In the meantime its just a toy.

 

Its all in the eyes of the beholder anyway's.

 

I do agree with the second part, and would use that to reinforce the first part. With possibly hundreds of thousands of users out there of all sorts, what's a toy and what's a sim being born are very much up to the expectations of the beholder. 

Thanks for the review.

You wrote all info I was seeking.

 

 

You're welcome.  :wink:

 

Thanks Jeroen.

 

You told me what I was suspecting. Most video's show only the best parts, the good and not the ugly.

 

Also, the talk about systems (by others) is irrelevant.

First AF2 needs to be a solid base. A world, good weather, AI engine, navigation system.

If that is rock solid and we still have 120 fps, then with an accessable engine it can replace the other sims (maybe)

 

In the meantime its just a toy.

 

And I don't give a rat's &@($* if one call it a simulator or a game. I cant believe people are putting time in such a discussion.

 

Its all in the eyes of the beholder anyway's.

 

You're welcome too  :wink: but I can't agree with the toy remark. Although I know what you mean and I can understand where it's coming from. Funny though that you made that remark right after saying you don't give a rat's &@($* if one calls it a sim or game LOL But I also don't give a rat's rat's &@($*  if one calls it a toy so we're good!  :wink:

I do agree with the second part.

 

 

LOL

 

BTW Still waiting to get access to the iPacs forum. I'd really like to join the party over there and share my thoughts... My login suddenly stopped working today so I had to re-register (which I was able to do with same login data... quite odd). 

Its currently in its form, a toy, since its lacking those elemental things for flying.

Weather!

Thats the number one whats lacking (and btw poorly implemented in the other sims too).

 

Funny thing is when doing a flight with a 'study' aircraft in FS9, set weather with AS, and using ATC, and doing an approach (with a published

one, not vectors) I don't have the time to look outside. It could even be flat without textures, I wouldnt notice it.

 

Anyhow, sure I (we) are curious to see where this is going, and was on the brink of getting it. But reading your review I wait for a year.

I already suspecting people were making movies on YT showing the best. Now some brave captain has to show us the bad and ugly too.

 

Johan

Its currently in its form, a toy, since its lacking those elemental things for flying.

Weather!

Thats the number one whats lacking (and btw poorly implemented in the other sims too).

 

I actually tend to think of weather as an addition to the scenery, which is to say, I like the puffy white clouds.  :wink:

 

When I use Xplane, for instance, Skymaxx is perfect for me without the additional weather option, since when I do use weather, its weather themes. 

 

Cosmetic, essentially.

 

But.

 

I think Aerofly has a third party cloud system right now, and might eventually switch to something that will be more towards what you are looking for. Its early days yet.

 

And honestly I think we're going to be going through this same type of evaluation back and forth whenever DTFS arrives, which is to say, it's also going to be a WIP.

 

Because of the FSX heritage, they may or not get a bit more patience as they get up to speed, but I suspect DTG Martin will have his hands full and that we're all going to be feeling a lot of Deja Vu.  

Sadly this post is locked: http://www.avsim.com/topic/501111-the-realistic-world-of-simmers/?view=getnewpost

 

But the OP in it says it quite right: 99% of the simmers (could be less) care about visuals, but cannot fly a DME arc.

They only know an FMC and thats it. When flying with such device one has time to look outside.

 

For VFR flying AF2 might be a nice one.

 

For overall flying it needs much more. And just nice clouds doesnt cut it. It needs the dynamics.

 

But time will tell, and Jeroen his honest review opened my eyes, and probably others too.

 

Anyhow, curious to where this all will lead !

But the OP in it says it quite right: 99% of the simmers (could be less) care about visuals, but cannot fly a DME arc.

 

I think that's probably natural. Most people's first thoughts of flying is of the view: seeing the clouds up close, soaring like a bird, diving and swooping.......

 

It's the part of flying that attracts everyone from child to adult, (Superman!) and only later do some branch off to the point where it's the instrumentation of manned flight that becomes paramount.

 

And, perhaps not surprisingly, even for probably most of them, the view still matters.

 

An awful lot of our largest and most successful third parties would not exist, were that not the case.

