Posts by Fabs79

    Please don’t think that this is trying to be offensive Fabian, it honestly is not, you can’t describe realism if you haven’t flown the aircraft or a very similar type, it is using knowledge that is really not there, another PC sim’ doesn’t count. This is a million miles from a trolling attack, I am only trying to be humbly constructive.

    I have a very, very small amount of time, long ago in an Enstrom F 28, it is a piston single nominally 3 seater with a 3 blade rotor on a tall mast, so I have almost no experience in a different make. It didn’t have the initial FS2 R 22’s attitude rapid-twitchiness which I’ll agree does seem better but it moved a beginner more in all 3 axes more quickly and needed more skill to get into a perfectly stable hover, I never got close to it in real life!

    I’m grateful for the valuable contributions from the R 22 pilots, they help the developers and us unqualified enthusiasts, I can’t read enough from them.

    Of course I'm in no position to judge how closely the Aerofly R22 compares to the real thing without having actually flown it, but I got the impression that some others (not you) attacked the developers for changes they didn't even understand and claimed that this made the flight model less realistic without knowing how the real helicopter flies anymore than I do. Jan's answer seemed plausible to me and I just think that we should cut the developers some slack and have more patience if such a small team doesn't answer every question within a few hours.

    Ok, I finally opted in to the Aerofly beta and had 1,5 hours of time with the updated flight characteristics of the R22 with the bendable blades modeled now and here's my honest opinion : the flight model is a thousand times better than before, and here's why : before the beta, I found that the R22 was extremely and unrealistically hard to control, it felt like minimal cyclic and collective input made the helicopter jump and turn around wildly like a housefly on meth. Although of course I'm not a real life pilot, I have logged hundreds of hours in the Dodosim Bell 206 for FSX and P3D which is considered to be one of the most realistic helicopter simulations around and which is also used for professional training. And I I just couldn't believe that a R22 was THAT hard to control even for someone who knows a little about flight dynamics and aerodynamic effects of helicopters. Now don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that flying a heli is supposed to be hard and needs lots of practice, it took me hours to get the hang of flying the B206. But at least I saw an improvement over time. The R22 before the beta really got me frustrated because no matter how careful I was it was still a matter of luck to takeoff and land it safely. Now with the beta, I feel at home again and all the "muscle memory" I still have from the B206 finally lets me control the R22 like I thought it should be. It also showed me that the people complaining about the new behavior of the heli obviously don't have, just like me, real life experience with the aircraft but just noticed that something had changed and assumed that the developers had deliberately dumbed down the flight model to appeal to the mass market. As it turns out, the opposite is true, the developers implemented an important feature with the bendable blades that is probably MORE realistic than before, because in real life the rotor blades won't be completely stiff either. That flying the helicopter gets a little easier that way doesn't always mean that it's less realistic, it's still hard enough as it is. It also shows that a real physics engine doesn't automatically mean that you get better results than from a charts and numbers approach like Dodosim did in FSX all those years ago, if something important like bendable blades is not modeled then the flight model will be different from the original. Maybe people should think about things like that in the future before threatening to turn their back on the developers just because something changed they don't understand . Personally I'm really happy with the new R22 and I hope the developers will continue to improve their simulator in the future.

    Thanks and best regards,


    Lukla and Switzerland are both great, for beginners Switzerland might be a little easier to fly because not all the airports are high altitude STOL ports. If you get Switzerland, be sure to check out for drassaud's excellent freeware cultivation (=autogen) for Switzerland North South East and West, and also his mountain airstrips for a real challenge.

    Sorry for the delay, I was away for a while and couldn't ask.

    Yes we did change something in the R22. The rotor blades are now simulated as bendable! If you stop the rotor you can see how flexible they are, the blades can now twist and bend which of course also dampens some of the abrupt inputs and it also makes it a bit more stable and at the same time a bit softer and easier to fly. We did this to get more realistic simulation results in comparison to real world test data and to simulate the rotor response to stick inputs even better. The R22 flies extremely close to the data of the real world aircraft.

