Aerofly 2 Released; Beta; Steam Games

[Gliderfan]

Yes, they are pretty awful videos, but they've effectively monopolized the Aerofly video medium.

C,mon. I'm not buying that one. Compared to a few months ago hardly any AFS2 vids are posted on youtube these days. Anyway, its not as if the guy in question is posting his videos every day, he does them in batches about once a week. If an avid AFS2 fan really wanted to post their own videos they'd do it anyway and post direct links to them on the forums, just like X-plane video makers do despite there being a whole stack of Xplane videos posted daily on youtube.

Why would anyone else do an LA landing video when he's done so many of them that everyone's become bored with the subject?

The truth is that most viewers have probably become a tad bored with LA landing's in AFS2 in general (I know I have, with most landings in fact). There's only so much lens flare, and frozen static scenery, crackly engine sounds, and posh British accent countdowns' that one can tolerate ;-)

... after being forced by circumstances to stay in a locked closet with MS products for the last decade, it's going to take a while for the recently released captive audience to learn to live in a world of choice again.

Like many simmers I've owned a number of sims at once, in my case it was FSX, XPlane and Aerofy 1. But I quickly went cool on Aerofly 1 and within a couple of weeks found it an empty flying experience (which surprised me since to me it looked like a great sim to get absorbed in). And I suspect that V2 might have the same effect on me after a few weeks, unless of course there was a stream of news toys in the shape of addon scenery and planes etc to keep the eyes from wandering around the room. ;-) (Perhaps the modern-day attention span, or lack of, is to blame).

Thats why I asked if Lionheart and yourself were still 'flying' AFS2 ..and how often?

 

[HiFlyer]

C,mon. I'm not buying that one. Compared to a few months ago hardly any AFS2 vids are posted on youtube these days. Anyway, its not as if the guy in question is posting his videos every day, he does them in batches about once a week. If an avid AFS2 fan really wanted to post their own videos they'd do it anyway and post direct links to them on the forums, just like X-plane video makers do despite there being a whole stack of Xplane videos posted daily on youtube.

That's not necessarily how it works. Making a video is a creative process, and the last thing anyone creative wants to do is just exactly what everyone else is doing. You try to find something unique, or that speaks to you and hopefully others. Its part of why developers like Lionheart and others make out of the ordinary planes rather than yet another version of one that's been done many times. Unless you think you have something truly unique to say, creatively there's no point.

Like many simmers I've owned a number of sims at once, in my case it was FSX, XPlane and Aerofy 1. But I quickly went cool on Aerofly 1 and within a couple of weeks found it an empty flying experience (which surprised me since to me it looked like a great sim to get absorbed in). And I suspect that V2 might have the same effect on me after a few weeks, unless of course there was a stream of news toys in the shape of addon scenery and planes etc to keep the eyes from wandering around the room. ;-) (Perhaps the modern-day attention span, or lack of, is to blame).

That's why I asked if Lionheart and yourself were still 'flying' AFS2 ..and how often?

My attention span isn't particularly short. Certainly its longer than a few months.

It took years for FSX and X-plane to reach where they are, and we had no choice but to wait. It was years before we could even run FSX acceptably, and many still can't. Its silly to think that Aerofly, Microsoft Flight, Outerra, DTG sim, NGIS or any other more recent entry would have taken or will take any less time to reach its true stride.

Even P3D is several years in.

When you invest in these projects you have to do it for the long haul, because there are no more Daddy Warbucks companies with endlessly deep pockets around to cater to small, fickle audiences with high expectations and low attention spans.

Those sorts of expectations are probably what helps keep some companies still crazy enough to be interested in this market from even trying.

As for how often I use Aerofly: Well........

FSX has been hurting my eyes for years, and I exclusively flew in the Orbx California regions. FSX and P3D are now off of my drive, perhaps not permanently, but I have no interest in reinstalling after the latest bout of micro stuttering problems. Interestingly, X-plane is still a go. At least it responds to my new Nvidia 1080.

