Well, I think I'm done with FSX... moving to FS 2

[Benny]

Hi friends, since ORBX will join FS 2, I will buy anything they release for this... AMAZING new simulator.

 

Later, if permitted with the team, I will post some small video clip to show you are stunning this new platform is.

 

The Pro's and the Con's:

Pro:

-64 bit, what does it mean, let's not talk about to much technical stuff. My rig is 5 YO, 2600K @ 4.2ghz, ok I bough a new GTX 1060 6 gig but it was more then fine on my GTX 590.

I always had 16 RAM but stuck a 3 with 32 bit platform, now it's using it. CPU at 30% over their NYC scenery, memory usage at about 25-40%, FPS 65-120 over NYC, 100-120 elsewhere. Forget about OOM-VAS problems, it's a thing of the past with FS 2.

 

-Planes, just WOW, inside and out. Period and that can only get better Those are payware quality.

 

-flying characteristic, my god, even the 172 react like in the real world, be ready to play with the trim often. Flap, spoiler reaction, WOW.

 

-Interface, WOW, and again that can only get better.

 

-Load time, ha ha, even on my old win7, 20 second at most.

 

-Sun, shadows, details... WOW

 

The con's (apart what you can find on internet)

 

-Water is not moving but it's still very nice photo realistic.

-Download size, for what they offer for now, 100 gig and more.

-You can't use the mouse inside VC, everything need a Joystick-pad-keybord switch -button-sliders input. That said, it detected my Saitek product (5 of it)... so easy to do so.

-The camera system is good out of the box but far from EZDOK, that I miss already.

-Some generic land is better then FSX but not up to ORBX level and far from it.  I can only wish that ORBX global line would be available to FS 2

- Weather, very basic and even worse then STOCK FSX. But, wind and turbulence are way better the stock FSX.

-Night flying need a lot of work outside big city.

 

Conclusion for now

 

Performance oriented, fly in second, no real load time. Beautiful out of the box. A complete sim the price of an ORBX region at full price.

Finally a real 64 bit Sim, not an adaptation. 

 

More comments will follow.

 

Ben

 

 

 

[Scott Harmes]

Hey Benny,

 

I agree with all your findings, except for the title .

 

Aerofly FS2 is an amazing sim, and I am using it more and more, but I won't be ditching P3D or FSX yet.  

 

Cheers,

[HiFlyer]

I agree. I love AF and believe it has the potential for a great future, but people take this stuff way too seriously sometimes, and can be set off with surprising ease. For such as they, your thread title might as well be chum in the water.

 

 

[Bruce Hamilton]

For me, the biggest con would be all of the ORBX scenery that likely won't be ported to AeroFly.

[wolfko]

A few more cons to AF2 (in comparison to P3D3)

- no cloud shadow

- no vegetation shadow

- no terrain shadow

- no seasons

- lighting is not depending on weather. You will always have the same fair weather lighting, no matter if the sky is clear or overcast.I really love the moody atmosphere in P3d3 when the sky is overcast or storms are building up. Couldn't fly without it any more.

- and I'm not sure about this one - does AF2 feature volumetric fog? 

[RHaas]

Aerofly FS2 has a long ways to go. Currently, there is no ATC, Ai traffic or real-world weather, most the models are almost impossible to 'lose' in flight, even if you try. No lights on the ground in rural areas. The flight model is fairly unrealistic, the sounds are abysmal and mostly non-existent, the world is lifeless and sterile, There aren't that many available aircraft to fly and they are all super simple with no systems simulation or engine. There are no challenges or routes to fly. It's all free flight over a badly-textured ground mesh. You can't touch any of the beautifully-rendered switches, buttons, levers, knobs, or other controls. yes is runs smooth and looks good but that's about it for now.

[kilby]

Does anybody understand Early Access.

[molleh]

2 hours ago, kilby said:

Does anybody understand Early Access.

 

I do... what are you getting at?

