How I Learned To Like Aerofly FS2

It's not particularly common to start areview with the verdict, nor with a personal statement before theactual review starts. However, shortly before I sent my text toFlightSim.Com's Dominic Smith (who kindly asked me to review AeroflyFS2 in December 2017), I wanted to make sure that he would be happywith my reviewing approach. As such, I asked him if I could includesome comparative remarks regarding the other big simulators we haveall come to know - MSFS and X-Plane. Well, after using Aerofly FS2extensively over the past few months, I can honestly say that thenumber of simulators I now use, has jumped from two, to three - suchhas been my enjoyment (that is my verdict)!

In my early days of flight simulation, I used FS2004 and FSX, thenmy focus shifted to X-Plane 9 and then more recently to X-Plane 11 andPrepar3D. Prior to starting this review, I had assumed I'd simplyremove Aerofly FS2 from my hard disk once the article was finished.However, to my surprise I didn't. I still fly with Aerofly FS2, andthis review is the story of that surprise.

Flight & Prejudice

I did not know much about Aerofly FS2 before I started this review,but like most people with limited information, I came to an uninformedopinion and simply said, "I won't use that". You see, I had judgedAerofly FS2 way back when it was initially released as early access,and my ill informed decision was based solely on some screen shots ofthe user interface, weather settings (simpler even than X-Plane), andaircraft without (it seemed) any system depth. Positive things I readabout, like very good frame rates (FPS), I rejected when I saw screenshots of the scenery: "Well, that's just static photo scenery", Isaid, "autogen only in very few areas, everywhere else is flat, noanimations of car traffic or water - no surprise really that FPS aregood!" That was it, for quite some time, until Dominic emailed mewith ideas of a possible review.

To be honest, my first impressions were still rather negative whenI first installed Aerofly FS2. For a start, the user interfaceappeared really large on my 1920x1080 screen (as if it was made for amuch smaller touch screen), plus several options I was used to seeingin simulators were missing, especially regarding weather, startingposition, and flight planning. Overall, it felt like a simple flyinggame, and while I'm totally fine with flying games (and even thinkthey are needed to get younger people into this hobby), I was stillwondering what Aerofly FS2 could offer me over X-Plane 11 andPrepar3D. So I took a deep breath, pushed my expectations aside andset out to discover new lands (for myself anyway).

These lands, by default, consist of the Southwestern USA, Utah, andColorado; these regions are available either in the base download oras free DLC. In addition, Aerofly FS2 developer IPACS sell add-onsforSwitzerland(which I have purchased) andNortheastern USA.ORBXhave also converted their scenery for Innsbruck, Chicago Meigs,Monterey and Eagle County (from which I have purchased two, and I'llcome back to those later in the article). Our friends at Aerosoftoffer the German island ofHelgoland.This is, so far, everything available for Aerofly FS2 in terms ofscenery (at time of writing). Unfortunately other areas of the worldonly exist as low-res photo textures without any definition. You canfly there if you position your plane on the moving map, but it's notmuch fun without airports.

Discovering The Bay Area

Discovering The Bay Area

The west coast from California to Washington is my favorite flyingarea in any simulator, so of course I was curious to see how it lookedin Aerofly FS2. I selected the Cessna C172, placed myself at HalfMoon Bay Airport (KHAF), set weather to fair and started my firstflight. During the really short loading time I wondered how the planewould feel and how the Bay Area would look like.

Well, it looked good! From Half Moon Bay I flew to the Golden GateBridge, then headed towards the city, where I made several turns abovethe buildings and the harbor so as to enjoy the sights. From 2000feet AGL, numerous details became visible. Many places were coveredby 3D trees and 3D buildings, and while these were generic near KHAF,more and more well established landmarks came into view as I nearedSan Francisco.

Flying the C172 was unspectacular after I set up my controls (Idecided to set the same keybindings as I have in X-Plane and Prepar3D,which was easy to accomplish; I only wish Aerofly FS2 would warn theuser about double keybindings). The C172 felt fine (like othersimulated C172 I've used over the years) and looked good both insideand out. The instrument animations on the panel were very smooth, andthere were beautiful reflections on the glass elements. A nice touchwas that the pilot was female. Usually flight simulations show malepilots, whereas women are mostly shown as passengers, so in this case,it was refreshing to see.

