Any thoughts on Aerofly FS 2?

Well, this entry into the STEAM marketplace hit right alongside Dovetails Flight School and has received many video reviews and lots of interest in other forums.

Though "light" on the detailed instrumentation, its a step closer in realism from its predecessor, Aerofly FS 1, and the developers are very keen to get their upcoming SDK into the hands of third parties.

So far, many have noted the sims smoothness and beauty, and reviews on STEAM are quite positive despite it being a 30Gb early access title on the pricey side.

Has anybody here been taking note of this title? Any thoughts?

I used to be a big fan of Flight Unlimited III, many moons ago.

Aerofly FS2 reminds me somewhat of FUIII, although things have evolved for sure, so I'm quite happy with it.

I bought it early-on. It is, indeed, smooth and framerates are quite good (I'm seeing 60-90 FPS everywhere). The photo scenery is not as good (IMO) as MegaScenery but it's better than much of what's available. I haven't used the sim much for one reason.....setting up the controls has proven to be a major problem. I'm using a Thrustmaster joystick but getting it to work properly (assignment problems) has been such a frustrating experience that I've just put the sim aside and chalked it to a $50 mistake. Not much of a review but it's hard to comment much when you can't even get a simple joystick to work.

Doug

I haven't used the sim much for one reason.....setting up the controls has proven to be a major problem. I'm using a Thrustmaster joystick but getting it to work properly (assignment problems) has been such a frustrating experience that I've just put the sim aside and chalked it to a $50 mistake.

Weird. Aerofly FS2 has the easiest interface to set up controls I have ever seen. Just my opinion of course.

It is a massive improvement in graphics but not quite a full Simulator in the full extend of the word.

Just Areas? No time to play that game.

I do not see the weather generator so far and the clouds have a long way to go specially 3D Volumetric. The whole Valhalla of Flight Sim's is Weather: Clouds, Wind, Rain, Snow and the whole caboodle. Full physics. Gliders, Balloons, Jets, Propellers, helicopters, Jet pack and parachutes correct and truthful representation for each. Ground vehicles and flying birds. Etc, etc.

There are libraries by MS that find all the particulars of a PC or any other gadgets during installation so a close set up match will automatically be implemented from the onset. The rest is left to the customer whims.

Very long way to go. Hopefully DTG is taking notes so they don't fall into these pitfalls with their Sim.

Cheers,

Just Areas? No time to play that game.

But....

When did the definition of true simulation come to require the whole world be available? By that criteria pretty much all actual professional simulators fall on their faces.......

The whole Valhalla of Flight Sim's is Weather: Clouds, Wind, Rain, Snow and the whole caboodle. Full physics. Gliders, Balloons, Jets, Propellers, helicopters, Jet pack and parachutes correct and truthful representation for each. Ground vehicles and flying birds. Etc, etc.

I see where you're going but, what "real" simulator (the ones used for training by professional pilots) depicts gliders, balloons, parachutes and ground vehicles?

I think we've grown to define "real simulator" as anything within the parameters set by Microsoft in the last few decades. But is that a fair and accurate window through which to view all simulators ever after? Might there not be other equally valid parameters to define the word "simulation"?

Weird. Aerofly FS2 has the easiest interface to set up controls I have ever seen. Just my opinion of course.

Weird indeed. I've been at this for more years than I can count and I've never seen a problem like this. Three different joysticks (two Thrustmasters and a Saitek X-52) and none of them work. I'm out of ideas and back to enjoying FSX/P3D.

Doug

When did the definition of true simulation come to require the whole world be available?

What definition of true simulation? Whose definition? Where did you get yours?

By that criterion pretty much all actual professional simulators fall on their faces.......

Again. What is “professional simulators”? And who said/defined/decided so and under what bases?

Are we supposed to be sorry for THEIR failures to misread us, the customers? Not me.

Also, I do not support unfinished products with my money. End of story.

I see where you're going but, what "real" simulator (the ones used for training by professional pilots) depicts gliders, balloons, parachutes and ground vehicles?

