Posts by orangedog433

admin  Jet-Pack (IPACS) Can you describe exactly what you're adding to the update?

Quote from AvZy

Completely agree with you! But you just talked about Ground Crew & Free Moving View?

What do you mean by this? Thanks

The description is not accurate. I mean aerofly does not have these functions yet.

Quote from IZ0JUB

Multiplayer is something I would welcome in FS2 as I used it many times in FSX and it was very educational and fun too.

You have multiplayer in the RC flying so why not FS2?

Perhaps IPACS does not want to be just online, they may also want to have a complete air traffic control command system.

I don't think it's necessary. Because Aerofly is free moving view, ground crew and model detail. Not enough to make the player take the simulation seriously. The shared cabin at this point in Aerofly's life is more about chatting while flying together.

Quote from siovenneg

Aeroflight FS4 . After several trials and changes in the UTC window , yesterday evening , the time became correct after a change .

By the way , I have problems with TRIMs . Quite impossible to make stabilization .

Why on the track , ready to fly , I have a Trim 18 % UP and level at five on the left picture ?

The aircraft's documentation will determine the default trim for takeoff when you are on the runway. If you HAVE an assist such as AUTO TRIM on, the plane's trim will adjust to the proper position as you fly, and you can check if you HAVE it on. Of course, the fly-by-wire aircraft itself has automatic trim and cannot be turned off directly.

Modified aerodynamic and weight parameters. The wrong position of the landing gear was adjusted, and the wrong position and flashing frequency of the strobe light were modified to be closer to the reality. Added some new views into the cabin. New sound effects from AF4 were used. Couldn't fix some logic bugs with the autobrake (although these have been fixed in AF4) maybe the jetpack will fix it? I don't know.

Unzip the files and put them in Aircrafts and replace the old ones, I hope you'll enjoy them!

I still don't understand your description accurately.

The blue window is determined by the blue background of the cockpit inside the window. The windows are always transparent.

There will be texture treatment on the window to reduce light reflection and transmittance, which can be observed at a specific angle.

These reflections are rendered by the game and cannot be changed by deleting some files.

Quote from Fab001

Who are you talking to? I never said that I don’t want any changes but I don’t want a change in the direction of RFS or others. Otherwise I would never have requested this livery.

Anyone who holds a similar view that fits my description. If you don't have a more detailed description of your own view. I could only infer from your existing viewpoint. It's as if you would say that I hope AF can become a certain game instead of comparing with other games that AF sales are poor and hope that AF can learn from other games on its operation mode. I will always explain and understand the misunderstanding about others.

Of course. In your position, it is the responsibility of the authorities to fix any errors in the game as soon as possible instead of adding more errors. Because you paid for it. The team has been working on fixing bugs that our players have raised, and I'm sure we'll see results in an update soon. But anyone who has bought any version of Aerofly so far can't change the fact that AF sales are dismal.

I always thought Aerofly was a success as a flight simulator built by a small team. Officials have completed the complete framework needed for a flight simulation game. The basic functions are already in place. But as a marketable game, Aerofly has had less success. Each game builds new features on top of itself, and these features are often more important to players than fixing minor bugs. Whether it's XPM, IF, or not professional games, it seems to be telling us this.

Quote from Fab001

First of all. Yes, I Love to fly to the Wasserkuppe. Try it out yourself. It’s amazing! And once, I did a 2 hours flight with a C172 but I have to say, that I most likely fly with jet airliners because they are faster and easier to fly than a KingAir or a Chessna (with autopilot).

I believe the same way as you do but everybody should get what they like. And we have many big airports.

My city is Hamburg and it doesn’t have any small airport. It’s an aviation city and it has the Finkenwerder Airbus factory and its the Lufthansa Technik hub.

For me, RORTOS isn’t funny. It’s kind of sad to see that games like these get more support than detailed games like Aerofly. I like the fact that Aerofly is something else even though the development takes longer and they don’t make so much profit.

You talk like a guy that wants Aerofly to be like the other flight simulators. But that’s not the case. Aerofly is something special on the mobile market as I said before and they shouldn’t change it that way.

You could be a developer as well. Just ask them🤷‍♂️

Dont you see how often I report bugs??? This is a clear prejudice.

Display More

I still only keep my own opinion.

First of all, as you said, the content of aerofly is very beautiful. So why is aerofly not competitive in the market? This requires asking players who have chosen other games.

Quote from admin

Each simulator has it's pros and cons and it really depends on what the user wants.

If production team want more players to buy games, the production team needs to know what other games meet the needs of their players rather than meet some of your needs. When production team know what they lack, they should know the priority of adding these functions. It is the key to attract users to solve the problem of function.