The quality of the San Francisco cityscape was really good fordefault scenery, although some landmarks had been simplified orreplaced by generic buildings (these if I'm honest, could have been abit more colorful). I continued my flight to Oakland InternationalAirport (KOAK), because I was intrigued to see how well it wasmodelled. Yes, it was there, and in more than sufficient quality!Finally, I continued to San Francisco International Airport (KSFO),ignoring all flight rules (there was no AI traffic which could havedone any harm) and landed on runway 19R. During final, I noticed atiny real airliner on the water of the photo-texture - apparently itjust took off when the photo was created. Personally I think that (atleast near airports) the photo-textures should be cleaned from suchartifacts, because they can be distracting.

I taxied around for a while, being totally impressed by the highquality of the terminal buildings. The basic shape of both theterminal and tower were all correct, with the glass exhibiting nicereflections. Numerous static aircraft created the impression of abusy airport, but there are no animations on the ground to speakof.

Overall, I left my first real Aerofly FS2 flight with a positivefeeling and started to read the manual so as to learn about what elsewas included.

A Deeper Look

A Deeper Look

The range of aircraft included in the simulator is quiteimpressive. Basically every class has been covered in some way. Youcan fly a basic glider or a fast F/A-18 Hornet; you can carrypassengers in a B737 or A320, and you can do aerobatics in an Extra.If that's not enough, you can go back to the early days of aviation ina Sopwith Camel or a P-38 Lightning. The degree of detailing in eachmodel is different. Graphics-wise, all Aerofly FS2 planes look verygood, but most of them have just basic functionality - you can fly andnavigate, but don't expect many systems. In some cases, switches areanimated, but don't seem to have any noticeable effect on theaircraft; while in others, switches are not movable at all. Dependingon the aircraft chosen, the level at which this detracts from anysense of realism, can vary. I can live with the King Air's fuel gaugeswitches not working, but flying a 747 with the overhead panel coveredin yellow warning lights destroys any feeling of immersion.

The Cessna C172 and the Bombardier Dash 8-Q400 are exceptions tothis rule. These models show that more complex planes are possible inAerofly FS2. These two in particular can match any default aircraftfrom the other two main civil simulators, with the Q400 evensucceeding them. In fact, the Q400 is the most complex Aerofly FS2aircraft to date, and you should definitely read thecomprehensive tutorialto get the most out of it.

One particular standout feature of the Q400, is that its glasscockpit has crystal-clear displays (PFDs, MFDs), showing a plausibleand animated fluid user interface. This is also true for otherglass-equipped models (the Learjet 45, the Airbus A320, the Boeing747-400 and the King Air C90 GTx). Both pilot and co-pilot displaysare partly independent from each other in that you can set differentbarometric pressure, and you can have different map modes. The Q400and the A320 even have a wide range of display modes for the varioussystems.

With that said, even the Q400 has no FMC. So for planning longerflights, you have to open the navigation page from the Aerofly FS2main menu. There you can set a starting position (runway, approach ora few uncategorised ramp starts), select a destination airport and setin between waypoints, which can consist of VORs, NDBs, GPS waypoints(fixes) and user waypoints. These navaids are available in all areasof the simulator, even in the parts not covered by the detailed photoscenery. The names of VORs and NDBs are visible on the map, but fixesare only shown with their triangle icon - you have to click a FIX iconto display its name. However, airways are not available, so theseissues make flight planning in Aerofly FS2 a bit cumbersome.

Once the flight plan is set, the autopilot can fly the plan in asufficiently convincing way. When you're near your destinationairport, you can either carry out an ILS approach (if available) orland manually. The autopilot seems mostly generic, but to mysurprise, the A320 autopilot makes use of the typical "push/pull".For example, you pull the HDG knob if you want the autopilot to flythe heading you entered, and you push the HDG knob if you want theautopilot to follow the flight plan. The same is used for altitude /vertical speed. This is a level of detail I did not expect in adefault aircraft.

How well flight is modelled, depends on the aircraft selected. Forexample, the C172 feels good to me, whereas the very beautiful KingAir C90 GTx feels a bit too agile. The A320 - a fly-by-wire-plane -was a positive surprise insofar that it was able to hold the pitch androll I selected, and that it also displayed hints for the desiredthrottle position on the PFD (like LVR CLB). The A320 even includesprotection for overly excessive bank angles.

