Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Aerofly FS2


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 J2_Marx

J2_Marx
  • Posts: 777
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 19 December 2016 - 17:50

Looking at this game, reading the reviews made me buy it. I don't care about the endless flying in large jets between airports but bought only to do aerobatics. Some time ago i downloaded FSX but allthough the graphics of the plane looks good, the surroundings are just plain hidious.

 

Then i came across this video what made me decide to buy it:

 

 

It "feels and looks" like the real deal. I wanted to try this because during the summertime 99% of the time i fly these type of planes as rc-planes.

 

 

Anybody allready tried this game and maybe can tell me a little bit more about the do's and don'ts?

 

 

downloading now......30.5GB.....hurray :icon_e_biggrin:


  • 0

#2 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 19 December 2016 - 19:12

I haven't bought i so far... but I guess it has the potential to blow FSX and Prepar3D right out of the water. From what I saw it is a much more modern architecture with much less overhead, producing much higher FPS for what you see. Same as DCS.

What is also of note is that it lacks a decade of work that went into FSX/P3D and their addons respectively. FSX was turd when it dame out. Although it can do everything, many things are absent still.

I wonder if such a sim could be the base of a combat sim featuring B-17 and the likes, as it can have the whole globe as "map" and thus accomodate long range missions. Jason suggested such in a thread over at the BoS forum...

If aerosoft manages to make this an attractive base for 3rd party developpers and hand out a decent dev kit, it can kill almost all other sims in the future, that I'm sure. Even combat sims with their pretty but tiny playpens.
  • 0

#3 J2_Marx

J2_Marx
  • Posts: 777
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 19 December 2016 - 19:30

Thanx for the input Zach...sounds interesting for sure.

I'm curious of how it looks now...still 20GB to go..
  • 0

#4 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 19 December 2016 - 20:49

Thanx for the input Zach...sounds interesting for sure.
I'm curious of how it looks now...still 20GB to go..


You said 30.5 GB... So you didn't buy the Swiss scenery. That's another 10 or so GB. So you wouldn't be stuck on west coast flying...
  • 0

#5 Plank

Plank
  • Posts: 2835
  • LocationNew Zealand.

Posted 19 December 2016 - 22:58

hmm. conflicting info on how good it is... I'm going to wait and see.

 

Here's my sim pitch. 

 

Want to fly a bush plane inland from the coast looking for a great spot to land?

Or drop supplies to a field team?

Maybe you are flying back to a great swimming hole waaaaay up river?

Want to try to land on that rock?

 

Welcome to Planks bush flying sim!

 

Real simulated bush plane. Zero electronics. Flaps, tundra tyres and payload.

Extra fuel tanks. Fuel caches, you can actually walk around! 

 

AND

 

you have a body!

 

Map, compass, watch and sextant. ( Matches, 22lr/410 MRE's hammock etc..)

 

 

Get flying!

 

S! P.


  • 0

-

Captured again!

 


#6 J2_Marx

J2_Marx
  • Posts: 777
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 20 December 2016 - 14:59

If i only understood what he said........... :icon_lol:


  • 0

#7 J2_Marx

J2_Marx
  • Posts: 777
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 20 December 2016 - 19:33

You said 30.5 GB... So you didn't buy the Swiss scenery. That's another 10 or so GB. So you wouldn't be stuck on west coast flying...


I know zach but i wanted to try it first (50 euro) before i think of spending more..
  • 0

#8 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 20 December 2016 - 20:04

I know zach but i wanted to try it first (50 euro) before i think of spending more..

 

I'd consider the sim an "open pre-alpha". But the potential is there, really... In 10 years it will be cool if Aerosoft stays on it. But same as FSX, old IL2, RoF... they all took years to get reasonably good. We need to be patient. Heck, eventually we eve get Zepps for RoF! If you live long enough, you get to see the most amazing things...


