Hello guys
I figured out today that most flight schools in the US require an iPad for their training (which is a shame because I'm team Android personally).
Anyways, I wanted to know if there's a way to restore all my purchases from my Android device to my iPad or should I need to buy it twice again?
Thanks by advance
Unfortunately you can’t transfer purchases (not just Aerofly) from Android to Apple or the other way around
Any update on this? I just did a short flight into Hong Kong and crashed into a pole.
I noticed some bugs with airports on the West Coast:
1. Eugene in Oregon no longer has jetbridges. It previously did in an older version of Aerofly
2. Portland KPDX and Arcata KACV do not have correct control tower camera views
Yes, the same happened to me when I did Orlando to St. Maarten.
This is the same issue with Hong Kong generating poles at the end of the runways. Sometimes any airport will incorrectly generate terminals as well.
My assumption is our devices ran out of memory and couldn’t generate buildings at the end.
Jet-Pack (IPACS) admin Any progress with fixing this?
lol I don’t even have that option on my Ipad
It seems like Android got an actual version update while iOS hasn't.
But everyone received the new airports and liveries today.
Is the update only on android? I’m not seeing it on iOS.
As we said everytime the question comes up, because we are constantly adding new airports and are working behind the scenes on airports we don't want to announce quite yet such a map is out of date very quickly and thus we don't publish one ourselves.
Great to see that someone made the effort to make it anyway, so will you be updating the map every month for the next 3-5 years as well?
Don't you at least have a list of all custom-built airports? If so, surely it wouldn't take much effort to publish that and update it periodically when you add new airports? Or community members could take that list and update it themselves.
This is really great, thank you for making it. I was hoping we’d get an official map from the developers showing custom airports when Global released, but this works too.
Aerofly is the best-looking mobile flight simulator. There’s no denying this.
The best graphics, the best details, the best scenery. A free camera would be the perfect way to complement this.
Irony is the Airbus A321 being released which was bigger than the Aerofly original.
Perhaps one token smaller plane could be offered, it would prove both that it is possible and that the will to actually do it exists.
I am curious about this, Jet-Pack (IPACS)
Why the A320 before the A321 given the way you initially model aircraft?
Display MoreWe are living in a world where people don't have patience and understand the Dev's team are small not like msfs or x plane having big people to work on. Things take time to come.
If they add a350-1000 what wrong in that? It's ok even if they can add a350-900. To my observation I don't see anything special in a350-900. Just a improved cabin pressure and its a base model of the a350 family.
So far, ipacs adds aircrafts based on the "speciality" for each variant of each place (that's another thing I've observed when they add aircrafts)
For example: the 737-900er has better fuel efficiency and rang compared to its common 737-8NG (ikr you would ask me why max 10 isn't added because, it's not present in the real world where, ipacs can get data of the aircraft).
Boeing 787-10 has a speciality in it's utilisation of economics. It can handle more passengers in cheaper cost for medium haul routes.can I say it? (Cheaper 77w?)
A380- we all know what it's special for. The largest and the biggest passenger aircraft.
So, again it's their choice in this. From what I observed they go based on speciality. It's not only airlines. I can say the a321ceo isn't as popular as a321neo. How come they added that aircraft? It's because, it's again like 737NG can take more extra passengers as well, the introduction of IAE engines for the a320 family. There's a reason for what they develop each variant. It's not because of less airlines or more airlines. Again try to understand that, the team is small they work for us taking their time, sometimes sacrificing some time need to be spend for their well-being, family. Let's be grateful for what we get from ipacs. We need to appreciate them wether it's a350-1000 and a350-900 instead, of arguing that. "I want this airlines" "I want that aircraft variant". Leave the rest to them. They know what to do.
I give you a suggestion: find out that which variant is coming for a350 when they leak out the "landing gear previews".
With this I'll stop talking I know here people are going to insult me and make me go out of the community. My final reply makes you all understand. Peace!
I’m confused. You’re saying the developers chose longer aircraft because... they can carry more people?
I doubt that. The developers have been clear in the past that they intentionally choose longer aircraft so that it’s “easier” to shrink to shorter variants, if that ever happens.
