Anyone tried it out?

[flyerkg 62]

Thanks to all for the details. I was about to push send on an order and deal with the shipping, based on the initial appearance and videos. I would probably do some soaring but not much anything else with it based on what I am reading. It sounds like the flight dynamics are too far off to even bother though.

[Guest bstolle]

The initial appearance and the screenshots are really superb, especially the ones where you can see the planes in external view on ground at the very detailed airfields.But once you are flying it's not that convincing anymore, especially as all the planes included (apart from the F/A-18) are designed to fly rather low and slow and if you fly patterns around the very nice and highly detailed airfields, the low rez photoscenery isn't nice at all.Flying the Discus in FSX over an orbx scenery or patterns in the Carenado 172 is more immersive than in Aerofly FS.Another drawback is the low visibility. Even at maximum settings it's hazy and definitely not 'clear'. I guess that's necessary to avoid seeing too far over the tiny swiss area.I'm rather surprised as it doesn't seem to be any more advanced then it's Aerofly RC sibling. There are even features missing that have been in the RC version for years.The Aerofly RC sims were always very nice to look at since years. So one can't even claim that this is an all new sim. Even the true scale add-on isn't something new for the RC version.And once you get used to the very realistic FSX soundcone feature, you notice immediately if that one's missing like in Aerofly.

Edited January 14, 2012 by bstolle

[drumsonly2002 3]

I bought Aerofly 5 for a little more than the cost of a couple scenery packs. Thus, understanding it is a softcore sim, it is what it is. A fun sim for ice cream runs. Hopefully it will be worth the price in flying in what appears to be nice visually, and hopefully comes with a map and working compass.

[Guest]

Got it today, and tested it for about 5hrs.First the conclusion: I definitely have to try FLIGHT as well once it's released because to me it looks now more promising than Aerofly FS.The (compressed) impression after the first day of flying is that the plane graphics are very nice but certainly not better than any FSX high quality add on.The VCs of good FSX add-ons are better as well.What does make Aerofly FS look good is simply the superb lighting engine which seem to be more lively and less dull than in FSX but that's an area in which FLIGHT is also supposed to be better than FSX.Concerning the 'feel' of flying it's similar to x-plane but even the rather twitchy and unstable default planes in x-plane 'feel' more realistic.For the Aerofly RC simulator there's a 'true scale' add-on available and that's the best description for the Aerofly FS planes. It feels like flying a big RC model.The realism of the FDE is definitely not better in FSX or x-plane.E.g. when you perform a straight and level power off stall, the IRL very docile 172 immediately rolls onto her back.The F/A-18 doesn't have any systems or fly-by-wire which means no autoflaps and you constantly have to trim ...Aerofly FS simulates structural damage and you can snap the wings off the gliders.Nevertheless with the F/A-18 I was able to pull +38Gs and push -32Gs and extend the flaps and gear at 800kts without any consequences.Another point is the missing replay funtion and you can't move the viewpoint (move the seat) in the plane. Worst is that the VCs are non-clickable.The crisp lively and vibrant colors of the planes and detailed houses etc...don't fit to the coarse slightly washed out photoscenery. Looks a bit inhomogeneous.Another point are the Alps. I do fly past them very often but they never have such a strong blue hue.

Aaaaaaaaaah, finally prove of what I've been posting for weeks whenever people said Aerofly FS was better then MS Flight and a great 'sim'. And I just based my opinion on reading about it... I am so clever or do other people simply not read...? :( Thanks for your review, now we can REALLY forget about Aerofly FS.

[JimmiG 244]

Will this program be downloadable? I don't really want to pay for shipping.ThanksBernd

From the official forum at http://www.aeroflyfs...n/forumen.html:

We are currently evaluating this option. We don't know enough yet about the formalities regarding Steam to give a definite answer, but offering aerofly FS as a download option in general is on our todo list.

For the flight models, try turning down sensitivity to 15-20%. I found this makes the planes much less twitchy and "RC-like" and you don't over-control as easily. I've never had the C172 roll onto its back, though it does drop a wing quite suddenly in a stall. Maybe if I pulled back fully with the default sensitivity it would do that as this makes the pitch axis very twitchy and sensitive.The reduced visibility is probably for performance reasons. I don't think they have a dynamic LOD system for the mesh like MSFS does. They've actually included low-res satellite scenery for quite a large area surrounding Switzerland, so you can fly near the borders and it still looks quite good.The developers actively post in the official forums, so if you have any questions, you can ask there. That's a big plus IMO. I'm thinking about posting some questions there myself regarding view options and controller profiles, which I'm not 100% happy with (just some minor issues).Anyway, if you're looking for a replacement for FSX, this is not it. X-Plane 10 would be a better option. Even Flight will probably be a more complete and realistic simulator as far as systems and procedures. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy AeroFly FS. It doesn't cost more than an add-on for FSX, and it won't magically uninstall any of your other sims. They can coexist quite happily on your hard drive or SSD. Edited January 14, 2012 by JimmiG

[Guest bstolle]

I do have the sensivity at 0% fully to the left. If you keep the yoke fully aft, the 172 will roll onto her back and start to dive vertically towards the ground.