    Honestly I'm happy to hear that. I found the R22 very hard to fly in professional mode even though I have a good hardware cyclic, collective and anti torque pedals and have flown the Dodosim Bell 206 in FSX for countless hours and was pretty good at it, and that one was considered to be the only realistic helicopter for FSX. The R22 seemed a little too jumpy and sensitive for my taste, I thought that it was because it's an overall lighter and smaller aircraft but still struggled to control it reliably. To me the bendable blades and thus more stable aerodynamics sounds sounds more like an improvement than an issue to me, and as soon as the beta goes live I'll try the new flight model to check if it behaves more like the Bell 206 that I was used to.

    Well, opting out of the beta won't do you much good in the long run. As soon as IPACS thinks that the beta version is stable enough they'll release it to the public and then you'll have the altered flight model back.

    Whoever has some experience with aircraft addons in Aerofly FS2: I'm sure Aerosoft wouldn't mind if that someone contacts them with a product proposal to port it over.

    I'd love to try this myself; but I'm simply overloaded with too many other plans right now.

    A plane as complex as the Twotter would be quite a challenge to port over and I'm afraid the customer base is still too small to make it worthwhile for the developer. Maybe sceneries like yours help to convince more people to try Aerofly.

    You should also consider that a working GPS in a default aircraft also helps advertising Aerofly as a "serious" simulator which some people still don't seem to believe despite its achievements and brilliant flight physics. The moving map looks a little arcady to my taste and does not have a representation in the real world, while all other avionics are modeled to represent their real world counterpart. Maybe just add it to the Cessna and provide two options in the aircraft selection screen, C172 with GNS and C172 with standard moving map.

    I also don't think that implementing the GNS makes the aircraft less accessible to casual or new players. If you create the flight plan in the Aerofly navigation menu you'll see it on the default GNS page and if you don't need to change something you don't even have to touch the GNS controls at all. In FSX and P3D I "followed the magenta line" for years without knowing anything about how the unit really works until I got more involved in the complexities of general aviation and tried to make sense of the different functions, which later led to me buying the Reality XP GNS 530 Addon and a hardware GNS unit for my homecockpit. But even if you just want to fly a route without worrying about real navigation the GNS lets you do that by just providing the path that you need to follow.

    I also think that flight planning needs some overhaul, like you said a vertical navigation profile seems to be inexistent and I don't know which factors are taken into account to calculate altitude by the automatic flight planner. The few simple Flight plans I made so far seem to have something like a parabolic vertical profile, I continuously gain altitude until I reach a Top of climb point, then stay at that altitude until at a certain top of descent point I gradually lose altitude at a constant sink rate until I reach my destination. A real vertical profile looks more like a "staircase" where you climb and descend in steps and stay at certain levels for a period of time due to minimum altitude restrictions for specific way points. But I don't think Aerofly is capable of representing this yet.

    A few days ago I only had around 30 minutes of spare time for simming so I decided to do a short helicopter flight with no specific destination. I decided to try out a region I never flew in before, around Denver in the free Colorado DLC which I downloaded some time ago but never used until now. I was pretty surprised at what I saw : the whole region around Denver seems to have full cultivation coverage and many custom buildings in the downtown area, the quality is on par with the recent payware Southern Florida DLC and for my taste an even more interesting place to fly. I didn't have time to explore where the full cultivation coverage ended but it seemed to be quite a large part of the scenery. I hadn't expected that because for the most part the default Aerofly scenery is just flat photoreal ground with some trees. Now I was wondering if there are other places within the default or free DLC regions that are of a similar high quality. Also, is this something that was part of the original release or has it been added in an update sometime? I know that the San Francisco area was greatly improved some time ago, maybe there are more of these goodies that we don't even know about?

    Cheers, Fabian

    I still don't understand why you think that the requests I and some other people made would make it more difficult for casual players to set up their controls. As stated previously, you can still have a default controller configuration that is automatically applied to all aircraft, nobody has to setup anything and if you want to fly the 747 with a 10 dollar two button joystick you can do just that. BTW P3D (and presumably Xplane 11 too) also assign a standard configuration to every connected controller. And if you are happy with that you just leave it as it is. But if you want to change something to better reflect a specific aircraft you do that and then you can save your changes and create as many profiles as you want. Later when you change aircraft you just load your profile and off you go. This is way faster than activating and deactivating several controllers. At the moment I have seven controllers connected to my PC, and whenever I deactivate one the axis that I setup for it get lost and when I need it again later I have to reassign everything for this controller. In P3D I just select my aircraft and FSUIPC automatically applies the profile that I created for it. And even without FSUIPC I could save and load a profile for each aircraft.