As far as I know no Professional Pilot is trained with MS Flight Simulator in all its incarnations or multiple copycats. Where did you get this idea from?

I think we've grown to define "real simulator" as anything within the parameters set by Microsoft in the last few decades.

So? It’s just as valid as any of others. They just happened to be the first and they did good but it took time.

But is that a fair and accurate window through which to view all simulators ever after?

Yes is very fair and will continue until hell freezes it over. Why you ask?

Might there not be other equally valid parameters to define the word "simulation"?

Yes, there might be other parameters in the future but never at the expense of old ones just for the sake of changing. Hence, they will be added to the old accepted ones without subtractions of any kind.

There bar was set long ago by MS.

We, the people want an EVOLUTION of the Flight Simulation, not a REVOLUTION. The reason is simple. We do not want or have time to waste starting all over again 30+ years.

Cheers,

From:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Flight_Simulator#Flight_Simulator_2000

An often overlooked, but highly significant milestone in Flight Simulator 2000, was the addition of over 17,000 new airports, for a total exceeding 20,000 worldwide, as well as worldwide navigational aid coverage. This greatly expanded the utility of the product in simulating long international flights as well as instrument-based flight relying on radio navigation aids. Some of these airports, along with additional objects such as radio towers and other "hazard" structures, were built from publicly available U.S. government databases. Others, particularly the larger commercial airports with detailed apron and taxiway structures, were built from detailed information in Jeppesen's proprietary database, one of the primary commercial suppliers of worldwide aviation navigation data.

 

In combination, these new data sources in Flight Simulator allowed the franchise to claim the inclusion of virtually every documented airport and navigational aid in the world, as well as allowing implementation of the new GPS feature. As was the case with FS98, scenery development using these new data sources in FS2000 was outsourced to MicroScene in San Ramon, working with the core development team at Microsoft.

I think the count ended at up to 24,000+ by FSX.

Cheers,

What definition of true simulation? Whose definition? Where did you get yours?

Again. What is “professional simulators”? And who said/defined/decided so and under what bases?

Well that particular question was in response to your classification of AFS 2 as "not quite a full Simulator in the full extent of the word."

You then went on to call it a "game" (if I understood you correctly) at least partly because of its lack of full world coverage.

So, the first question that occurred to me after that was: just what exactly is the correct description of a Full simulator, as defined and accepted by authorities such as the FAA or the EASA?

After some checking, it turned out that the textbook definition (of A to D full simulators) doesn't only not apply to AFS, it doesn't strictly apply to ANY of our current desktop sims, which I thought was an interesting point.

As far as I know no Professional Pilot is trained with MS Flight Simulator in all its incarnations or multiple copycats. Where did you get this idea from?

In light of the usually sharp separation between the use of the word "game" and "Sim" when defining various offerings on forums like this, I thought it was worthwhile to clarify the point that nothing we currently use counts as a "Full simulation". Not now, and probably not ever. Its just one of those things I've always found interesting.

Are we supposed to be sorry for THEIR failures to misread us, the customers? Not me. Also, I do not support unfinished products with my money. End of story.

Nothing I could or should argue with there. I can only say that for myself, I just think that as far as unfinished, so is X-Plane and P3D, which means there's not that much difference when judging potential, especially once you factor in the "Anchor effect" of over a decade of backwards compatibility.

So? It’s just as valid as any of others. They just happened to be the first and they did good but it took time.

True, but generally everything that has a beginning, has an end, and for some, its about time Microsoft gave up the throne. The question is: To who? (and when)

Yes, there might be other parameters in the future but never at the expense of old ones just for the sake of changing. Hence, they will be added to the old accepted ones without subtractions of any kind.

We differ there. I feel the only things that don't change are dead.... For instance, there's no need to build pyramids anymore because we have different priorities now, and even if we did build one, it wouldn't be anything like the ones in the past.