  • 0

#9 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 21 December 2016 - 02:50

Looks cool but I can't find the point in flying when I can't shoot guns at something.
  • 0

#10 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 21 December 2016 - 06:42

Looks cool but I can't find the point in flying when I can't shoot guns at something.


This is why I called it an "open pre-alpha"

;)
  • 0

#11 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 21 December 2016 - 14:20

Looks cool but I can't find the point in flying when I can't shoot guns at something.

LOL I'm glade you don't fly real airplanes. :D


  • 1

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#12 Demon_

Demon_
  • Posts: 2080

Posted 22 December 2016 - 01:05

J2_Marx
The 330 look cool, but i much prefer the F-18, the T-45C and the f-16 Aerosoft on the high definition aircraft carrier (Nimitz). Thanks for this topic :icon_e_salute: 
 

Looks cool but I can't find the point in flying when I can't shoot guns at something.


The missions! I discovered the flight simulator many years ago. I fell in love with FSX. I played the missions almost every night. Take off from the high definition aircraft carrier, find the other Nimitz in the darkness and land on it. Fly between the high mountains to rescue people, use the gps, the compass, and don't get stuck in a valley. Use the radar (F-18,F-16) to find friends or foes. Find an intruder in the restrict NASA airspace. Find an airfield between the mountains in the dense fog.
You can edit the missions. The afterburners are homemade.

The Nimitz in different configurations: http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.ca/

Plank, may i suggest a new signature?

Attached Files


  • 0

#13 J2_Marx

J2_Marx
  • Posts: 777
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 22 December 2016 - 16:32

J2_Marx
The 330 look cool, but i much prefer the F-18, the T-45C and the f-16 Aerosoft on the high definition aircraft carrier (Nimitz). Thanks for this topic :icon_e_salute: 
 

The missions! I discovered the flight simulator many years ago. I fell in love with FSX. I played the missions almost every night. Take off from the high definition aircraft carrier, find the other Nimitz in the darkness and land on it. Fly between the high mountains to rescue people, use the gps, the compass, and don't get stuck in a valley. Use the radar (F-18,F-16) to find friends or foes. Find an intruder in the restrict NASA airspace. Find an airfield between the mountains in the dense fog.
You can edit the missions. The afterburners are homemade.

The Nimitz in different configurations: http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.ca/

 

 

Great pictures Demon, but to be honest  jests are not my cup of tea (i like coffee beter ;) )

 

Always have been a fan of aerobatics, try not to crash my rc planes while doing it and this game looks promising.

 

Had a powerglitch 2 days ago and the download ended at 85%....had to start all over again :wacko: . I don't like letting the pc run while i sleep (had a little power supply fire 10 years ago) so at 1 mb p/s it takes a while, but it's almost complete


  • 0

#14 J2_Marx

J2_Marx
  • Posts: 777
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 24 December 2016 - 10:31

Did my first flights yesterday......first impression.......mwoah :(

 

My 2 gb Nvidia card can not max it out or my pc freezes and now the graphics look average. Stick is being recognised and works but with external view it doesn't. It's not really a sim but more arcade style in my opinion. flight physics of the Camel are a joke, the thing will not stall or flip :icon_e_biggrin: .

 

But i wanted it for aerobatics, that atleast seems to work reasonable well. Have to dig deeper in the rest. Have a little holliday now so time to work on that :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#15 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 25 December 2016 - 12:20

FM of stock planes have not much to do with what you can do with a sim if you can spend enought time and money on the development of a plane. Compare FSX stock C172 with the one from A2A simulations. They are not just different, but they also make the entire sim feel different.

So far with Aerofly, all they demonstrated so far that "in principle" you can have complex systems, clickable cockpits etc.,... But they are nowhere near to what you are used to with sims that already incorporate years of development like FSX. They need that time as well. For their own good sake, I hope they will produce a good SDK, so even Adam can be served.

