To be honest, the last version of Microsoft Flight Simulator before FSX that had acceptable default graphics (for me) was FS4.0b....way back in 1992. As soon as Microsoft decided to use "photorealistic" graphics (and I use this term in the loosest sense where FS5 was concerned), the outside world became a horrible, low resolution, shimmering mess. It took them a decade to haul themselves out of that garbage bin.

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

 

Good old days, how the hell I could enjoy that graphic...

 

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 guess the main problem for many is what will be of that flyability when you add a Carenando plane, ATC, AI around and above all a dynamic weather.

I guess the main problem for many is what will be of that flyability when you add a Carenando plane, ATC, AI around and above all a dynamic weather.

 

I can't wait to find out...... 

 

 

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.

 

+1

Good old days, how the hell I could enjoy that graphic...

 

I guess the main problem for many is what will be of that flyability when you add a Carenando plane, ATC, AI around and above all a dynamic weather.

 

I guess I need to work on my sarcasm. 

 

jja

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.

 

This was posted on the Ipacs forum a while ago.

 

WIP, and if you've watched other weather engines being born, you'll know (as the post says) It takes time.

 

IPACS Support

 

 The weather model will be extended over time, and will eventually include rain, stratus layers and so. Please don't expect that too soon.

 

WIP, and if you've watched other weather engines being born, you'll know (as the post says) It takes time.

 

 

Interesting quote! My problem is that 'not too soon' might mean 'too late'. If they are talking about weeks or a few months, ok, that's fine, but looking at their earlier promises regarding for instance ATC and AI and how slow they are progressing I tend to believe that 'not too soon' might mean something like next year or in version 3. Hopefully I am a bit too negative here  :wink: The thing is: NOW is the time. Or at least this year. DTG is coming with their sim, P3D v4 might be released soon, and although AFS2 may not be a direct contender for those sims, I am sure it will cost them customers if they don't act a bit more swiftly.

 

Talking about acting swiftly: I still can't access their forum...   I hope that's not a sign of how 'fast' they act with their sim.  :wink:

On the one hand I find it appalling that they want us to purchase a half finished product without weather, yes, a flight sim is only half finished without weather!

Weather is such an integral part of a flight sim and flying in general.

 

It is like creating a car race sim without simulating the road surface and tire behavior.

Ask any real pilot, what does he do before ANY flight? Check the weather!

What causes the most delays/diversions/challenges in real world flying? Weather!

 

On the other hand I can understand that they need $$$ to finish what they started.

 

I for one will wait and see.

 

IPACS decision to go with DLCs for detailed regions is a major letdown for me. What will it cost to have the whole of Europe and North America as 'detailed scenery'?

Thousands of dollars/euros. I don't mind paying, but not at this rate.

If they are talking about weeks or a few months, ok, that's fine, but looking at their earlier promises regarding for instance ATC and AI and how slow they are progressing I tend to believe that 'not too soon' might mean something like next year or in version 3. Hopefully I am a bit too negative here

 

Slow? Again, it's different expectations. Orbx has announced they are making scenery (or perhaps transferring scenery) and that's expected to take several months to a year or more and we all go "Well that's about right"

 

Probably because we've seen the process from them before, and know it can take a long time for a big scenery. (And of  course we've all seen some planes take years)

 

Yet with all the other things this small team has to do (planes, scenery, systems etc just to name a few) you're hoping for a weather engine in a few months?

 

When has any weather engine, even from dedicated weather providers taken a few months? (that's a serious question)

 

Why such unrealistic expectations?

 

What will it cost to have the whole of Europe and North America as 'detailed scenery'?

Thousands of dollars/euros. I don't mind paying, but not at this rate.

 

The real question might be; How much has it cost, and how long has it taken for Orbx to cover a relative fraction of the Earth?

 

Expectations again.

 

It seems seven months after the product has hit the shelves, Ipacs might be facing the the dreaded "Is it FSX yet" paradigm that plagued Xplane forever. And, of course, even FSX took years to get where it is, or by some math, several decades.

On the one hand I find it appalling that they want us to purchase a half finished product

 

Well, you make it sound as if they force you...  :wink: They don't. And it is clearly stated that AFS2 is Early access so... nothing appalling about that. 

 

 

 

IPACS decision to go with DLCs for detailed regions is a major letdown for me. What will it cost to have the whole of Europe and North America as 'detailed scenery'?

Thousands of dollars/euros. I don't mind paying, but not at this rate.

