Posts by Fabs79

    Isn't there a helicopter that is used for operations in the mount everest area in the real world? I faintly remember it was a French one that also holds the altitude record for a helicopter but I can't remember the exact name.

    What about copyright?

    Will 3D warehouse allow to publish models from their site in another public database?

    Is a tmb model less critical?

    You beat me to it, I'm also worried about copyright. To be honest the best way is to create models from scratch yourself, because of copyright issues and because many of the 3D warehouse models are not performance optimized for flight simulation, too many vertices, too many small textures and materials, too many unnecessary details for a model that's probably only seen from a few hundred feet away.

    I wanted to suggest exactly the same, a object library may be split into airport / non Airport objects. Another important issue is copyright. Every modeler should state if it's a own model or converted from somewhere else and where the textures are from. Otherwise we'd risk the whole library getting removed.

    Generally speaking, I think that the Aerofly developers should try to team up with more 3rd party developers to add essential content to Aerofly that already exists for the well established platforms. HiFi Sim for a weather engine, Flight 1 for navigational devices and maybe also AI traffic... P3D and Xplane are also heavily dependant on 3rd party Addons, you'll have a hard time finding a screenshot from either one that doesn't use an addon of some sort. That way the IPACS team could focus on developing the core engine. With more content available customers interest in the simulator would increase, which again would help sales of 3rd party content. That's what we are seeing with xplane at the moment and I'm hoping Aerofly will grow in a similar way.

    That's on us, because we have not yet made is possible to program custom displays. (If developers read this, we can make it work, just contact us directly)

    That would be great. I don't even expect a full blown representation of a real life GNS unit, something like the default GPS in fsx would be sufficient as a start. The moving map looks a little arcady for my taste and somewhat out of place given that the rest of the cockpit interiors are very detailed and realistic.

    I had hoped to see a basic GPS modeled in the Just Flight aircraft, but the Screenshots suggest that the built in GNS 530 is just a frame around the standard Aerofly moving map. Let's see what other systems are modeled realistically.

    This looks too good to be true, how do you get those high resolution dirt /grass strips? Is it a high resolution orthophoto or a custom ground poly with a texture? I wanted to create a small scenery area which contains several dirt strips but they don't look nearly as good with the 1 m/Pixel orthophotos I'm limited to.

    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.:D

    I read that, too, good news. Can't wait to fly over London with more than 10 fps for the first time ;)

    Maybe FS2 is a better sim, and this is not needed. There is a good chance that they're getting direct support from the IPACS team.

    I hope so, but if it is possible to do all this in the core Sim why does none of the default planes have those features? I sometimes think it would have been better to release Aerofly 2 with fewer default aircraft but more complex ones. I also don't understand why a civilian flight Simulator needs two fighter jets and two historic military aircraft as default aircraft. Don't get me wrong I absolutely love Aerofly but some things could have been approached differently IMHO.

    I was also wondering if they implement all those features within the Aerofly core engine or with an external . dll. In FSX / P3D things like mixture control, helicopter physics or turboprop engine simulation are completely unrealistic, but developers like A2A, Dodosim or Majestic use their own external programs to calculate the values and then inject the results into the simulator. Maybe something like this is possible in Aerofly, too?

    Rich, you got my attention now. Fuel and engine management means that you can run out of fuel with engines failing? The default planes all seem to have unlimited fuel if I'm not mistaken. Does fuel weight influence flight characteristics, take off roll and so on? Does mixture act realistically (change of EGT, need to lean at higher altitudes to get the best performance, effect on fuel consumption)? If all those things work that would make the duchess the first serious GA plane for AFS 2, and even more it would prove that realistic simulation can be achieved by AFS 2,which many people still regard as more of a arcade game than a simulator. With features like this I'd definitely buy the Duchess the day it is released and of course also other GA planes from your catalogue (I loved the piper arrow III and Turbo arrow for P3D)

    I'd also like to see an aircraft with more system depth in Aerofly, at least a realistic cold and dark state with proper stratup and shutdown procedures, fuel system, realistic mixture, realistic landing distances (anyone else here thinking that the default Baron shouldn't come to a complete stop with a ground roll of around 50 meters?). And I was telling myself : if it's just another good looking default plane I won't buy it. But then again, if we don't buy it, no Payware developer will be willing to invest in porting aircraft to AFS 2. And maybe if in a few years AFS 2 has all this system depth, it would be nice to have some developers still around to take advantage of the new technology.

    Could you post your work flow that led to these results? Which program and which tools you used? I tried some image corrections with Photoshop for one of my own sceneries but no matter what I do I just can't get the colors right. It looks better than before but by no means perfect. I played with saturation, color temperature, exchanging colors and so on but nothing really got me where I wanted to go