[JimmiG 244]

I do have the sensivity at 0% fully to the left. If you keep the yoke fully aft, the 172 will roll onto her back and start to dive vertically towards the ground.

That's strange. Mine rolls to about 45 degrees then noses down, then begins to recover as it picks up speed. Maybe ask in the forum, their flight dynamics guy posts there.

[Guest bstolle]

a 172 shouldn't roll 45deg either

[OzWhitey 3,353]

The question is really a) how fixable are the flight models and b. do the devs care enough to do it. Interesting how well fsx seems to shape up after all these years, a better program than most gave/give it credit but perhap release should have been delayed til 2011. :)

Edited January 14, 2012 by OzWhitey

[Stick 0]

Aaaaaaaaaah, finally prove of what I've been posting for weeks whenever people said Aerofly FS was better then MS Flight and a great 'sim'. And I just based my opinion on reading about it... I am so clever or do other people simply not read...? :( Thanks for your review, now we can REALLY forget about Aerofly FS.

Why are you so negative, and why are you so determined that people should not like this sim.I bought AeroflyFS, and as a user of both FSX, Prepar3D and X-Plane 9 / 10 demo, there is still a definite place for AeroflyFS within this hobby, in my view.We've heard plenty about what it does not have (and most of that is true).But this is why it's worth having, in 4 easy to understand bullet points:-1). I can get 34 FPS in AeroflyFS, with a similar visual representation that FSX would give me 9 FPS in. ;)2). I can have high quality lighting and light bloom-type effects that I could not dream about having in FSX.3). I can be up and flying in a beautiful, if compact virtual world in 20 seconds. FSX takes 6 minutes to load on my system + set up time.4). There are aspects of the immersion experience that you cannot get in FSX or X-Plane; such as flying along in the right hand seat, with a reasonably convincing virtual PIC in the left seat. If you think of the things that it lacks as the things that make FSX such as resource hog, you will soon start to appreciate AeroflyFS! ;)As always there are people who see a threat : they are made insecure by the fact that others are making different choices to them, so they are unnecessarily hostile to the new product. Pointless. It's here. It adds value to the hobby. It fills a gap. and it's bloody fun!If you don't like it, fine. But stop making it your life's mission to persuade everyone else to hate it. :( Edited January 17, 2012 by Stick

[mf_blues 0]

Considering this is the first release of this simulator it's very very good, yes there is a lot missing and I for one would like to see those things adding to it in future releases but it is well worth having even if only for the Glider as you can really get the feeling of gliding and when I zoom out using any aircraft the sense of speed is great fun.It's a promising start and would be well worth keeping an eye on and in the mean time we still have FS9, FSX and X-Plane amongst others.I have purchased it by the way and I am happy with my purchase, no regrets as it does have a place in my flying requirement.CheersMartin

[Guest]

Why are you so negative, and why are you so determined that people should not like this sim.If you don't like it, fine. But stop making it your life's mission to persuade everyone else to hate it. :(

You are right, point taken. The reason that I kept on going about Aerofly FS not being 'it' was that imho too many people that wrote off MS Flight because it isn't a sim at the same time said Aerofly FS was a great sim... :( So my posts were made with those 'MS Flight haters' in the back of my mind. But you are right: I've posted my views a bit too often already... sorry about that. Won't happen again, at least not 'out of nowhere' as I did in this topic. However, if someone posts once again that MS Flight is arcade and Aerofly FS is a better sim, I might have to tell them the truth (as I see it :( ) once more. It's not that hate Aerofly FS: I can see it's a nice addition to our hobby! You can't have too many flying games, really... B)

[fshrink 1]