In the Q400, I sometimes found it a challenge to keep the speed inthe desired range, with just a few millimeters of my throttle controlseeming to make a big difference. I don't know if this issue isrelated to my hardware, but I don't have this problem with any of theother aircraft in Aerofly FS2, or for that matter, in othersimulators, so perhaps the Q400 is a bit too sensitive in this regard.Unfortunately it's not possible to test different weight and balanceconditions, because such parameters are unable to be set in AeroflyFS2.

Things I Miss

Things I Miss

For several years now, X-Plane has been my main simulator. That'swhy I am used to flying without AI aircraft and artificial ATC, soit's no big deal for me that neither AI nor ATC exist in Aerofly FS2.I can imagine though, that for more 'serious' simmers, this could bean issue, especially since online flying is not possible at time ofwriting.

More critical for me though, is the time and weather settings. Itis currently only possible to enter the hour of day, and only as UTC.It is also not possible to set detailed weather conditions; you canonly give Aerofly FS2 some vague parameters. There are four slidersdetermining altitude and density of cumulus and cirrus clouds, andanother slider for the overall visibility. There is no way to tellthe actual value of these sliders; it's just "low" and "high". It'salso not possible to set or get a barometric pressure. I tried tuningthe ATIS frequency of an airport, but unfortunately, did not get anyinformation.

Lastly, the night lighting could be improved. From above, it looksokay, I don't need fully dynamic lighting, like in X-Plane, but atleast landing lights and taxi lights should illuminate the ground!

Aerofly FS2 As A Platform

Most flight simulation enthusiasts use the simulator as a baseplatform and extend it with add-ons to their liking. As mentionedearlier in the article, there already exist some scenery add-ons forAerofly FS2, such as the Northeastern USA, which includes awell-rendered New York City, and also ChicagoMeigs Field(KCGX) by Orbx (with more to come from this developer). There is alsothe German island of Heligoland by Aerosoft.

Going back to the offering from Orbx; it was highly interesting tosee the visual differences that Meigs Field exhibits in each differentsimulator. It's especially notable that only the FSX/P3D andAerofly FS2 versions have PeopleFlow animations on the ground, whichadds immensely to the immersion factor; whereas the X-Plane versiononly shows static people. On the other hand, Aerofly FS2 has no watermodelling and shows water only as a static photographic texture, whichagain...detracts from the immersion. Finally though, FPS are muchbetter in AeroflyFS than in any of the other platforms, even on veryhigh graphics settings, so flying itself (without regards to systems,or non-existent AI and ATC) can be more enjoyable in Aerofly FS2.This allows add-on sceneries to really shine.

When it comes to aircraft, the add-on situation (at present) is notas healthy - well, basically there is no add-on situation yet. Thereexists a Robin DR400 which also serves as an SDK demonstration forpotential airplane developers:

https://www.aerofly.com/community/filebase/index.php?file/61-aircraft-workshop-dr400/

There is also a section of free liveries on the Aerofly FS2 website:

https://www.aerofly.com/community/filebase/index.php?category-file-list/4-aerofly-fs-2-aircraft-repaints/&l=2

As far as I know, no airplanes have been announced yet, so I'mcurious about when the first airplane developer will publish a productfor Aerofly FS2.

Final Thoughts

As it stands at the moment, Aerofly FS2's scope is sufficient fornew users of flight simulation, mainly because of the reducedcomplexity compared to other simulators. The high FPS make it thepremier choice for virtual reality flight; one where you want to focuson the feel of flight and on sightseeing. If you're into complexaircraft, then you'll feel let down because this type of aircraft doesnot exist yet. This may of course change in the future, because thepotential is definitely there.

For now, you need to judge for yourself whether you wish to investabout $60 for this relatively new platform. For that sum, you getmany beautiful looking aircraft and quite a large flying area, butremember, most planes have very simplified systems and the worldoutside of the detailed areas is only represented by blurry phototextures. Because of these issues, the price may be a bit too highfor some users.

Maybe it'd help if Aerofly FS2 developer IPACS published a road mapof upcoming development plans, so customers can see for themselves(with a degree of clarity) what gaps/issues will be addressed in duetime.

Mario Donick

Purchase Aerofly FS2

Aerofly FS2 Web Site

Additional Screen Shots

Screen Shots