 

[Heretic]

This genre can definitely be a bit slow to accept change.

Accepting change requires that there is indeed a meadow with greener grass beyond the fence. And by "greener", I mean better looking, juicier and easier to digest. P3D's grass is better looking, but is surrounded by a higher fence. X-Plane's is better looking and juicier, but not as easy to digest and the fence is just as high as P3D's. Aerofly's is better looking with a rather low fence, but too easy to digest. FlightGear's is jucier - once it's sown and grown - but the endless discussion whether the symbolic fenceposts are common property or may contain carved intials essentially distract from making sure that the grass turns out pretty and digestable.

So far, the standard flightsimming herbivore prefers to stay on common ground, since the grass is just too well of a blend between the three properties. And for sensitive stomachs, there's still the even older meadow that's just 12.5% inferior.

Moo.

 

[Gman]

Thats why I asked if Lionheart and yourself were still 'flying' AFS2 ..and how often?

Lionheart had been complaining of performance issues during his most recent flights.

I have to say that here in the FSD forums it is a bit of an anomaly to see folks discussing the act of actually flying in a flight simulator, MS or otherwise. I don't know Bill personally, and I am pretty sure he has my posts blocked, but prior to this thread, I don't recall many of his comments being about actually flying in any of the sims. He is usually found discussing technical development issues, or joining in on various other non-flight time related discussions. So having spent the time described in this thread exploring AFS2, perhaps he is back with his nose to the grindstone, or maybe he is spending more time sorting out how to develop for AFS2 than chasing the current performance bubble.

It was his wide eyed wonder at this new sim that got me to watching along, and contributing to the view count. I am especially interested in seeing Bill get his fleet of aircraft converted for AFS2.

I myself am not in the market to buy any new flight sims, not to mention any sim which is devoid of rotary wing aircraft. So the importance of whether AFS2 is going to fly or not is not particularly interesting to me at this point, especially since as the title of the thread suggests, this is a Beta version which people are paying to test out, and it is uncertain just what aircraft and scenery areas may be included in an actual finished release, and whether the Beta customers would then be required to pay for the final release.

Just to review a couple of AFS2 factoids at Steam, the (Early Access) price is *$49.99 for the basic download covering California, Nevada, and Arizona, and another $9.99 for Switzerland.
*the final release price will be higher.

Minimum requirements:
OS: 64bit Versions of Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 10
Processor: Intel Dual core CPU 2.4 GHz
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: OpenGL 3.0 compatible 3D graphic card with at least 1 GB of RAM
Storage: 35 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible soundcard

Recommended;
OS: 64bit Versions of Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 10
Processor: Intel Quad core CPU 3.0 GHz
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: OpenGL 4.0 compatible 3D graphic card with at least 2 GB of RAM
Storage: 40 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX Compatible soundcard


Recommended storage 40 GB?
HiFlyer recently posted that the storage is currently at "99.5 GB". Was Switzerland 45.5 GB?


As for general interest among flight simmers, the proviso at the Steam page for AFS2 is not very encouraging about what one is getting for his money:

Early Access Game
Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.
"Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development."


It seems as though the proviso reads like an eye test, with the larger fonts at the top and the smaller "fine print", at the bottom.

Right off the bat you need to have a fairly robust system to even run the Beta, as well a taking a leap of faith that there will ever be more than 3 states in the U.S. and the option to pay extra for Switzerland.

And yet the word "world" appears in each paragraph in the About This Game section including the phrase "World wide coverage of elevation data",...funny how they dangled that huh?:

About This Game
"Aerofly FS 2 lets you explore the world of flying in a quality never seen before. Fly a large selection of highly detailed aircraft with fully animated and interactive 3D cockpits.

Aerofly FS 2 is a next generation flight simulator open for add-ons and sets a high value on realistic flight physics, highly detailed aircraft and a stunning, photo realistic scenery. World wide coverage of elevation data and aerial images is included with Aerofly FS 2. At the same time, Aerofly FS 2 features an intuitive user interface and requires virtually no training time.