For any 64 bit sim, you should also consider getting more VRAM (on a card tha can handle such). There is no point in going 64 bits if you don't provide the additional memory space. On the contrary, you are just increasing overhead by requiring more space for your data structure.

OOM errors are the curse of Prepar3d, but mainly due people just cranking up eyecandy too much. CPU performance is still the bottleneck there, as with OOM inducing settings, you get hardly consistent FPS of 30+. If you want best visuals, for a sim there is no way around only the most powerful components available, regardless of the cost. A GF1080 is bare minimum for 1440p resolution if you have plenty of addons.

When P3d will go 64 bits probably with v.4 by next year, people will ba able to crank eyecandy up until SLI Titan X will give ~4 FPS...

I wonder how thing will go with Dovetail FS, the "successor" of FSX. They seem to be doung the same as Lockheed with P3D, just having a "game" license to sell. I would expect something like P3D v1.x. Thus, one experience the same shit again as with P3D until that one got really better than FSX.

Merry Xmas!
  • 0

#16 Demon_

Demon_
  • Posts: 2080

Posted 25 December 2016 - 19:58

To run DCS (one core for the sound, one for the rest) and FSX you only need 2 cores at the fastest speed you can reach.

Thanks for the info Marx.
  • 0

#17 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 26 December 2016 - 07:53

Even if DCS, today, I think it is a bad advise to go for less than 4 cores on a CPU (unless it is a notebook). You will also find the fastest individual core there. K variant CPUs are great, you notice the difference once you OC them.

Plus: if you build a rig, always go for a balanced setup. This means a high end GPU should be matched with a high end GPU. and vice versa to be more economical on your wallet.

FSX and P3D are FPS limited in their main "fiber" thread. this one will determine your FPS in a situation where you are CPU limited. In FSX you are mostly CPU limited as it uses the GPU not that much.

P3D makes by now heavy use of the GPU. You can find out if you are truly CPU or GPU limited if you go to windowed mode. if FPS go up when making the window smaller, you were GPU bound.

A big issue with both of those sims are microstutters. And my big hope for Aerosoft producing something more modern systems. If you have plenty addons like scenereies, the autogen will use substancial CPU power. ORBX addons are, as pretty as they might be, notorious for this. This means, P3D can fully use even 8 cores. Those cores give not higher FPS but they make it smoother, they reduce occasional stutter. Believe me, you'll trade consistent 30 FPS over 60 with stutters.

FSX or P3D "out of the box" don't really have that issue, as they have a simple scenery.

My hope is really that by going legacy free and 64 bits, one can really make the most of todays systems.
  • 0

#18 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 22 January 2017 - 16:46

So, here are some impressions about the future of AeroflyFS. ORBX seems to produce some pretty heavy scenery for it. For the future, a glimpse of the past: Meigs!

 

1.jpg

Quote: "Straight screenshot, in 4K, getting about 150fps in this shot."

 

2.jpg

 

7.jpg

 

8.jpg

 

This is their "Project A".

 

North eastern NY is out already.

 

All 64 bit. If they go on like this, it doesn't look good for the competition.


  • 0

#19 J2_Marx

J2_Marx
  • Posts: 777
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 23 January 2017 - 16:30

Thanx Z!

 

looks great, but then i would need a better graph card i'm affraid


  • 0

#20 Ice_Age

Ice_Age
  • Member
  • Posts: 1583
  • LocationTrudolyubiye

Posted 23 January 2017 - 17:24

FSX thrived, not so much on it's own standalone merits, but because of the third parties (among which was Orbx).  I wonder what the plans are for the third party aircraft makers?  I've read very little about this sim, but the little I have read about it, indicates that it is intended from the start to be an introductory flight simulator, not really a competitor for the likes of X-Plane, FSX, or P3d.