[HiFlyer]

Perhaps some information from one of the developers might inject an alternate viewpoint: Remember however that this is an excerpt from another thread where other issues were being addressed. I guess my point is that Aerofly is doing what it should be doing: Creating a solid base platform, but that doesn't happen in a day. FSX as we now know it is the culmination of nearly 30 combined years of development by dozens of companies. I think Aerofly deserves a year or two, at least! 
 

Quote

 

A few things being mentioned 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.

 

Aerofly fully models electrical systems in the C172 and B58 - And that electric system can compete with A2A standards, I've even gotten a battery low warning and a few failed instruments when going to low idle in the C172 with all consumers running at full power... Almost all navigation instruments are working, and you can shoot ILS's in all equipped aircraft.

 

The most important things like reversers, autospoilers, brakes, trims, internal and external lights, transponders, clocks/chronos, display zooms and multiple display modes are implemented. The 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 development (A320) and there are a few bonuses 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

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.

 

Regarding the 737 pitch/roll..... when compared to FSX, 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.

 

 

 

[Benny]

Gentlemen, let's keep this topic clean and fun. 

 

Of course it's not a deep simulator for now, BUT, I can load it in second and have fun and not wondering about VAS-LOW FPS-OOM... And that is a very big thing for me.

And YES, I'm a casual simmer.

 

I don't care much about C&D cockpit anyway but I understand that some people do.

Yes, like stated above I miss some stuff, but the graphic and performance make me forget about it.... for now.

 

I have flown over NYC for hours, FS 2 is already paid just for that scenery itself, others maker have done NYC and it was for me impossible to fly, same goes for so may other big city, Vancouver (addon) as an example... and so many other places that I could not even run it in FSX without sinking in the single FPS digit. 

 

64 bit is the future... period.

 

Ben

[anothercarbon]

I'm relatively casual too (for someone who checks out forums like this one), but as the others pointed out it has a really long way to go.

 

I like to fly VFR exploring regions and flying to wherever I want. Only being limited to a certain part of a country breaks immersion. No autogen close to the ground breaks immersion. The planes are still a little basic in terms of simple things like GPS. I would love to see them succeed and working with other developers is a start.

 

 

 

 

 

[Matt McGee]

I own FSX, P3D, & Aerofly FS2.  The several pro/con lists posted so far, seem mostly accurate to me, though some points may not tell the whole story.

 

The "pro" of fast FS2 load times may be true, but... I had very fast load times with default P3Dv3, until I installed hundreds of GB of Orbx scenery, ASN, REX, and many more aircraft.  

I don't know how FS2 handles scenery.  Will it continue to have such fast load times when it has more than its currently limited scenery area and aircraft?  What about after adding a weather engine, ATC, or AI aircraft (cars, boats)?  Will FPS be effected?

 

AF2 does look very pretty flying over the Grand Canyon, but... at 10,000ft with no seasonal variation.  New York looks pretty too, but... a bit dead without any vehicle movement or other aircraft in the sky.  The lighting, shadows, and textures in those "payware quality" cockpits are great, but... those pretty switches don't do anything.

 

My intent is not to bash FS2.  It is new and may grow to be a fantastic, full featured sim.  Smooth FPS, high above pretty photo-real scenery, in a pretty cockpit can be enjoyable and may be worth the cost of FS2.  I don't regret buying it, but is certainly doesn't replace P3D for me.  

Pro/con lists can be very handy in evaluating things.  Just don't loose track of the fact that the categories may not exactly correlate between subjects.

[Sniper31]

5 hours ago, h3pilot said:

I own FSX, P3D, & Aerofly FS2.  The several pro/con lists posted so far, seem mostly accurate to me, though some points may not tell the whole story.

 

The "pro" of fast FS2 load times may be true, but... I had very fast load times with default P3Dv3, until I installed hundreds of GB of Orbx scenery, ASN, REX, and many more aircraft.  

