, there are lights but they don't illuminate anything so there are pretty useless.
They are not totally useless, at least you can know the boundaries of the runways and taxiways at night, much better than having nothing. Although it’s a pity that as one of the most detailed airports in AFS2, Zürich doesn’t have taxiway lights. As for light that can actually illuminate....well....let’s look forward to that in AFS2.
-
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.
-
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,
-
Have anyone of you ever felt the joysticks sensitivity in Aerofly is too high? Even after I tune the sensitivity to lowest it still use very uncomfortable. The planes react too much.
-
Problem solved, thank you Schnuffelduffel.
-
- 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.
-
Will this addon be available on steam?
-
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!
-
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.