I think the same concept holds true for Flight Simulation. The old techniques of tried and true have had their day, and are reaching obsolescence. Some (like me) hope its finally time for newer companies to emerge and try different things to widen the market beyond its current niche. (Even the infamous NGIS)

You mentioned earlier not wanting to start over after 30 years, and I'm certain there are a lot of people who agree with that. I can only say that for myself at the very least, there's a feeling that a changing of the guard has to happen soon.

Even P3D will break compatibility eventually; Computers have changed; capabilities have changed, GPU's have changed, technology has changed.

The people entering the hobby are changing as well. They have different expectations in terms of things like graphics, FPS, accessibility.....

And they aren't going to be starting over after 30+ years; for them its just beginning: a brand new journey that I doubt they'll want to start in a time loop stuck nearly perpetually at 10 years ago.

The bar was set long ago by MS.

We, the people want an EVOLUTION of the Flight Simulation, not a REVOLUTION. The reason is simple. We do not want or have time to waste starting all over again 30+ years.

 

Cheers,

Well that particular question was in response to your classification of AFS 2 as "not quite a full Simulator in the full extent of the word."

So you go ahead and buy it.

You then went on to call it a "game" (if I understood you correctly) at least partly because of its lack of full world coverage.

You didn't, try again.

So, the first question that occurred to me after that was: just what exactly is the correct description of a Full simulator, as defined and accepted by authorities such as the FAA or the EASA?

Actually you got that wrong again. Neither FAA nor EASA impose demands on scenery except essentials. That is why Professional Simulators used by Airline have very sparse sceneries.

After some checking, it turned out that the textbook definition (of A to D full simulators) doesn't only not apply to AFS, it doesn't strictly apply to ANY of our current desktop sims, which I thought was an interesting point.

Maybe if you stop assuming and start reading first and again and again until you understand completely then you wouldn't be guessing so badly. BTW, nobody is asking for a Professional Simulator (defined above already) but for a better and updated FSX (keeping all).

In light of the usually sharp separation between the use of the word "game" and "Sim" when defining various offerings on forums like this, I thought it was worthwhile to clarify the point that nothing we currently use counts as a "Full simulation". Not now, and probably not ever. Its just one of those things I've always found interesting.

Once flying was an impossible dream until 1903 rolled in.

Nothing I could or should argue with there. I can only say that for myself, I just think that as far as unfinished, so is X-Plane and P3D, which means there's not that much difference when judging potential, especially once you factor in the "Anchor effect" of over a decade of backwards compatibility.

Surprisingly, all four have World Scenery.

True, but generally everything that has a beginning, has an end, and for some, its about time Microsoft gave up the throne. The question is: To who? (and when)

You are alone on that one.

We differ there. I feel the only things that don't change are dead.... For instance, there's no need to build pyramids anymore because we have different priorities now, and even if we did build one, it wouldn't be anything like the ones in the past.

No, we differ EVERYWHERE.

I think the same concept holds true for Flight Simulation. The old techniques of tried and true have had their day, and are reaching obsolescence. Some (like me) hope its finally time for newer companies to emerge and try different things to widen the market beyond its current niche. (Even the infamous NGIS)

Don't give up on Humanity that fast. We just love to goof around and waste time.

You mentioned earlier not wanting to start over after 30 years, and I'm certain there are a lot of people who agree with that. I can only say that for myself at the very least, there's a feeling that a changing of the guard has to happen soon.

There is got to be a reason they called it "from scrap" and we are reluctant and go to great lengths every time to avoid it. I would be one too.

Even P3D will break compatibility eventually; Computers have changed; capabilities have changed, GPU's have changed, technology has changed.

Good.

The people entering the hobby are changing as well. They have different expectations in terms of things like graphics, FPS, accessibility.....

They can wait until I die. Just a little bit longer.

And they aren't going to be starting over after 30+ years; for them its just beginning: a brand new journey that I doubt they'll want to start in a time loop stuck nearly perpetually at 10 years ago.

There you go assuming again...

Cheers,

So you go ahead and buy it.

Done! :)

You didn't, try again.