  • 0

#21 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 23 January 2017 - 20:59

FSX thrived, not so much on it's own standalone merits, but because of the third parties (among which was Orbx).  I wonder what the plans are for the third party aircraft makers?  I've read very little about this sim, but the little I have read about it, indicates that it is intended from the start to be an introductory flight simulator, not really a competitor for the likes of X-Plane, FSX, or P3d.


It was definitely the easy access for 3rd party devs that made FSX the success it was. It is probably the base why LM continued it with P3D.

I'm not so sure about the 'introductory' aspect of it. I don't think there is any limitation to it other than "it hasn't been coded yet". FSX took years to be good. P3D is another 10 years of work on top of that.

Once importand 3rd party devs will join it will make a difference. If they can also keep the computation overhead low, it could well be a base for future combat sims. Jason himself mentioned that he hoped of a sim like that to emerge making it possible to fly long range bomber missions.

One could think of a studio like 777 making planes and maps for such a sim... The next iteration of what could be RoF2 or the next IL2. I think of the current requirement of 777 (or ED) to create the whole sim instead of "just" planes and maps one of the most significant constraints in making a product. Making a good sim with all the features we like is a HUGE task. And it is something people don't like to pay for. Heck, some even think 6$ or so is expensive for a plane when you get the sim for free. We only get what we are paying for. And if we hardly pay for a sim and pay little for planes, then we cannot fly from london to paris...
  • 0

#22 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1754

Posted 24 January 2017 - 17:09

I'm not at all familiar with Aerofly FS2, so I have no comment there.

 

I can say, without any doubt whatsoever, that the success of the later MSFS series, is due in large part, to the fact that virtually ALL of it is easily moddable by the external community.

 

The ability of community members to make custom skins, custom gauges, custom aircraft, custom scenery (up to and including photo-real), and have access to many (if not all) of the various aircraft variables in real time (thru FSUIPC and/or SimConnect) has allowed it to thrive.

 

In fact, it is that last piece, that allows community written programs (like vPilot, EuroScope, etc.) to interface with FSX to produce an entire Global network (VATsim & IVAO to name the two largest) where real-world flight operations (including real-time, human ATC services) can actually be simulated to a pretty high degree.

 

On any given day, you'll find several hundred people flying and controlling on each of those two networks, and that doesn't even consider *any* other online single-player activity. In fact, a lot of real world pilots and air traffic controllers actually get involved there because it IS so well simulated.

 

If RoF were anywhere near as flexible and accessible as FSX and P3D, there is no question in my mind that it would be a substantially more vibrant community than it currently is.

 

FSX came out in 2006, and FS9 was out in 2003, and there are still more people using those sims than RoF -- sure, the WWI niche is a factor, but I doubt it's the biggest one, compared to dev indifference and a sim that has very few user-moddable features.

 

It will be interesting to see how Aerofly FS2 compares, as it matures.

 

 

Regards,

4 :icon_e_salute:


  • 1

#23 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 25 January 2017 - 10:46

I think the biggest limitation to flight sims is today that every new "sim"/"combat sim" has to de novo produce the simulator environment. This in contrast to shooter games that just design their levels and mode of play inside a game engine with all functionality provided already.

 

The cost of creating a sim environment, with this I mean the renderer that can dynamically load and display vast areas on a globe with correct atmospheric effects, is a task that is orders of magnitude more resource consuming that making planes with certain functionalities, like flight model, damage model, systems etc.

 

777 to an extent re uses their own game engine for the RoF/BoX series. As most people are happy with a small playpen that looks pretty enough, there is little incentive and hardly any reason to evolve the digital nature terrain renderer into a renderer that is capable of rendering a whole globe. It would be a whole new thing. In BoX, eing happy in having tournaments between some of the most short legged airplanes of WW2, the digital nature engine is and will be stuck on rendering a small patch, no matter how pretty. we're not paying for more, so we're not getting it. This takes care of ever flying missions for the 8th AF. It is not the plane that is missing. The planes is easy. It's the world that is missing.

