AeroflyFS 2: A new civilian flight sim. With VR support!

Well, I bit the bullet on this this yesterday. Figured I’d try something different before I bought the Orbx SoCal region on sale for FTX. Well! Certainly is different, and very refreshing to have a buttery smooth flight sim on my old machine , other than a few microstutters as textures load (C2D e3800 w GTX660TI 4gig ram). Haven’t bought the NYC DLC yet, so we’ll see how that does with so many buildings.

I was immediately taken aback by the control options …my trackIR just isn’t playing nice, as it seems the sim has an internal config for it which seems to be compounding sensitivity, and the translates axis makes my camera slide around the cockpit, rather than follow my movements exactly. Not sure what’s going on here but I’ve disabled the translate axis for now.

The flight model is really simplified, broken or dumbed down… I flung around the Sopwith Camel like a maniac and I couldn’t induce a stall or spin at any point. As far as I can tell, there are no realism options to be played with at all, no red/black outs, engine torque, etc.

Not sure why you’d give up another 65 gigs for the HD textures, since flying low is a disappointing experience unless you’re among skyscrapers or really big mountains, but even here the trees are oversized and some city centers like downtown Oakland are flatout missing.

But! And it’s a huge, huge but. Flying at cloud height or above is amazing. Just fantastic to see the real world stretch out below you, with a beautifully modelled and shadowed cockpit up close. It’s so immersive to see every landmark, tree, house and parking lot just as real life would have it. And the loading times are magic… jumping around all over the map, and up in flying is seconds. After the dread of choosing another location to fly in FSX and the related loading times, just this is enough to forgive the shortcomings of this game.

There are a lot of little easy things they can do to at least try to bring it on par with more fleshed out sims… Define water with a distinct material for specular highlights and reflections… add boat and plane traffic (even if it’s magical or on a loop)… create some more varied cloud formations… add cloud shadows. All these should be very doable, and before releasing more payware.

Harder would be to add car traffic, considering roads aren’t vectors but part of the textures, but surely the major arteries could be tagged. Night urban lighting, same, just pepper the urban areas with dots… anything.

And then, I wonder if bump or displacement mapping might give the ground some texture. It’s a basic thing in photoshop to isolate roads… if you displaced everything but them up , and say, also isolated darker dots which are likely to be trees, you could extrude those up and for free you’d have a pseudo-autogen solution for when you’re flying low to the ground.

Basically, the flying at height is so amazing, all the other shortcomings are all the more frustrating for it. I really hope they get the proceeds to push things along, because right now it does feel like just (an amazing) first half of a product.

Ok, so the NYC DLC is fantastic… death star trench runs in a biplane between high rises…! So cool. And performance, really surprisingly, is still great.

Reset to default settings and trackIR is fine, I guess I mucked it up playing around. The little red biplane seems to have much better / difficult phyical properties, the engine pull to the right is substantial and I crashed a few times before getting used to my controls, so maybe the camel (see above) is more lackluster than the rest.

Anyway, yeah, there is potential and I am enjoying it. It’s almost like FSX Orbx was an abstract representation that let my imagination fill in the blanks, where this is like uncanny valley without the frills to make it feel real. But the NYC DLC, with fleshed out autogen, feels more like what it needs to be… if only there was decent water !

How much area is included in the NYC DLC? Is it literally just NYC?

I ask because it’s labeled as “Northeastern US” on Steam, but when people talk about it, they’re only referring to New York. I have doubts that there’s much area beyond NYC, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

The photographic coverage is quite extensive beyond NYC, all of Long Island, and west to about Scranton-ish? But the highlight is the built up area, for obvious reasons.

Switzerland is magnificent. Nothing like screaming between the snow covered peaks in an F-15.

I’ll probably pick this up next week for the Vive. I was considering using the FlyInside tool for Prepar3D, but the thought of getting my Prepar3D install set-up on my family room PC is daunting. Plus, I love what I’ve seen of the visuals on this.

Need to figure out how to make my couch HOTAS-capable, though.

This might be the genre that propels me into VR. Seems like the perfect fit.

They’re decent from up high, but lower it’s pretty bad. Just flat satellite images with cross-plane trees and some buildings. No defined water, roads, traffic, lights, etc … old mobile-level tech. Means it runs well though.

There’s definitely a lot that this sim still needs, but it’s Early Access and a lot of that (AI, ATC, weather, etc.) is planned. Plus they’ve started publishing the SDKs which will help fill some gaps as well.

On the flight models, they vary in depth. The aerobatic plans (the Pitts and Extra) and the Glider have much deeper-feeling flight dynamics than the Cessna and F/A-18. (And this is proven by some of the airshow moves you can pull off in them.)

Agreed the graphics very low are fuzzy. But at the altitudes you’d normally fly at in a real plane – generally a couple thousand feet or higher – things look great. It’s mainly when you’re doing things that would get you thrown in jail that things fall apart. :) From a couple of thousand feet or higher, IMHO other than the water, it looks dramatically better than P3D or XP11 without premium add-on scenery.

Probably the overall best experience is P3D 3.4 with FlyInside, OrbX Global, and the FTX regions. But even with the 30% off sale, I spent a stupid amount of money populating the West Coast (and England) with OrbX scenery. Still, P3D’s frame rate is so much better than FSX, and the water, etc. look so great, it was worth it. But I’ve got north of $300 dumped into the sim over the years at this point, counting the program itself. AeroFly FS 2 gets you a lot of the same VFR experience, and does some things better, at a fraction of the price.

I would have scoffed at myself just a few months ago, but I’m having a grand old time with a simple wired xbox controller. The X-45 is too bulky to pull out every time, and the wife hates seeing it out in the living room. But as long as you’re not dogfighting, the pad is fine, even for threading the needle underneath bridges. Where it fails is, say, in RoF, where the line between a hard turn and a crippling death stall is just too fine.

I am going to agree with Denny, value for money, Aerofly is tops. I’ve decided to not buy the Orbx SoCal region I was planning on, seeing as that whole area is covered now in Aerofly, is ten times faster to boot, and I can see real topology in a jet, rather than abstracted terrain in a cessna slow enough to allow textures to load. I will miss skimming roofs, but that’s what I’ll reserve the NYC for , and soon Chicago from Orbx. Hope they do clouds and water soon.

2017 will be an interesting year for civilian flight sims, it seems. Prepar3D 64-bit (if rumors are to be believed) is on the horizon, X-Plane 11 getting released, and Aerofly 2 will hopefully continue to expand and get add-on support from Orbx (among others). Oh, and the new Dovetail sim (based on FSX) may or may not make an appearance.

As I noted way up-thread, I liken what I’ve seen of Aerofly 2 to my favorite civi flight sim ever: Flight Unlimited 3. I think they’ve got a good foundation and hope it continues to improve. It’s nice starting from a baseline of decent performance, versus the constant compromise and fiddling of FSX/Prepar3D.

Looking forward to trying it out in VR next week.