Actually you got that wrong again. Neither FAA nor EASA impose demands on scenery except essentials. That is why Professional Simulators used by Airline have very sparse sceneries.

Exactly. So whether or not ASF (or any other Flight Simulator) has world coverage or not has no bearing on its fitness to be called a Full simulator. Other, completely different criteria apply, and no desktop simulator meets the accepted parameters.

Maybe if you stop assuming and start reading first and again and again until you understand completely then you wouldn't be guessing so badly. BTW, nobody is asking for a Professional Simulator (defined above already) but for a better and updated FSX (keeping all).

You are alone on that one.

I would only point out that if you truly object to assumptions, then you yourself should be less willing to speak for... everybody.

Surprisingly, all four have World Scenery.

Which again makes my point. P3D is a clone of FSX. X-plane is an alternative to FSX, copying its general features. FSX-SE is FSX. Flightgear is essentially a free attempt at FSX. Dovetail Simulator, at least insomuch as it can be considered a preview of DTG's intentions for its upcoming simulator....... Is FSX; following the same general parameters yet again, etc etc.

I would argue that with multiple (old) simulators all repeating the same pattern, that its about time for somebody to attempt approaching the subject with an alternative set of priorities.

No, we differ EVERYWHERE.

Well honestly, if we all agreed on everything, it would probably be pretty boring.

Don't give up on Humanity that fast. We just love to goof around and waste time.

Variety is the spice of life is an old saying for a reason. :)

I myself would like some more variety in our sim choices, and less FSX clones and wannabes.

There is got to be a reason they called it "from scrap" and we are reluctant and go to great lengths every time to avoid it. I would be one too.

The problem with that, is that its very very expensive to start "From scrap"

Very few companies that can afford to do that appear to find this niche very attractive, and the companies that are interested have (so far) have either just spruced up FSX or, in the case of AFS2 have of necessity started from humbler beginnings.

If nobody with deep pockets appears to subsidize the hobby (from the goodness of their hearts?) then we will either have FSX derivatives forever, (and FSX tech is increasingly ancient) or somebody, somewhere will have to learn to accept that the age of the Microsoft world-spanning pyramids is over, at least for now. Enter lighter sims like Aerofly, and the multiple phone/tablet simulations that are doing surprisingly well.

Good.

If you can agree that change is inevitable eventually, then.....

They can wait until I die. Just a little bit longer.

A bit extreme......

There you go assuming again...

Hmmmmmm.... Lets just say I think an assumption that newcomers to simulation will find FSX's dated graphics to be below par from whats expected now (at the very least visually) on modern computers is, a pretty safe assumption.

In fact, judging from the popularity of Orbx and other companies offerings, even current users find much to be lacking.

$4 for FSX on Steam for brand new users is apparently within the bounds of acceptability. $15 gets you the voluminous complaints about graphics among other things, that have helped turn DTGS Flight school into a sea of bad purchaser reviews.

Interestingly enough, Aerofly FS2 with its alternative approach is getting very good reviews. Its unfortunate that the asking price will likely cause so many people to hold back, but I understand they're a small company in a tiny market and need to make enough to fund further development.

Fortunately they've done very well in the iPad and android market, but still, for me myself and I, I would probably have purchased it even if I wasn't completely on board, just to help keep flight simulation from becoming a complete dead zone of Microsoft clones.

Exactly. So whether or not ASF (or any other Flight Simulator) has world coverage or not has no bearing on its fitness to be called a Full simulator. Other, completely different criteria apply, and no desktop simulator meets the accepted parameters.

Agreed, and well stated.

By the way HiFlyer, are you a lawyer?

I never quite understood this obsession with "world coverage".

Lack thereof has never prevented me from thoroughly enjoying FUIII, MS Flight and now AFS 2.

The big mistake of FUIII and MS Flight was "not letting 3PDs in on the game", so to speak.

So I do hope AFS won't commit the same error.