My feeling is that it's a relaxing, straightforward, light and very pleasant sim. Everyone is aware of the downside of simplicity as far as aircraft, scenery and such but on the whole, it sometimes provides a very nice sense of immersion. In fact, pretty much every aspect of a sim can (can!) be very convincing at times, including clouds, lighting (absolutely gorgeous at times), 3d buildings and houses (that seem to be rather precisely located and reproduced, particularly around the base airport), trees. As someone else pointed out, having zero fps issues does help and makes you feel, well, calmer.I have no clue what the authors plan to do with it but it certainly is a very good base for a number of things, including what 3C Technology can bring. By modeling a town or a large airport for example. The dash is so nicely made, down to the grain of leather and the traces of dirt on the radios, that I can't believe the authors don't plan to make it functional.The only flight model I can talk about is the 172's, because I have a chunk of hours on small Cessnas. The general behavior is not bad at all, I'd say even better than the X-Plane 172. A little more stable, particularly in the vertical plane: there definitely is a feeling of weight there.I find that the rudder is at the same time too twitchy and does not have enough authority. Inertia is too small on the horizontal plane. When you do a power-off stall the plane snaps to one side too easily; it's very hard to keep it level and experience the stall. On the other hand, when you try a slip the rudder loses to the ailerons way too early. Full rudder is compensated by a meager, maybe 10 to 15 deg bank. That makes for weird crosswind landings. This could be tweaked I'm sure.That's a strong aspect for me because I can't fly with pleasure and make progress if I don't have minimally realistic rudder action.Ailerons are good, with possibly an exaggerated tendency to increase bank (less than X-Plane) and steep turns are pretty good, with the natural tendency to balloon when getting out of them. There is a noticeable adverse-yaw when banking hard.The home base airport is amazingly done. Flags flapping in the wind, tables, rwy textures, details everywhere. Really good. Begging to be populated. It also has a row of trees about 300 ft from the beginning of the 28; makes for a tricky final.If I were them, I'd start by adding a time factor to it (it's always 12:00 pm or so). Then I would add aircraft systems and navs. Someone has pointed out that there's no mixture.This would allow IFR work.Intel i700 6, GF 7500, lots of RAM, CH Full-right settings 60fps solid.

Edited January 28, 2012 by fshrink

[HoratioWondersocks 4]

My feeling is that it's a relaxing, straightforward, light and very pleasant sim. Everyone is aware of the downside of simplicity as far as aircraft, scenery and such but on the whole, it sometimes provides a very nice sense of immersion. In fact, pretty much every aspect of a sim can (can!) be very convincing at times, including clouds, lighting (absolutely gorgeous at times), 3d buildings and houses (that seem to be rather precisely located and reproduced, particularly around the base airport), trees. As someone else pointed out, having zero fps issues does help and makes you feel, well, calmer.I have no clue what the authors plan to do with it but it certainly is a very good base for a number of things, including what 3C Technology can bring. By modeling a town or a large airport for example. The dash is so nicely made, down to the grain of leather and the traces of dirt on the radios, that I can't believe the authors don't plan to make it functional.The only flight model I can talk about is the 172's, because I have a chunk of hours on small Cessnas. The general behavior is not bad at all, I'd say even better than the X-Plane 172. A little more stable, particularly in the vertical plane: there definitely is a feeling of weight there.I find that the rudder is at the same time too twitchy and does not have enough authority. Inertia is too small on the horizontal plane. When you do a power-off stall the plane snaps to one side too easily; it's very hard to keep it level and experience the stall. On the other hand, when you try a slip the rudder loses to the ailerons way too early. Full rudder is compensated by a meager, maybe 10 to 15 deg bank. That makes for weird crosswind landings. This could be tweaked I'm sure.That's a strong aspect for me because I can't fly with pleasure and make progress if I don't have minimally realistic rudder action.Ailerons are good, with possibly an exaggerated tendency to increase bank (less than X-Plane) and steep turns are pretty good, with the natural tendency to balloon when getting out of them. There is a noticeable adverse-yaw when banking hard.The home base airport is amazingly done. Flags flapping in the wind, tables, rwy textures, details everywhere. Really good. Begging to be populated. It also has a row of trees about 300 ft from the beginning of the 28; makes for a tricky final.If I were them, I'd start by adding a time factor to it (it's always 12:00 pm or so). Then I would add aircraft systems and navs. Someone has pointed out that there's no mixture.This would allow IFR work.Intel i700 6, GF 7500, lots of RAM, CH Full-right settings 60fps solid.

Excellent !A well considered , interesting , with some POSITIVE (non ranting, bellyaching , whining .)criticism that is useful for simmers who are open to new ideas.Andy

[staib 1]

I too have now flown this sim for a few days - bought via www.ikarus.net > shop > international and agree with all the above comments.Yes, it is (relative to FSX) a shallow sim, but as someone who has flown every sim since the early Sublogic FS days, if this is the starting point then we are in for an exciting ride indeed.To appreciate this particular sim at this stage in its development, then you should be able to tick some of the below:I like the sense of discovery from flying over 'real' scenery whether it be green pastures, villages and lakes, or snow covered mountain ranges in sharp relief.I like flying in dynamic airflow where I can feel the effects of ridge lift and thermals, and where planes look, feel and sound realisticI like flying smaller single engined planes in FVR conditions...Still more to come, but for now, coupled with a rapid boot-up, this is a sim worth owning and exploring...Cheers,Nick