Worth to buy it?

[Troll Norris]

Hi. First of all I am looking for something very realistic. The last 2 flight simulators that enjoyed me were X-plane11 and DCS:World. I also own FSX and a lot of high quality addons like PMDG, A2A, Carrenado or FSLabs addons.

I had AeroflyFS 1 and I was very disapointed by that. It looked nice because they used phototextures but only from big distance because from close distance there were just flat surfaces with almost no polygons and low res textures, cities were just textures with no 3d models. But that was not the main problem. The main problem was very unrealistic flight dynamics and aircraft damage model. Everything was flying like on "rails". There was not possible to spin or stall aircraft. There was not possible to overheat engine or oil. There was not possible to breake wings or make Blackout due to High-G or OverG turns.

So I am asking if it's worth to buy. If something changed. Thank you for answer.

[anon]

I have done a few flights in the A320, dont get me wrong they have made the game look beautiful and the aircraft looks stunning. But the only thing I have to complain about is how unrealistic it feels, an example of this is when I'm comming into land and I turn the Auto Pilot off, one small move on my joystick will pitch the plane down unrealisticly. When I play fsx, the A320 feels natural and the physics feel real as I dont have these quick pitch movements like I do in Areofly.

[The Wealdstone Raider]

The same A320 that goes from 0-140kias in about 3 seconds?

[Jan (IPACS)]

A few things you mention here are just not correct or too simplified. The Aerofly FS 2 aircraft do have quite a bit of system depth. No engine start, mixture or FMS yet, correct but that will probably come soon. The Aerofly fully modeles electic systems in the C172 and B58 - that electric system can compete with A2A standards, I've even gotten a battery low warning and a few failed instruments after when going to low idle in the C172 with all consumers running at full power... Almost all navigation instruments are woorking, you can shoot ILSes in all equipped aircraft. The most important things like reversers, autospoilers and -brakes, trims, internal and external lights, transponders, clocks/chronos, display zooms and mutliple display modes are implemented, A320, LJ45 and B747 have all of their system pages, you can swap displays from side to side, dim all of them, nav-radio-stacks (e.g. C172) are working, fuel pumps are in developent (A320) and there are a few bonues available already as well. The A320 has a takeoff and landing memo, the LJ45 has a bezel controler with menu pages, you can set the pressure, the MDA/DH in couple aircraft, you can fold the wings in the F4U and F18. In the IPACS forum an improvement of the Autopilot was also announced couple of times... so "no" depth is not correct. You can do quite a bit, especially for a default aircraft (hard to compare to expensive add-on aircraft). - And don't forget this is early access still, IPACS have said they will improve the system depth.

- flight physics: not to be confused with damage model
As mentioned above the FSX engine really has its flaws in the flight engine and I'm sure the flight setups of the Aerofly aircraft probably can and will be tuned in the future. Technically speaking the physics engine is outstanding they just have to fine tune a few performance numbers,
To the 737 pitch/roll: keep in mind that this is the smallest 737 and it's also quite light. It can't really be compared to the PMDG 737-800 which is much larger. (Just because you are used to FSX doesn't make the Aerofly more or less realistic)
Sure overstress is not simulated yet but FSX also just stopped the game if you pulled up to much, so I'm ok with the not breaking of wings in Aerofly for now. And as far as I remember I've not experienced any buffeting in X-Plane or FSX either, only in add-on aircraft.

[The Oldar]

Wonderfully said.

I was trying to make your point about not comparing the planes in different sims myself.

Aerofly is not just a game, even though it has lots of features that need to be added. It has plenty of depth, and it's immersion factor is unmatched in VR.

[merville]

The only reason FSX is still relevant as a flight sim is the massive ecosystem of high quality add-ons available. It is a very old sim and its flight model obviously has a lot of limitations, which add-on developers have been able to work around in outstanding ways but with quite some effort and only because there was this ecosystem for them to thrive in. P3D is extending the lifespan of the FSX ecosystem.

The stock planes in X-Plane are basic as hell, but that's fine because X-plane also exists within its own add-on ecosystem that is rapidly expanding as it begins to eclipse FSX as the go-to general aviation flight sim. X-plane is more of a platform for various developers to focus on high quality projects and carefully focus some of the best simulations available.

Then you have sims like DCS which bring some of the highest quality military simulations to the table which rival even the best payware FSX/X-plane aircraft.

---

Currently, there are a lot of great things about Aerofly FS2 like the graphics, optimization, and polished VR support, but the core of the experience - the airplanes - feel lacking against the incredibly high standards that flight simmers are obviously going to compare to. Especially when flight sims exist within these unique add-on ecosystems where payware developers are able to successfully monetize high quality add-ons, which leads to tons of great content for consumers to play with (if you're willing to pay, of course!) and we're not relying solely on the sim developers to provide content.