Secondly, the production team should improve on the basis of solving the problems. This is what IPACS has been doing. Poor function optimization and long update date will lead to loss of players.

Finally, the production team is guaranteed to make profits to support more content. The addition of new content will attract more players to choose AF, which is a virtuous cycle of the game. And I believe IPACS knows this. But they can't always put their energy into the update of the mobile terminal.

As at the beginning, I reserve this view. The low sales volume of AF is caused by the combination of these three steps. But I think the first step accounts for a larger proportion.

The mobile terminal has been iteratively optimized, but too few new contents have been added. Af2022 is a major update, but other Flying Games have met the needs of most players. Therefore, the sales volume is poor

I once tried very hard to recommend aerofly to my friends. However, IF players gave me the answer that there were too few international airports in the region and the game lacked online flights. XPM gave me the answer that the game lacks a perfect weather system. According to you, each player chooses his favorite game because of his own prejudice. You don't want AF to make any changes. Other players still choose their favorite games. How wonderful!

Quote from Fab001

I don’t think that they shouldn’t focus on smaller aiports anymore. It’s the love into detail what I care about and that’s why I love Aerofly. Maybe I am one of a few people that always starts at a Gates cold and dark, flys with a checklist and tries to be as realistic as it’s possible.

It would be horrible if Aerofly becomes a pay to play app. So far it has a fair price but subscriptions are horrible, for example.

They should give us more DLCs but they shouldn’t start with the mind set: quantity > quality. That not how it works. Maybe RFS does it that way and they are successful but from the realism it’s absolutely trash. Sorry for such an expression.

So here comes the question.... Have you ever tried to take off from a small airport you don't know and fly to another small airport? Do you often seriously complete the startup of C172 and drive it to a certain country?

I believe most people prefer to fly from one provincial capital airport to another in an A320 or B787. For mobile platforms, small airports tend to be: Hey, I have passed many airports along the way. Such an add-on.

Of course, if the small airport happens to be in your city, you may study its history.

RORTOS games are funny, aren't they? The rotten aerodynamics, bad modeling, and ridiculous aircraft sound effects are simply an entertainment game. The pro service costs $6 a month.

What? How many RFS downloads are there in Google? More downloads than all AF series? Why? I'm not an RFS player, so I won't make too much comments. As for why so many users support RFS, you should go to the review area of the game.

Xplane10mobile has 5 million downloads in the Google market, and they need to pay for each model. Their A320 does not even have detailed modeling, and the avionics system of b738 is not complete, and it is even impossible to input takeoff performance.

Infinite flight also has 1 million downloads on Google, and pro service costs $10 a month. Obviously, they have made a lot of money.

You need to recognize the fact that aerofly mobile terminal does not have strong user stickiness, and the slow update speed and incomplete content are the main reasons for players to switch to other flight platforms.

Af2022 has only 10000 downloads in the Google market and its price is only equivalent to one month's IFPro. Why is that all? You should go to the review area of other games.

$100000. I learned from other players that IPACS is a 5-person team. How long do you think this money is enough for them to live? How much can they do to benefit the game, such as expanding the servers that provide free DLC download services, recruiting new members, and expanding the area of their offices?

To be honest, if AF wants to be competitive in the current game market, it should first solve the problem of many functions, rather than the quality problem. All games are of perfect quality on the basis of some. The new content means that price increases are unavoidable.

Ask a funny question. Some people pay for pro services for one month's if, but you only pay so much for one year's AF, and you always ask to update the content you want. And hope they will update these contents as soon as possible. Do you think this is reasonable?

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

The 4GB limit comes from the apple app store and google play store. The downloadable addons are hosted externally which costs money for us that's why the scenery addons cost money on mobile. Adding more downloads thus adds more expenses and more work on our side.

You can refer to most mobile games on the market. They only provide a client with a size of several hundred MB. The game subjects are all from the server.

The operation of the server also means that the game cannot be just a closed buyout game. Only the constantly updated content of internal purchase can guarantee the profit of the game. This also leads to games often having a life cycle. Games that exceed their life cycle often stop operating. For example, xplane9mobile has stopped downloading games in 2020.

Of course, if you rent games at a monthly fee, for example, the unlimited flying game body costs US $3, and the pro service costs US $10 a month. This makes them not only use the latest navigation data, but also have huge operating costs in recent years to invest in new development projects.

However, the current annual iteration mode of aerofly is more suitable for the buyout system. You need to raise the game price to maintain profitability. If more server costs are invested, it will be more suitable for the current game market to keep updating and renting games on the same generation version. If the game is operated in this way and kept updated. Aerofly may officially compete with other games in the mobile market.