Take your seat in the cockpit and enjoy flying over the famous Golden Gate Bridge or visit Alcatraz Island. Learn the basics of flying at our flight school or jump right into the captain's seat and land the majestic 747 at one of the busiest airports of the world."

What seemed odd to me was that if you visit the Aerofly website, there is no mention of AFS2 being a Beta release,... for all intents and purposes it is being advertised there as a finished product. Again, I am not in the market to buy a new sim and a new computer to run it on, and I am probably in good company in that respect, which is probably why most new users would opt for the entire "World" in FSX-SE for $24.99.

To tell the truth, I have seen about all of the AFS2 videos I can take. Yeah, the guy putting himself in the video was cool the first time, and after that...not so much, reminds me of people showing you pictures of their kids, their dogs, or their vacation to Disneyland.

That said, it seems that all of you who have paid the price of admission are enjoying the fruits of your labors and that is cool. I will continue to monitor this thread in order to follow the saga of Lionheart's pioneering efforts to convert and / or create content for this new flight sim.

Good luck fellas
Gman

*editid fur speleen

 

[HiFlyer]

I myself am not in the market to buy any new flight sims, not to mention any sim which is devoid of rotary wing aircraft.

On the way (Eventually) https://www.helisimmer.com/interview/interview-aerofly-fs2-developer-tosten-hans/

As you might have guessed, we already have the physics engine for helicopters for our R/C model simulator, so in theory we can upgrade this engine a little, which would allow us to simulate large helicopters. If the physics in the small scale are ‘right’, its not that much work to get it right for bigger helicopters. Its just that demand for helicopters is a lot lower compared to the other features that have been requested, so we are putting a lower priority on helicopters for now. But helicopters are planned, I can assure you. Just don’t ask me yet, when you will see them. Just to give you some perspective, we already have a finished model of a R22. If we do have some spare time, I wish we would have this (laughs), we might even put the R22 into the simulator as a ‘preliminary’ version.

Recommended storage 40 GB?
HiFlyer recently posted that the storage is currently at "99.5 GB". Was Switzerland 45.5 GB?

Just about.

Lionheart had been complaining of performance issues during his most recent flights.

Since I'm getting up to 400fps I can only hope he can track down his issues and get back to having fun again.

 

[Gman]

Since I'm getting up to 400fps I can only hope he can track down his issues and get back to having fun again.

Given the previous comments from OP Lionheart on how well AFS2 was running, I think that the performance issues Bill has reported lately are currently the most important comments in this thread. Somebody's got some splainin' to do as to why Bill's previously well running installation of AFS2 has gone inverted.

As I said, I am not in the market for a new sim, but for those who may be interested, perhaps you might back up your comments regarding your fps with the specs of your computer so that others may be able to compare your specs with the advertised minimum and / or recommended specs in order to ascertain whether they may realistically see similar performance in AFS2 from the computers they are running.

If 80% of flight simmers would have to upgrade their computers to be able to run AFS2, that may be problematic for sales. Yeah, they end up with a better computer, but I have a feeling that before they would shell out for AFS2, they would fire up their bought and paid for copies of FSX or P3D, with World coverage, to see how it runs on their new rig with all sliders maxed, and in doing so perhaps lose the impetus to go out and spend at least twice as much money on three states plus Switzerland...so far.

Of course, they may all pop for a copy of AFS2 when it eventually goes on sale at Steam. Or, they may spend their discretionary funds on a new payware addon to enhance the platform they are currently running...who knows? They may even decide to use that money to take the wife out to dinner!

I look forward to more posts telling us how you are enjoying AFS2, but try to keep it realistic as to what someone is going to need to have to get into the game. I have a feeling that the minimum requirements are not going to cut the mustard with this one.

Cheers
Gman

 

[lionheart]

I grew tired of FSX / P3D long ago. The cookie cutter terrain class was too horrible for my eyes. For some reason, FS9 looked much more realistic. It blended.