Aerofly FS2 just doesn't have this ecosystem yet so the piloting experience it delivers pales in comparison to the more mature sims. If we were stuck with the stock airplanes in either FSX or X-plane, it would be a very different experience. For many simmers, the high quality payware are the only reason we play these sims. But FS2 just doesn't offer that right now. The interactive 172 is a great start, but it's the only "aftermarket" mod available. And even if the FS2 platform were open to add-ons, that doesn't necessarily mean that add-on developers would be interested in putting in the effort without the projected sales required to fund these projects.

Flight sims are very different from traditional games due to how their add-on ecosystems work, and it can be difficult to break into the market with a new flight sim. Both FSX and X-plane have been building their ecosystems for many years, which really is what it takes to bring flight simmers what they want in this day and age. Aerofly FS2 is new and still in early access so it's obviously an unfair comparison, but it's a $50 game available to the public so these comparisons will obviously be made. And I still enjoy FS2 for what it is, I play it regularly because I just love flying around in VR and it looks amazing, but let's not pretend that it exists in a vacuum, especially in a thread where OP started out by making comparisons to X-Plane, DCS, and PMDG.

[HiFlyer]

Hopefully Orbx keeps to its commitment and that serves to draw interest from other 3rd parties as well in a virtuous circle, but I think there will be a lot of bias to overcome first. The community, and I suspect many developers have become accustomed to a world centered around FSX, and I think that some are not too keen on changing that.

It will take a while and maybe more than a little luck to burst through that kind of institutional resistance.

[Troll Norris]

I think you will understand what I mean. Just sims like FSX or P3D were very long time "tuned" to their limits. But now the FSX is just outdated. It's based on old technologies and only good addons keeps it alive. Now, there are 4 "new" products. Xplane11, P3D, Flight Sim World and Aerofly FS 2. Like I wrote I was very disapointed by first AeroflyFS. I don't like P3D because their policy. (We will release new version 2 times per year and every new version will be quite expensive). It is just a bit updated FSX and the physics is just the same like in old FSX if you don't use any external physics engine. The only advantage is that it is a 64-bit application. In Xplane11 was very huge and nice jump in quality. Really awesome autogen, simple and intuitive GUI. The update form 10 to 11 was free. The only downside is the missing multiplayer. Next one is Flight Sim World which looks like based on FSX. Same like P3D. And the last one is Aerofly FS where I was disapointed. The product was released unfinished and was never finished. Why is the new game released when first game is not finished yet? There are a lot of deficiencies in the game that, if they are fixed, will result in AeroFlyFS2. I perceive AeroflyFS2 as a paid update for AeroFlyFS.

[sp00n]

For the VR support alone, getting FS2 is a no-brainer. I've tried to enjoy XPlane 11 with FlyInside but even after all the performance tweaks, the low FPS on my GTX 980 put me off on playing it until native VR support gets added.

It astonishes that XP11 and FSW, both with 2017 release dates would neglect to implement day 1 VR support.

[HiFlyer]

I'm suspecting the developers know those titles don't have the graphical horsepower to pull off VR successfully at this time.

[The Oldar]

HiFlyer a écrit :

I'm suspecting the developers know those titles don't have the graphical horsepower to pull off VR successfully at this time.

Yep. You nailed it. Even FS2 isn't quite as sharp or smooth in VR, and in regular non-VR you can pull 200fps. These other programs don't approach the fps needed for an experience like that delivered by FS2 in VR.

[Veteran70]

Hi all,

My go to flight sim is FSX. I like the added realism of payware aircraft, airports, ground and sky texures. But what I do not like about FSX is how the scenery pops into view ahead of you. That takes the realism away. I get very fluid flights at 40 to 50 FPS over most areas except when landing at an airport in a large city then it is 15 to 25 FPS. But no matter how good the frame rate is, the scenery continues to pop into view or change from blurry to sharp.
Not so with Aerofly FS2. The senery is sharp with no change, until you get very low, than the photo real pixels lose there sharpness. And with FS2 there is very little change in frame rate no matter where you fly. I can fly over NYC with all of the 3d buildings at 5000 feet or down to 1000 feet and frame rates stay in the high 90s for me. I would need a super computer to do that with FSX. I believe Aerofly FS2 will continue to improve and will only get better, over time, expecially with Orbx scenery development and ATC development coming into play in the months ahead. For us flight sim enthusiasts we have a lot of choices today.

[76561197977267103]

P.S.
Aerofly FS2 also (arguably) has the best/ergonomic Menu systems in any flight game..... ever.