 

Who says they want to cover the whole of Europe or North America? And we are talking about photoreal here. Never in the history of flight simming did any company cover the whole of anything. Even a product like MegaSceneryEarth, which has been worked on for years, doesn't cover everything yet... What did you expect?! That iPacs would offer you the world in photoreal for 50 bucks?

 

 

When has any weather engine, even from dedicated weather providers taken a few months? (that's a serious question)

 

Why such unrealistic expectations? 

 

 

Agreed, that would be unrealistic but I wasn't talking about a complete weather engine, with real time weather and all: I was talking about this part: 'include rain, stratus layers' and so on. Things like extending the very, very small circle of clouds. These kind of things shouldn't need years of work like a complete weather engine and imho (and I know a lot of simmers agree with this: Silicus has a point there!) weather IS important for a believable experience. I rather have iPacs working on improving the weather parts of AFS2 instead of thinking about AI and ATC (as far as I know they are still in the thinking phase).

 

I am not asking for an ASN-like addition within a few months: that is indeed ridiculous. But btw I also don't think that will ever happen: that for 3rd parties to do. I don't think iPacs meant to say they will add a full weather system. They simply said the weather model will be extended and by that I think they mean the things I mentioned and those kind of things really should be added 'soon' imho.

Agreed, that would be unrealistic but I wasn't talking about a complete weather engine, with real time weather and all: I was talking about this part: 'include rain, stratus layers' and so on. Things like extending the very, very small circle of clouds.

 

It might be one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations.

 

I suspect as a small company, IPACS have to define their development priorities extremely carefully, balancing revenue and resources. The small circle of dark clouds in Xplane that have been like that for years (and the stutters sometimes caused by cumulous in Aerofly) hint that the task might not be as tractable as one might hope, especially if you intend things later like cloud shadows etc.

 

Given that, I'm actually not surprised it's one of those things Ipacs is taking a bit of time with, and it's even more understandable when you take into account the thread on Steam asking users what they wanted to see in Aerofly.

 

By a pretty overwhelming majority, AI and ATC seemed to have had the numbers over weather, and considering the complexity of just getting AI and ATC right (Judging by Xplane again) I'm not really surprised those tasks are not getting tackled simultaneously by a limited (but growing!) team.

 

They've asked for some patience, and I think that's reasonable.

 

After all I waited years for...... Flight School. (Nice clouds!)

IPACS has done an incredible job in my opinion. They basically started from scratch with AFS v1 - although they could probably use some of the code from their RC simulator series. When you compare AFS v2 with X-Plane and Prepar3D, they've certainly come a long way in a relatively short period of time.

Ah, well, yes, patience is a virtue...

 

I am quite surprised though that ATC is so important to so many people (specially at Steam). Or let me put it in another way: default ATC in other sims have always sucked big time and even 3rd party developers can't get it quite right so... so I can't see iPacs 'suddenly' doing this right...! Imho this is an even bigger task than getting the weather right! If those Steam people would know how hard it is to create a good ATC system, I think they would all opt for a weather system. If they would know how hard this is and that you shouldn't expect too much of it I think the people at Steam wouldn't have voted that much for ATC. I also am a bit amazed that iPacs is seriously thinking about this. Then again... they stated they are still only thinking about this so I doubt if this ever gets done.

 

I think that for simmers weather is far more important than ATC but I may be completely wrong. I've been completely wrong before so...  :wink:

IPACS has done an incredible job in my opinion. They basically started from scratch with AFS v1 - although they could probably use some of the code from their RC simulator series. When you compare AFS v2 with X-Plane and Prepar3D, they've certainly come a long way in a relatively short period of time.

 

Well, I have to admit, more and more, that this is true. I have been quite negative in the last few weeks about what iPacs has done since AFS1 but well... they indeed achieved a lot. So my apologies to iPacs for my earlier remarks about this.  :wink:

Just look at the aircraft graphics... those 3D models are simply amazing and look photorealistic, as oppsoed to the somewhat cartoonish look of aircraft in P3D and XP. I don't know why there is such a big difference, but my guess is that the lighting and shaders are tuned to perfection. You can get somewhat closer in P3D using PTA, but still, the aircraft in AFS looks better - all of them! Too bad a lot of aircraft systems are still missing, and the sound is mostly dreadful.

 

 

Too bad a lot of aircraft systems are still missing, and the sound is mostly dreadful.

 

Yes, it is quite simple, really: they need 3rd party developers...