1

2

3

I always wonder whatever happened with "arcade gamers" after the craze and funfair died out. Well, wonder no more. Don't get me wrong, we all indulged ourselves too in those days but most of us evolved without revolting. Flight Simulation is different and even unique in that the bug has been there in us way before subLogic, MS and even PC's at all. They just happened to tap on it and eventually got better at it. Hence, there are underline rules set already by us as in We the People, the community and silent majority. The newbies will inherit the Earth and that's a fact but eventually only the ones with the real bug will remain. Do not use them as an excuse for changes that nobody is asking or wanting. We want to move forward not differently.

Therefore:

"Thou shalt not pass!"

And yes, the line is drawn in the sand.

Cheers,

I'm not sure I even want to reply to the sermon above.

FUIII made its contemporary MS FS98 look like a children's game. Years later MS FS still hadn't caught up.

MS Flight was the natural continuation of MS FSX, with a (vastly) improved scenery engine and advanced flight dynamics. Sadly, Dovetail chose to regress.

And AFS 2? They still have a long way to go, but who knows ...

I'm not sure I even want to reply to the sermon above.

Yes I see what you mean. But perhaps this is something we need to get used to as more and more members in the flightsim community hit the high numbers :) -------

...Hence, there are underline rules set already by us as in We the People, the community and silent majority. The newbies will inherit the Earth and that's a fact ....Therefore: "Thou shalt not pass!"

And yes, the line is drawn in the sand.

Agreed, and well stated.

By the way HiFlyer, are you a lawyer?

Nah.... But I did stay at a holiday inn express......... :D

I'm not sure I even want to reply to the sermon above.

I share your reluctance. Its no longer fun when a debate goes in that direction,and life is a bit too short to get that serious in a discussion about electronic airplanes.

My own feelings towards the program right now align pretty closely to this:

I cut my FS teeth on Thalion's A320 Airbus, which divided the US into East and West with a gap in the middle you couldn't fly across. Europe sold on a separate product.

This seems exactly what a casual flyer but who loves the "Big Iron" like myself is looking for. FS9 and FSX will always be there but sometimes I tire of wrestling with the quirks and idiosyncrasies of trying to use on modern hardware and operating system. Off to Steam now and put my order in!

Edit:

Okay had a little play and from what I've seen I think I will be keeping it and not get my money back off Steam. First thing to consider it is early access and unlike some other "WIP" programs, at least it's out there with a core to build on. There's certainly potential but at this particular point it won't be replacing either of the current MS products. Part of it is undoubtedly going to be familiarity, I was instinctively looking for click spots on the AP panel but the values need to be input via the keyboard. Very few of the keys are set up by default and there's no prompt if you try and use the same key twice. Autothrottle didn't seem to be working for me.

The B737 physics are a bit off. I was taking off at 97 knots and climbing at 4000FPM which is worse than default MSFS. There doesn't (as yet) seem to be any fuel or load planner or means of setting up a complex flightplan and having the AP follow it. I'm guessing FMC/LNAV/VNAV are a long way off. Other than doing the tutorials in the Cessna these are the only two aircraft I tried so far.

Will be keeping an eye on this if not playing avidly, maybe some GA over the scenic spots before doing the heavy stuff might be in order.

At some point they will also need missions and maybe some sort of built in VA/FSP/Cargo Pilot type thing to keep interest going.

Jeez you must have a fast connection!

Seems a fair and balanced first assessment: Hope you have fun!

Here is some info from the developers I had posted elsewhere, that might be useful:

On comparisons to other sims:

We have learnt over the years that publishing a new flight simulator in the PC market is a difficult thing, to say the least :)

 

We have those people that are happy with our approach and think its a fresh start in the flight simulator business, on the other hand there are existing FSX and X-Plane users that are rather skeptical. The main problem is that our potential customers are ranging from casual users that just want to make a quick flight up to demanding users that want to simulate every aspect of flying.

 

Comparison to other simulators is something we cannot stop, but FSX is in the market for many many years and has grown especially due to the huge amount of 3rd party AddOns. This is something a new simulator can never achieve right from the start. But it is our long term intention to offer an open Flight Simulator as well where other users can add content to it.