I don't know how FS2 handles scenery.  Will it continue to have such fast load times when it has more than its currently limited scenery area and aircraft?  What about after adding a weather engine, ATC, or AI aircraft (cars, boats)?  Will FPS be effected?

 

AF2 does look very pretty flying over the Grand Canyon, but... at 10,000ft with no seasonal variation.  New York looks pretty too, but... a bit dead without any vehicle movement or other aircraft in the sky.  The lighting, shadows, and textures in those "payware quality" cockpits are great, but... those pretty switches don't do anything.

 

My intent is not to bash FS2.  It is new and may grow to be a fantastic, full featured sim.  Smooth FPS, high above pretty photo-real scenery, in a pretty cockpit can be enjoyable and may be worth the cost of FS2.  I don't regret buying it, but is certainly doesn't replace P3D for me.  

Pro/con lists can be very handy in evaluating things.  Just don't loose track of the fact that the categories may not exactly correlate between subjects.

 

These are some very level headed remarks and comments here. More folks should take heed of this type of vision when trying to assess something as complex as a new flight sim.

[Oldar]

I do feel like I need to correct a few inaccurate statements. There is a route planner so it isn't all free flight by any means. The planner ties in with the nav modes of all of the planes. You can certainly push the "beautifully rendered" buttons and switches, and many or most of them work depending on the airplane. There are 17 airplanes, ranging from gliders to a 747, so there are plenty of planes and plane types. While airports are limited to several hundred over the American southwest, NYC area and Switzerland, there is good photoreal scenery over areas that extend beyond those areas. Thus you can fly in photoreal scenery as far south as Washington DC and as far west as Pittsburgh from NYC, and also pretty far north and east as well. The western scenery is good about as far north as Mt Rainier. And the covered area with airports is a very large box of land that extends from northern California to the Mexican border on the west side and through Arizona and Utah on the east. That is plenty to keep you busy for a while.

 

And as has been noted, the Northeast/NYC scenery alone might be worth the price of the whole sim. New York City is rendered better than in any other flight sim, period. 

 

Finally, nothing else even comes close to the experience of VR in FS2. I've been flight simming since 1984, and FS2 + VR is by far the closest I have ever come to feeling like I was flying a real airplane. If the actual reproduction of the feeling and experience of flying is what you treasure, VR + FS2 is unmatched. If systems management is what you want, then you will have to wait a while as the programmers catch up.

[HiFlyer]

54 minutes ago, Oldar said:

I do feel like I need to correct a few inaccurate statements.

 

I wrote a huge post to correct some of this too but ended up deleting it. 

 

I suddenly remembered the MsFlight days, and all the misinformation that just refused to go away no matter how many times people tried to correct it, and I just gave up.

 

Good on you for trying, though.

[Matt McGee]

2 hours ago, Oldar said:

You can certainly push the "beautifully rendered" buttons and switches, and many or most of them work depending on the airplane.

In my post above, I stated "but... those pretty switches don't do anything", based on my experience flying the F/A-18, F-15E, MB-339, & Corsair in FS2.  

Upon further reflection and after flying additional aircraft, "don't do anything" is too harsh of a criticism on my part.

 

To be fair to FS2, I must agree with Oldar, with emphasis on the caveats "many" and "depending on the airplane".  

Having just flown the 737 and Cessna 172, many of their buttons are indeed clickable and do something.  There are also some knobs that don't actually move, but they do perform a function, like dimming lights.  

However, there are still some pretty significant items that are non-functional, like the magnetos and mixture in the 172, and other lessor items like circuit breakers or audio panel buttons that do not work.  FMS is non-functional and GPS is only marginally functional.   The military aircraft have more inoperative items than the civil ones.

 

When referring to FS2 default aircraft cockpits as "payware quality", I would point out that there is a large variation in the quality of payware.  In general, I would characterize FS2's default aircraft as better looking, but not quite as functional as the default P3D aircraft (which are not study-sim quality either).

