Posts by Challenger2

    I am also of the opinion that a flight simulator must necessarily support motion platforms and offer extensive interfaces for every type of peripherals, which is a very low priority at IPACS. I've been waiting since the beginning of AF2 for support for my platform so that I can finally realistically simulate a helicopter.

    As owner of an ultralight aircraft, I would also be very happy if an UL in AF 4 was available. The DO 27 from AF 2 is not an ultralight, but at least a slow plane with a lot of windows for good sightseeing. I tried to convert the DO 27 to AF 4 without success. I think that's a trifle for someone who is practiced with converting.

    PAPIs do not have to be aligned with the ILS. PAPI is for VFR flights, ILS is for IFR flights. An airplane lands by sight or by instruments. The two glide paths can have a completely different angle, see LSZA (Lugano Agno).

    Jet-Pack (IPACS) This is where I found PAPI's problems in the game. When I import the airport data used on the PC side. I found that PAPI's inaccuracies persisted. On the glide path guided by ILS signal, PAPI still shows three white and one red. This may not be a simple scene problem, but rather PAPI's inaccurate reference documents. You should check PAPI's reference folder as soon as possible to make sure PAPI's instructions are correct.

    There is no PAPI database in Aerofly, they are all set to about 3°, and that's a big error that I complained about many years ago. PAPIs and ILS approaches have different angles at almost every airports and do not have to match at all. ILS is used for IFR flights and PAPIs for VFR flights, so never both at the same landing. For example, if you try to land in Lugano LSZA with Aerofly on runway 01 on LOC or PAPI, you will not survive in case of some mountains, the real LSZA has an ILS of 6.65° and a PAPI of 6°.

    So AF 4 needs a possibility of different approach angles to be introduced if viable flight plans are to be possible.

    Since there are now three great helicopters to choose from and the optics, with good VR glasses, can hardly be surpassed, the support of motion platforms would increase the already great experience a big step. Simmers who have spent a lot of money on a movable seat would certainly also pay something for an additional module that enables movement, I definitely would. I would also accept a reduction in FPS if a switch for motion control on or off in the settings enables fast data output and the FPS would be a little less.

    What do the Simmers, the Gamers and the Developers think about this idea?

    Jetzt wo du es schreibst ( parallel projection ) kommt es mir wieder sehr bekannt vor. Es ist nicht optimal, dass dieser wichtige Schalter so gut versteckt ist.

    Eine gute Kühlung ist dringend empfohlen. Ich habe meine CPU mit dem besten verfügbaren Luftkühler von Noctua bestück, was zusammen mit den 3 Lüftern im Gehäuse nicht nur die CPU und das Mainbord um etwa 10° weniger warm werden lassen, sondern auch meine RTX 2080 wird durch die bessere Zirkulation deutlich weniger heiss.

    Mit den Grafik Einstellungen musst du experimentieren wie der besste Kompromiss erreicht werden kann.

    Hallo metzi95,

    Ich fliege AF2 meist mit meiner PiMax 5K+ und bin begeistert. Das Problem mit den falschen Blickrichtungen pro Auge hatte ich auch eine Zeit lang, weiss aber nicht mehr genau was das Problem schlussendlich gelöst hat.

    Normal starte ich zuerst PiTool, dann Aerofly und in VR-Modus wechseln. Steam VR startet dann selbständig. PiTool brauchst du nicht unbedingt, geht auch ohne. Ich nutze PiTool, weil nur dort mit einem Tracker am Sitz Motion Compensation möglich ist, und auch perfekt funktioniert. Leider unterstützt AF2 Motion Platformen immer noch nicht, sie aber im Joystick Modus zu nutzen ist immer noch besser als gar keine Bewegung.

    Nun zu meinen aktuellen Einstellungen, welche ein perfektes Bild und eine 80° heisse GPU erzeugen:

    PiTool Version V1.0.1.249 Settings: Firmware V2.1.255.255, Refresh 90Hz, IPD Offset 0, Vertical Offset L und R 0.

    In Steam habe ich die Auflösung auf 96% = 2728x3224 gestellt.

    Ich werde noch einen Forum Beitrag suchen der ein anderes Problem lösen soll, aber möglicherweise hier auch helfen kann.

    Viel Glück, irgendwie muss es gehen und es lohnt sich.

    It can be corrected though, this is not a limitation of the sim. I had a version of the lynx where I had manually made it "non-cold and dark".

    If you need help with this just ask. From what you told me in the past you didn't want the helicopter to be ready for takeoff right away.

    On my VR helicockpit there is no mouse and no controllers. On some Joystick buttons i assigned some important functions and this works fine for flying the R22. But absolutely no chance to run up the LYNX. So i would like to have a "hot and bright" LYNX, ready for departure. Is this possible with a modified main.mcf or are a lot of modified files necessary?

    Hi Andy,

    Basically, that's a good idea. I would like to have an output for my DIY Motion Platform, which is currently running with Jans BFF and Thanos Interface and the simulators that support it. In my opinion, the data flow is much too slow to control a platform, 50 data packets per second are expected. So you probably have no way to solve the sad problem.

    Aerofly is by far the best flight simulator, but not finished yet. I tried to fly from LSZB to LSZA with a flight plan. The flight path is well chosen, but the altitude is deadly, because it collides with the terrain several times and leads through uncontrolled airspace. If the automatic flight planner does not set a sufficient altitude itself, you should at least be able to manually enter a suitable altitude for each waypoint. Or do I see something wrong here?