 

Developing a Flight Simulator takes time and the internals of Aerofly evolved over many years, but we now have a solid base that we can built on. That's why we think is the best time to enter the Early Access program. We will listen to your Feedback and we will try to implement as many wishes as possible, but it takes time, so please be patient with us.

Regarding an SDK:

An SDK is our top priority. Attracting external developers will help us getting more attention from the hard core flight simmer enthusiasts.

 

For all the rest, wait for our posting next week, where we will publish our roadmap.

Regarding ATC:

Thank you for your feedback. Next week we will publish our roadmap for the upcoming features.

 

We will have a high priority for add-on developers and we are also in contact with PilotEdge.

 

We will also add more functionality to our airplanes.

Where is the A380?

The A380 requires some more work before we can release it. We will not sell it as a DLC.

 

Regarding better ground textures: We plan to offer a special download option where users with lots of space can download additional data, but we have to check this first with Steam.

 

All your other requests are also on our todo list. Its too early yet to publish more details.

Is this program worth the Money?

It seems like people don't seem to understand Early Access. We want and need the feedback of users to add new features and to fix bugs. This first version was never ment to be our final version with respect to what it has.

Is this a simulator or a game?

What people do not understand today is, that there is not that much difference between a fast mobile devices compared to a desktop computer. The main difference is that desktop computer typically have better 3D graphics, but the actual computing power for performing the flight physics runs at its full precision on both platforms, so Aerofly FS 2 is running the same engine on mobile devices and on the PC version just with slightly adjusted parameters.

 

Our flight physics engine runs at the highest precision even on powerful mobile devices.

 

The big difference in the mobile and PC version is the fact that we use higher resolution textures as well as a lot more complex vertex and pixel shader. Lighting does look much better on the PC version.

 

Also the PC version features airplanes will a lot more functionality, e.g. some parts of the cockpit are operational.

Autopilot/FMC/MCDU modes

The current version of Aerofly FS 2 allows full IFR flights. You can tune in the navaids from the worldwide VOR/DME/ILS database and set the courses according to your enroute and approach charts. Also all autopilot functionality should be directly usable by operating them inside the cockpit.

 

At the moment, there is no ATC guidance whatsoever. This is one of the major topics we would like to get feedback on and see how much demand there is compared to other topics.

User generated content:

It is our explicit intention to allow user created content, like airports and airplanes.

 

The user requires a 3D modelling tool that we support ( e.g. 3D Studio Max ). We will then deliver tools to convert from those 3D tools to our internal format.

 

Setting up an airplane however requires manual editing of a text file which requires quite some work. Once Aerofly is available you can see that all airplanes and airports have text files that you can look into.

An SDK is our top priority. Attracting external developers will help us getting more attention from the hard core flight simmer enthusiasts.

I'm very pleased to hear that.

BTW, HyFlyer, thanks for the update ! :)

Interesting to see that Aerofly call this sim 'A next generation flight simulator.'

http://steamcommunity.com/app/434030#scrollTop=2782

One slight shortcoming seems to be no Save/Load facility for a flight in progress. Hopefully that is something that will come as development progresses.

I read somewhere on a forum recently that AFS-2 can open the previous in-flight location automatically if required. Maybe there's a menu option for this?

but maybe not.

I read somewhere on a forum recently that AFS-2 can open the previous in-flight location automatically if required. Maybe there's a menu option for this?

but maybe not.

Somebody answered this way, on another forum:

If you exit, and you restart back into the sim and just hit 'Start' without touching any settings, you go right back to where you left off, which is interesting, as you can log out if friends drop by, then go back into a flight (in flight) where you left off, and quickly.

New from Ipacs regarding more high resolution scenery areas:

ipacs aerofly [developer] Jun 15 @ 3:36pm

As a rough summary to all the replies here: People really have different tastes. As it looks now, we will leave the base package almost as it is and offer the DLC with more high resolution images. As a separate DLC we will consider offering higher resolution images world wide. They won't be as high as the images around the airports, but you will still see more details.