While I'm not a big fan of mobile games, I haven't yet decided whether to buy this game for my phone. However, when IPACS released the first mobile version, was it primarily for Android or iOS? Or both?
I currently own a Samsung S25 with an Octa-Core processor (4.47 GHz, 3.5 GHz) and a maximum refresh rate of 120 Hz. Being rather particular about details, is this mobile purchase worthwhile if the trees aren't actually present on Android?
I hope this question isn't too awkward.
Indeed, if we're talking about FS2, LFSB was on the French side. But it wasn't the only one missing; LSGS and LSZA are obviously just airports.
Luckily, FSCloudPort was later offered to us to enhance the map.
I also learned how to build some small airfields. 
But today, I'm specifically talking about FS4, and LFSB has been on hold for over three years.
And for a bit of background, this airport, serving the RegioTriRhena region, which includes Basel, Mulhouse, and Freiburg im Breisgau, is the only "binational" airport in the world, involving both a Swiss and a French side.
With over 8 million passengers in 2023, it's the largest airport in the Grand Est region. (Info from Wiki)
I just find it a shame that IPACS is ignoring this airport.
What’s wrong with LFSB. I just landed there. (In the Beta).
Screenshots please, thanks
Some truths are intentionally inconvenient and can be frustrating for IPACS, but patience is required.
This is understandable when the same questions are asked repeatedly, especially for small requests like additional liveries, specific aircraft, or minor flaws barely visible under close scrutiny. Sometimes they even bother to respond.
However, when it comes to major bugs that have persisted for three years, such as buildings floating more than 5 meters above the ground, or parked vehicles, as I've shown in the images, there's complete silence. They would have the opportunity to respond and indicate whether or not these issues could be fixed. Yet, most of these buildings have been present since FS1, and while they do have autoheight, they don't have a value of 0 meters. Only IPACS can reset these values to 0.
However, it turns out that deleting certain wires is simpler.
For Tübingen, these may not be insignificant flaws, but if they want to maintain a clean game, they must at least address them and, ideally, correct these problems. But we need to remain patient and level-headed.
On the other hand, I have always thanked, respected, and appreciated IPACS's work on this simulator, whether it's the scenery, points of interest, aircraft, airports, or airfields, all meticulously handcrafted down to the smallest detail—it's all fabulous.
One last thing: In the seven and a half years I've been here, I've made five requests:
LFSB, PC-6, PC-21, a general ground texture (at least level 14), and more realistic water, like that in FS1, for example.
And without even asking for realistic weather, which would be very welcome, but doesn't seem like a priority given the added performance burden it would undoubtedly place on a simulator that already aims to be the lightest on the market.
Unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think I'm being a pain considering everything I've read here over the years.
I hope this thread won't be deleted.
Have a good day everyone! 
A developer mentioned here on the forum that these positions would be added, which hasn't happened yet. It's been about 4 or 5 months since we were promised that aircraft parking positions would be added to airports with automatically generated 3D structures, but so far that promise hasn't been fulfilled, and I don't know why.
Patience, patience, it's been three years now that I've been waiting for LFSB.
And yet it's not very far from Tübingen. Maybe Santa Claus will be here this year.
So your question concerns your phone; it's clear that your image won't work on FS4.
Thanks for the help, Jet. I only made a suggestion, but people crucified me for it 😅. Thank you for responding, and I'm glad to know it's on your radar; I believe it will be a great step forward.
"Lynched," what nonsense?
People hear what they want to hear and understand what they want to understand. Isn't that right?
I imagine Ipacs isn't satisfied with such basic ground handling functions as XP. Aerofly offers better. 👌
Absolutely, it's quick to start up, easy to learn and configure, and its fluidity is unmatched by any other simulator on PC. However, there's a catch: despite everything the community would like to see expanded—realistic weather, more dynamic water, ground services, vehicles, boats, the real deal, etc.—how well will Aerofly perform? If its performance suffers from latency issues like MSFS 20.24, no thanks.
As always, I wish IPACS would focus more on fixing current problems and improving certain imperfections.
Then, if all goes well, move on to the next stage...
I'm not familiar with XP, but is the ground service generated by default in XP11 or 12, or are they additional add-ons created by third-party authors?
Alleged imperfections??? Okay, I'll keep that in mind, especially seeing buildings present since FS1 that now tower 5 meters above our heads in FS4—"a strange, bizarre idea." Fine, fine.
In that case, I'm waiting to see the first misstep here.
If no developers care about this in this simulator, then why bother continuing with damaged or missing pieces of the puzzle?
I don't think it's a matter of appreciation, from a realistic point of view, but other priorities would be more appreciated before adding, such as elevation problems, artifacts, and coastal zone edges, which together are the biggest flaw on this SIM card.
I know most people here are content to fly at 35,000 feet and consider it commonplace, however many fly at lower altitudes, in helicopters or GA. Whether it is FSGlobal version for mobile or FS4 for PC. That's my point of view.
I don't really want it either. There are much higher priorities than this. In MSFS the ground service feature wore thin quite quickly and I eventually skipped it most the time.
Absolutely, many other priorities, corrections and improvements.
Hello ipacs, the topic I'm bringing up today is a much-discussed issue among Aerofly users, and one that everyone misses a lot: ground service.Ground service in the simulator would bring much more realism and people to the simulator, and I also believe it would gain greater recognition than it already has.I know you probably hate giving spoilers about something like the A350-1000, but this is something you could give us some satisfaction with: will we have ground service by next year?
Thank you in advance.
Do you have anything to write with? Try calling them in Tübingen.
SkyModz MD-11F — Development UpdateThe SkyModz MD-11F for Aerofly FS is shaping up to be one of our most ambitious and realistic aircraft yet. Our goal is to bring the classic tri-jet freighter to life with high-fidelity modeling, detailed animations, and smooth Aerofly performance.
While I have all due respect for your development of the MD-11, in my opinion it would be more appropriate to move your thread to "User content". What do you think?
No IPACS response to this problem ???
Let's all hope that the team in Tübingen can solve this problem
However, only the Bugatti can reproduce the problem related to the subsoil
Same here, with equipment more or less similar to yours.
I tried it with the Bugatti, see the first image, then an identical reproduction in the second, this time via the basement. Strange, isn't it?
And it will release in mobile?
Next time, please be a little less repetitive; asking the same question 10 times on my screenshots is ridiculous. Thanks
Vodka? Or beer to celebrate the occasion
Nalewka 75° 