Looking at the scenery during final approach is a BIG part of the enjoyment for me. Messing about looking at instruments and charts all the way down is not my style.

 

 

Funny thing is when doing a flight with a 'study' aircraft in FS9, set weather with AS, and using ATC, and doing an approach (with a published one, not vectors) I don't have the time to look outside. It could even be flat without textures, I wouldnt notice it.

 

 

 

99% of the simmers (could be less) care about visuals, but cannot fly a DME arc.

 

Well... funny story maybe but getting the visuals right might immerse someone so much that he or she is inclined to look deeper into a sim and what is possible. True story: I have been flying virtually since the eighties but somehow, don't ask me why, I never grasped how VORs work. And I didn't really care either. Enter... MS Flight. By many regarded as a game and not a sim. Somehow I liked something about it... still don't know what. But while others were only saying it was a game and nothing was simulated properly I found out the radio's of a few DLC planes actually worked and being excited as I was I decided to get to grips with those pesky VOR icons on the MS Flight map. Because I was so immersed by the sim thanks to the LOOKS, I was willing to put time in something I never wanted to take the time for. And so I learned to fly using VOR only in MS Flight. Inbound, outbound, figuring out where you are at any moment, where you are going, triangulation (soooo staisfying to find an airport that has no VOR nearby by using VORs alone!), I learned it all and even ended up writing a tutorial (using MS Flight screenshots!) that btw was liked by many and used by MS. After that I started to use charts, flying DME arcs and so on and all that thanks to some pretty graphics in a 'game'. Anywayyyyyyyyy, what I wanted to say: do NOT underestimate the power of nice graphics in a sim! :wink:

 

 

 

Looking at the scenery during final approach is a BIG part of the enjoyment for me.

 

Same here. Hence my frustration with AFS2. :wink:

 

 

It's the part of flying that attracts everyone from child to adult, (Superman!) and only later do some branch off to the point where it's the instrumentation of manned flight that becomes paramount.

 

My point exactly. :wink:

Its currently in its form, a toy, since its lacking those elemental things for flying.

Weather!

Thats the number one whats lacking (and btw poorly implemented in the other sims too).

 

Since I started in this hobby a few years ago, almost every flight I've done has included real world weather. (Even when I use CTRL-E, still was flying with real weather).  No weather, no fly for me.

Visuals are extremely important in making the simulator experience feel realistic. State of the art commercial simulators all have very good visual systems, and I'd argue that it's even more important in a desktop game where 99% of simmers don't make use of a full motion cockpit enclosure with realistic instruments, buttons and flight controls to help them get the "feel" of actually being inside a real moving aircraft.

Visuals are extremely important in making the simulator experience feel realistic. State of the art commercial simulators all have very good visual systems, and I'd argue that it's even more important in a desktop game where 99% of simmers don't make use of a full motion cockpit enclosure with realistic instruments, buttons and flight controls to help them get the "feel" of actually being inside a real moving aircraft.

 

Emerging tech like VR also serves as an abrupt reminder of how much we've lost (and become accustomed to it) by not having the third dimension available. So much easier to judge distance/height etc, for landings!!

 

At some point people will probably look back and wonder how on earth we did it.

 

Once higher rez VR becomes available and widespread, users of Aerofly and whatever other next-gen sims are in our future might find it as hard to tolerate our current sims as we find it to seriously tolerate Plan 9 From Outer Space.  :smile:

 

And VR is going to be almost by definition an intensely visual-centric experience.

At some point people will probably look back and wonder how on earth we did it.

 

I did this too. Horrible graphics, but with a good visual immersion in my head.  :wub:

 

I did this too. Horrible graphics, but with a good visual immersion in my head. 

 

It also serves as a reminder of the long, looooooonggg journey FSX took to become what it is today. I'm willing to give Aerofly some time.

All other flight sims need to take a back seat IMO until they can achieve the flyability and resulting believability available in AF2.  These are the core tenets of flight simulation for me.  Your mileage may vary.

 

Regards

jja

I did this too. Horrible graphics, but with a good visual immersion in my head.  :wub:

 

I actually thought the graphics were pretty pathetic - even back then... I think EF 2000 was the first flight simulator that gave me any hope that flying from a desktop could be any fun and look somewhat real.