I only fly Aerofly now when I fly. I havent been flying as much lately, but its only Aerofly FS2 that I fly now. I 'test' in FSX, FSX SE, P3D V2 and V3. Thats it.... Thats what you wanted to know?

In Aerofly, I get a high realism flight with 'real' scenery. I can check out California in places I havent been, or fly over my Church down the way and practice landings and patterns at Deer Valley or Scottsdale.

The planes are too nice, the scenery is.... real.. Its awesome. Lately its running terrible (suddenly) but its awesome never-the-less.

 

[HiFlyer]

As I said, I am not in the market for a new sim, but for those who may be interested, perhaps you might back up your comments regarding your fps with the specs of your computer so that others may be able to compare your specs with the advertised minimum and / or recommended specs in order to ascertain whether they may realistically see similar performance in AFS2 from the computers they are running.

System is i7 6700 now @ 4.8GHZ 32Gigs Ram Nvidia 1080GTX

You may have missed it, but I posted a FPS test a few updates ago, and since this video was made (and after some FPS modifications by the developers) my FPS is even faster. System specs are also in the notes. FPS counter in the lower left corner, though you will need to be fullscreen to see it!

My current frames now actually sometimes exceed 500 FPS!

Also a vid I did just showing how purdy and smooth it all was.

 

[HiFlyer]

I only fly Aerofly now when I fly. I havent been flying as much lately, but its only Aerofly FS2 that I fly now. I 'test' in FSX, FSX SE, P3D V2 and V3. Thats it.... Thats what you wanted to know?

You are not alone: http://steamcommunity.com/app/434030/discussions/0/352792037315900331/

 

[Gman]

You may have missed it, but I posted a FPS test a few updates ago, and since this video was made (and after some FPS modifications by the developers) my FPS is even faster. System specs are in the notes. FPS counter in the lower left corner, though you will need to be fullscreen to see it!

Yes, as I said, the videos got old real quick.

As for the comparison between your computer and the minimum / recommended specs:


Minimum requirements:
Processor: Intel Dual core CPU 2.4 GHz
Memory: 4 GB RAM
Graphics: OpenGL 3.0 compatible 3D graphic card with at least 1 GB of RAM

Recommended;
Processor: Intel Quad core CPU 3.0 GHz
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: OpenGL 4.0 compatible 3D graphic card with at least 2 GB of RAM

HiFlyer's system:
Processor: Intel i7 6700K (quad Core) CPU 4.0 GHz (overclocked to) 4.6 GHz
Memory: 32 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia 1080GTX 8 GB.

Your system is well above even the recommended specs. Again, you should have your specs included in your posts when you are talking about performance so people understand the difference between your computer, their computer, and the minimum / recommended system. Feel free to cut and paste from this post.

As for your FPS... I don't even know why you would configure the program to go there, or why you feel it is even important. Are you saying that if you had the program locked at 250 FPS, it would not run as well? Or 150 FPS? Ah well.... I guess it's all above my pay grade.

Enjoy
Gman

 

[HiFlyer]

Your system is well above even the recommended specs. Again, you should have your specs included in your posts when you are talking about performance so people understand the difference between your computer, their computer, and the minimum / recommended system. Feel free to cut and paste from this post.

Framerates and specs is why the video was created in the first place. Also my specs are in the post.

As for your FPS... I don't even know why you would configure the program to go there, or why you feel it is even important. Are you saying that if you had the program locked at 250 FPS, it would not run as well? Or 150 FPS? Ah well.... I guess it's all above my pay grade.

Its not really hard. As a (Very) new Oculus user, being able to maintain very high framerates is important if I intend to get good performance in 3D, and a large part of the attraction of Aerofly FS2 for many is that it performs very very well in the VR environment.

In fact at the request of VR users, they recently added the option of raising the Pixel density of the Oculus from within the sim, which puts an even more enormous strain (approx 4x) on the system. The higher your sustainable FPS in 2D mode, the more likely you'll be able to maintain the recommended 90FPS in Oculus 3D.