[Bassman]

What I am "hearing" is that one has to decide which way to go..the best scenery or the most accurate aircraft flight dynamics. Personally I mainly fly relatively low and slow so start up procedures and accurate buttons are not that important to me. On the other hand there are those who like to fly high or get more fun out of the instrumentation and will decide on a simulator that best suits them. I am quite conservative so will stay with FSX for now until the 64bit sims have more content.  Then there are all the comments in this forum  about the other new kid on the block, Dovetail FSW.

What a wonderful hobby so much choice becoming available and FSX, P3D, AF2 and FSW all continuing (I believe?) to be supported by Orbx. Whichever sim one goes for we are all winners here

[Matt McGee]

2 hours ago, Bassman said:

What I am "hearing" is that one has to decide which way to go..the best scenery or the most accurate aircraft flight dynamics.

I'm not sure that is the case.  "Best scenery" is not the same thing as prettiest aircraft/cockpits and lighting, IMHO.

At this point in time, I would say FS2 aircraft, cockpits, & lighting can look more realistic, but I prefer P3D's ground scenery (especially with Orbx) and water to FS2's current default + DLC scenery.  However, the screen shots of Orbx's LOWI for FS2 look fantastic and show how much better it can look.

 

"Best scenery" is subjective and also depends on how you fly.  Photo-real scenery might look really good from 20,000ft, but appear flat and featureless from low altitude, especially if it is lacking in autogen trees and buildings.  Photo-real can also look weird if it has autogen that doesn't align with the objects in the photo beneath it (like flat, photo roofs of houses not lining up with autogen houses or roads).  Non-photo scenery textures can look a bit cartoon like, but they can also look quite good and can have great three dimensional depth with a good set of textures and autogen (like Orbx).

 

As a flight sim enthusiast, I think it is great to have multiple, competing sims that each look great in their own way.  Though it does make it hard to choose where to invest your add-on $ when it isn't clear who the long term winner might be.

 

 

 

[Bassman]

"I'm not sure that is the case.  "Best scenery" is not the same thing as prettiest aircraft/cockpits and lighting, IMHO" . I agree totally. I did not intend to include pretty cockpit detail as scenery as personally and subjectively I too have never considered cockpit detail as scenery.

[Benny]

5 hours ago, Bassman said:

to include pretty cockpit detail as scenery as personally and subjectively I too have never considered cockpit detail as scenery.

 

Well, from a VC view, cockpit detail are part of the scenery... for me. If you load up the P38 in FS2 be ready for a shock, no other airplane addon-payware come close  to this. I just can't imagine flying that kind of VC over a city like NY with FPS in the 100 with either FSX or P3D.

 

Ben

[Gypsy Pilot]

I took a good hard look at FS2 and it looks like they are still in the "game business" mode, not the sim mode.

True Flight Simming is not a game and most of the game marketers just don't realize that.  They just want to make a buck selling a game as if they were selling Mario Brothers, not support our flight sim world.

 

It appears that they want all addons to come through them and not the open market.  

If this is true, I for one, am not willing to give up the tons of choices that we now have through our developer and merchant network.

 

LM developed P3D to be a sim because that is what they do, supply simulations for the aviation world.  They are not gamers.  

 

At present, I am reverting back to FSX ( because I still have the disk ) so that I can enjoy flying while I wait for P3D-64 to be released.

I reinstalled V3.2 on my machine from a backup, but when I went to activate it, LM would not accept my license information and I just don't feel like jumping through the hoops they want me to jump through right now.  It took me 14 hours to download V3.2 , a chore that I am not ready to do again.

 

Because I hate OOM's I know that even if LM doesn't come out with V64 this year I will switch back to them to take advantage of their superior VAS memory handling. 

 

I feel like the man who knows that he is going to have to go back to his ex because he knows that no one else out there makes him happy.  Been there, done that, and received another 32 years of happiness because I went back.  I feel certain that P3D-64 will be the same.

 

Dale.

[John Venema]

Again, yet another topic where people go off on tangents or wave the flag for their favourite sim. Closing this one now.