 

Thus, the entire BoX series will never be suitable for long range missions and all mission parameters that are associated to it. I see Jasons comment for his hope of a "FSX like" sim to enable that in this light. And I see the effort by Aerosoft as a potential attempt in developing a modern code for a terrain renderer. But what they really make of it is up to them. As long as the computational overhead is at a defined acceptable level, there is absolutely no restriction on what you do with it. Flight models are not dependent on how you render terrain. They have nothing to do with each other. Same is systems or damage modelling. It‘s just functionality added. It is up to de developer if he wants to simulate GA aircraft or combat aircraft. Flight itself and the world are the same in both cases.

 

Functionality can be added in two ways, either by providing these functions within the sim or you provide an interface for other tools accessing the sim and injecting these functionalities. Like FSUIPC or SimConnect. Both are instrumental to the huge success of FSX (besides FSX being by far the largest platform and being unchanged for over a decade). You can well have you flight model computed outside the sim, if you have such interfaces. A2A simulation uses such to vastly expand the in built capabilities of FSX and P3D and for instance process parts of the FM, systems and sound outside FSX with their Accusim expansion.

 

For shooters it has become obvious that you use "game engines" like Unreal or Crytek. Why shouldn't there be a "sim engine" as well? Publishers could focus on making planes and maps, but don't have to make biggest task of all anymore, the sim itself.


  • 0

#24 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1754

Posted 25 January 2017 - 17:43

For shooters it has become obvious that you use "game engines" like Unreal or Crytek. Why shouldn't there be a "sim engine" as well? Publishers could focus on making planes and maps, but don't have to make biggest task of all anymore, the sim itself.

 

You raise a good question, but in part, I think you already answered it as well.

 

While the idea of a global terrain rendering engine is certainly appealing, it represents a massive amount of work, for a middleman project (by that, I mean, your "customer" isn't you or me, the end-user, it's the middleman publisher like 777, or ED, or LM, etc.).

 

While it would be nice to think that many publishers would be interested in licensing such a product, the picture isn't quite that rosy, I think.

 

For starters, many shooters, as you say, have their own "fantasy" settings, and have no need for an "Earth Engine". Racing games? Only need a few specific track locations (so far).  Flight Sims? There's some value here, but many/most of the combat ones feature a particular Theater of Operations (or perhaps a few).  That leaves flight sims like FSX, XP, P3D etc. who, for the most part have already built their own. Naval simulations are also a possibility, but again, the various submarine games or games like Naval Action have focused on a much smaller theater historically.

 

So, if you're the Business Manager from the "Earth Engine" Project, I should think it would be a pretty nervous business plan wondering who you'd market your product to (although, there are, of course, other opportunities beyond gaming), to cover the costs of producing that engine.

 

One avenue that might be interesting is licensing and leveraging the various satellite mapping services (ie. Google Earth, etc.) to populate your terrain, but I'd bet that wouldn't come cheap either.

 

I think it would be awesome to have an "Earth Engine" featuring the entire globe of high quality terrain, to build your particular virtual playground in, but I'm not sure who would be willing to undertake the risk to build it.  Perhaps someone like Orbx, who is already highly invested in photoreal scenery might consider taking that next step, but I suspect, that it's probably unlikely from a cost / benefit standpoint.  Particularly, when they can already sell bite-sized areas, rather than the entire (more costly for all) globe.

 

Anyway, we're getting a bit of the OP's track here, so while it's an interesting sidetrack, it might be better in its own thread. Sorry for the thread-jack OP.   :mellow:

 

 

Regards,

4 :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#25 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 25 January 2017 - 21:31

Thinking of B-29 flights "over the hump"... Pathfinder missions with the Mosquito using Oboe navigation with properly made "European weather"... transport missions withe the Gigant from Napels to Tunis...

 

...yes, all of which has no purpose for WT crowd.

 

But as you say, material for its own thread.

 

:icon_e_salute:

Z


  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users