But yes I agree that there’s no MAX 10 because there’s no real data and no real operators yet.
Just being clear, I am very excited for the A350, no matter the variant that’s chosen.
But regarding the -900 vs -1000 debate, just consider the “benefit” we *could* receive for each variant. Obviously the -900 has more liveries and is more popular, which would enable a multitude of additional routes for those that care about realism.
The -1000 supposedly would be able to facilitate the development of the -900, but the question is how long it’ll take to return to this project.
If it does take years, then at that point just go with the -900 to maximize benefit for all users over the waiting period. And considering how much technology advances over the years (Aerofly FS Global is literally a perfect example), I would assume that it would gradually become easier to shift from the smaller aircraft (-900) to developing the larger aircraft (-1000), if this scenario happens.
Well, to answer to your question.
It really depends on what Dev's think. If they think it's the right time to make a35k now, then cut the fuselage to a350-900.
Btw, what's the point if they either make a35k or a359? You are gonna anyways fly a Airbus a350 which, neither of other sims gave us, a proper one to fly. (Except, x plane with their FF with medium systems).
Only difference I spot on is, that the 350-1000 and 900 having gear, fuselage length and weight difference.. otherwise it's all the same. I don't see any differences in them.
To use a logic why do you care more about the airlines at first? Let them add the aircraft which we can fly with details at first. Then let them in the future updates add airlines as, they’re adding for the 777-300er recently.
Some of us care about realism and the variety of airlines. If the A350-1000 is added, that only allows for around 8 existing liveries, most of which can already be found on the 777-300ER in Aerofly.
If the A350-900 is added, that allows for around 30 existing liveries.
You can’t compare it with adding liveries onto the 777-300ER because that has so many more airlines compared to the A350-1000.
Hey Jet-Pack (IPACS) did you ever adjust this?
I remember in the Beta Update on May 10 for the A321 (I forgot the exact version number), the 777 got updated and the landings finally became less harsh. However, upon the A321 going to public release, the 777 started to have hard landings again.
I guess these pictures are partial screenshots from a few months ago. Or real-time progress, I hope they are screenshots from a few months ago. aerofly seems to have never announced plans in advance, perhaps there is a delay between these photos and actual progress, yes, almost certainly -1000
How are you so sure it’s the -1000?
No not necessarily the a320 has been in the sim since aerofly fs 1 mobile probably before they started following the system of larger variant first then shorter variant
That’s possible. I just wish Aerofly wouldn’t go for the longer variant every time since these longer aircraft (787-10 is 2.5 years old, 777-300ER is 4.5 years old) have been in the simulator for years now and are unlikely going to get their shorter variants since the devs have other projects like this new aircraft.
If Aerofly goes for the shorter and most popular variant first (A350-900, 787-9, 737-800 for example), that’ll allow the most benefit for all users while they eventually wait for the new variants. And considering years will likely progress by, wouldn’t technology improve to help switch from the shorter to the longer variant?
If I remember, or maybe I am wrong. Somewhere dev said about making the largest variant at first, can make them to shrink the variant easily in the future.
For example , if they create airbus A350-1000, they can shrink the variant say: to airbus A350-900. I know, there’s a difference mainly in the landing gears and fuel tanks.. but again, that won’t be very time consuming. It would take few weeks or a month to finish those alterations. I can understand what logic they meant.
But didn’t they just disprove this after they created the A321, which is literally an extended version of the A320?
And besides, why not go directly for the shorter variant with more liveries? It’s been over 2.5 years since they released the 787-10 and we don’t have the 787-9 or 787-8. Who knows if/when we’ll ever get the shorter variants.
I'm hoping for the 900 version since the wheel tilt looks better the one from the 1000
If it is the A350, the -900 should be picked. There’s only 8 current airlines that fly the -1000 while the -900 has around 30 airlines.
if this does happen to be an A350, does anyone have maybe a fuller image of what part of the airplane has been revealed already? i dont recognise any part of it, could be an E-jet nose for all i know haha
It's the aircraft's nose. The picture name is teaser_nose.jpg
Jet-Pack (IPACS) Can you say if someone has already guessed it correctly?