    Regarding your question if someone really assigns different buttons to the landing lights on different aircraft, when I still had my old generic Homecockpit I did that. I assigned the switches to the lights in the same order as in the real plane (which is different between a Cessna, a Beechcraft and a Piper for example) and had little interchangeable plaques I could place above the switches so I knew which one did what. Also, the same switch that lowered the spoilers in the Lancair Legacy lowered the Water rudder in the Realair ACA Scout float plane. And many other differences.

    Long story short, before you invest development time in sophisticated automatic assignment algorithms or Virtual Cockpit 3D menus just let us save and load controller configurations. This should be achievable with minimum effort and would be a huge improvement already.

    Cheers, Fabian

    IMHO the best approach is the way FSUIPC by Pete Dowson handles it for FSX and P3D. You create a profile and assign each axis and function to a lever or button of your hardware. Then you can save different profiles, for instance : single engine prop, twin engine prop, twin jet engine and so on. Or you can create a profile for each single aircraft, theoretically even for different subtypes of aircraft like float, ski and tundra versions of the Turbo Otter. Whenever you load a new aircraft, you are asked which profile should be assigned to it. You can still change that later if you made a mistake. Every change to a profile applies to all aircraft assigned to it. You should keep in mind that some of us not only have a yoke and throttle but maybe a full blown Homecockpit with dozens of switches. I had a generic Homecockpit with interchangeable controllers, simplugins panel builder for instruments and around 50 switches and buttons on a panel. With FSUIPC I could customize it to many different types of aircraft.

    If all this is not possible then let us at least save a number of controller profiles that can be used for different aircraft.

    I'd still prefer that a profile could be saved for each aircraft. For example I use two Saitek throttle quadrants for the Duchess with the two levers on the left for the throttle, the two in the middle for the prop pitch and the two on the right for mixture. When I fly the Learjet, I use the same Saitek throttle blocks with the lefternmost lever for the spoilers, the right lever of the first and the left of the second for the throttle and the right lever of the second quadrant for the Flaps. Same for the A320, I use some modified Levers for that. Either way, I have to reprogram the throttle blocks every time I switch from the Duchess to the Learjet iror the other way around. So separate control configs for each plane like in FSUIPC or at least an option to save different profiles like in default P3D would be nice.

    Hi, I was wondering what kind of texturing conventions for custom objects Aerofly has. I know that night textures, bump and specular maps are used, but do I need to use a certain naming code for those? I faintly remember that in Prepar3d you had to use the suffix _lm for lightmap to assign a night texture to the respective diffuse texture, eg you'd have a main texture and a as a night texture. Does Aerofly have any restrictions like that too? And what's the maximum texture size that can be assigned to an object? I like to have a single texture sheet for each object to keep number of draw calls low, but for larger objects you'd need 2048x2048 or even 4096x4096 to avoid blurriness, is that possible?

    Thanks, Fabian

    That was it thanks!

    I can't believe I've been running at lower resolution. I'm going to look around Florida and Netherlands again now. I had been whinging to myself about the low resolution terrain for low flight. Perhaps I've been missing out.

    EDIT: While this fixed this specific imagery, the existing Florida and Netherlands terrain appeared the same.

    This is probably because the standard resolution of most photoreal terrain is 1 m/Pixel which is roughly equivalent to Aerofly Level 14 resolution. The developers stated that their Turkey Point scenery was created at Level 15 which roughly equals 0.5 m. If you increase the resolution by two, the file size will be quadrupled because it's an area. Now look at the file size of your Netherlands and Florida imagine you'd need four times the disk space. Level 15 is normally reserved for small areas where people are likely to fly low, but it's not really feasible for all scenery unless you have a huge hard drive. Also, most of the orthoimagery freely available by the USGS is at 1 m / Pixel resolution, with small areas at a better resolution. Higher quality source images are usually only available from commercial vendors and very expensive, so noone could afford to buy the Addon anymore if the developers wanted to make a profit from it.