(perhaps I have conceived too many ideas here, and the transformation of the operation mode of the game is definitely not my own decision, so this is only my personal view.)

But I still want to make a good comparison: we have 500 airports in Europe, but none in other places, many of which are small airports. And we have 500 airports around the world, most of which are famous international airports. Obviously, the latter is more attractive to mobile users.

Due to the limitation of performance, the fineness of the airport does not need to be improved. The current mobile terminal airport can still use more reference buildings to replace most of the terminal buildings. The airports in more regions but less in number will definitely attract more mobile users to aerofly. (although this concept will not be of any substantive help to the PC)

Quote from pryerlee

We now have global elevation, global map, global airports/airfields/helipads and streetlights, just need to get the cultivation files to load and the map files to load without the strange red pixelation.

I took the global terrain from the terrain file of AF4 and sent it to pryerlee. I kept the file of the mail. If you have the ability to modify your game on Android. You can send me a private letter. I can continue to provide this document for a period of time.

IPACS does not create terrain for areas above 61 degrees north latitude. But it can meet the needs of most airports.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Is the swiss repaint not available on mobile? I thought it was... we need to stay below the 4GB download size which could be a reason why it's now included on mobile and only on desktop.

Why must we limit the game space to a certain size and Castrate a large amount of content of the game. It should be possible to design more content to be provided to users as DLC, and support the free deletion of unnecessary files provided by the game to let users decide what content they want.

It's hard to hear, but aerofly provides too few airports and coatings on the mobile end, even if you have completed the whole Europe seriously. For the details of the mobile terminal scene, we hope that we can obtain more regional international airports.

The same global low definition scenery as AF4 currently provides. Spend some time at several international airports in some states or provincial capitals. Wider coverage. Updated navigation data and higher precision navigation data if possible. These can be sold as DLCs. These will make the value of your game more than double on the mobile side. You sell it at a heigher price. Users in need definitely think their payment is worth it.

As you may be well aware, as a mobile game, most people will not hold their mobile phones for a long time to complete the startup and taxiing of the aircraft. We want to take off from more famous international airports and fly to a place of our own to see the beautiful scenery with our favorite airlines. Aerofly has more beautiful and high-precision scenery than all mobile simulation games, which is why we still choose AF.

This process can be very long, but it is necessary for mobile users. You can raise the price of the game and set up DLC to pay extra. Internal purchase is the norm in mobile games nowadays. Besides, aerofly is the cheapest professional flight simulator at present. What we see is not a lower price, but a better and more professional platform than other simulators.

As my personal opinion only. Your team is understaffed, and we, as users, should know it well. More satisfaction means more unlimited requirements. The development of mobile terminal will run counter to your desire to create more professional PC terminal simulation flight. I hope the team can make more content, so this is only an opinion I reserve.

admin The base terrain you provided does not cover anything above 61 degrees north latitude. Will you be adding them in future updates?

If you're not used to the new aerodynamic, try this video for practice.

Some aerodynamic modifications. The plane will experience more ground stress when it lands (perhaps more realistically). But I can't fix it when the plane goes into a flat tail spin and couldn't get out（Maybe until the jetpack modifies it）The strobe frequency has been modified to refer to the AEROLED strobe (which flashes once per second). Some new views have been added. I hope you like it!

I'm setting the aircraft to blink at a strobe frequency similar to the real aircraft. I've tried SinglePulse and DoublePulse. However, Triple Pulse is not available. Can Aerofly do this?

I made some upgrades to the 777. Used the new sound effects in AF4, changed the pneumatics and some parameters, changed the lighting parameters. I hope you like it!  

Jet-Pack (IPACS) I found that the sound position of the passenger plane in AF2 was in the center of the model. But the cabin is some distance from the center of the model. It can cause some sounds to be very low volume. Is there any way to modify the location of the sound? Thanks a lot！

<[soundinput][AltitudeCallout2500Input][]

<[uint32][InputID][TerrainWarning.Output2500]>

>

<[soundsingle][AltitudeCallout2500][]

<[string8][InputTrigger][AltitudeCallout2500Input.Output]>

<[string8][InputVolume][30]>

<[string8][InputPitch][1.0]>

<[uint32][PositionID][Fuselage.R]>

<[uint32][VelocityID][Fuselage.V]>

<[string8][SoundFile][altitude_callout_2500.wav]>

<[float64][Threshold][0.9]>

<[uint32][Direction][1]>

<[bool][External][false]>