Plus, after straining to hit moderate FPS in FSX for what seems like centuries, it feels unbelievably great to be in a sim and just be able to go on the open road and floor it!

I've gotta say that after being respectably frugal for years, then finally bursting out of the stockade and going all out on a brand new system (not to mention the Oculus) I'm pretty proud of how well it handles things that I probably wouldn't have been able to take advantage of nearly so well even just a few months ago. Why wouldn't I take my new Maserati out on the Autobahn and test it to the max?

 

[Gman]

I've gotta say that after being respectably frugal for years, then finally bursting out of the stockade and going all out on a brand new system, I'm pretty proud of how well it handles things that I probably wouldn't have been able to take advantage of nearly so well even just a few months ago. Why wouldn't I take my new Maserati out on the Autobahn and test it to the max?

Congratulations and more power to you.
You do realize that locking the FPS at a lower number could free up processing power for other functions?

I asked you point blank whether you had tried locking it down at a lower FPS, and if doing so had adversely affected your performance in any way. What if you locked the a FPS at a lower setting, didn't worry about FPS, and found that the scenery looked better?

Performance, especially on a super computer such as yours, shouldn't be based on frame rates. Performance should be based on the performance of the entire package and how everything looks, not a number describing something that may or may not be observable. In other words, if you weren't looking at the FPS counter, would you notice the difference between 250 and 400?
Your Maserati might run better if you used the gears more, and the accelerator pedal less.

Sorry Devon, I'm not trying to rain on your parade...enjoy the Autobahn buddy..hammer down!.

Cheers
Gary

 

[HiFlyer]

Congratulations and more power to you.
You do realize that locking the FPS at a lower number could free up processing power for other functions?

As part of testing my machine I ran at all settings available in the sim: with clouds, without clouds, with higher and lower shadow settings, with more and less detail........ With and without external settings from the Nvidia control panel..... I even tried alternate resolutions.

I also downloaded and ran the Oculus compatibility tool, with the result that I was neither CPU nor GPU bound and met or exceeded recommendations.

I overclocked the processor and also ran at stock settings while testing the sim, and made careful observation of frame rate fluctuations while flying over 3D modeled city areas, over high resolution scenery areas and over lower resolution areas. I also checked for reported differences when flying larger planes.

The result was that I lost nothing by running at the highest settings so why not do it?

In between doing that I also tested my overclock with Coretemp, while running the IntelBurnTest

I ran Aerofly from a regular Hard Drive and looked for differences in loading times when I finally transferred the program to SSD.

In short, Just as in my testing of Outerra and Xplane (In which I also did most of these things, up to and including physically pulling memory cards to see it that made a difference) I did much more than normal due diligence, and didn't find any valid reasons not to enjoy that Autobahn.

I paid a pretty penny for the privilege after all, and its been nice to confirm from the resulting performance boost that the money was well spent.

 

[Gliderfan]

Making a video is a creative process, and the last thing anyone creative wants to do is just exactly what everyone else is doing.

"A creative process?" Are we talking about Hollywood blockbuster movies or just short flightsim clips for youtube etc? The truth is that very very few of those AFS2 videos involve 'the creative process' - only the green-screen guy and one or two others come to mind as 'creative'. All the others just post what is captured and wouldn't know 'a creative process' if it flew out and hit their windsheild ;-) Heck most of them cant even be bothered to edit their videos to get rid of loading screens and those totally unrealistic rotating camera shots that kill any sense of realism

My attention span isn't particularly short. Certainly its longer than a few months

Yes but you're lucky. You virtually live in the virtual world. ;-)

As for how often I use Aerofly: Well........

I thought as much! ;-)

I only fly Aerofly now when I fly. I havent been flying as much lately, but its only Aerofly FS2 that I fly now. I 'test' in FSX, FSX SE, P3D V2 and V3. Thats it.... Thats what you wanted to know?

Yes, great. Thanks Lionheart.

To tell the truth, I have seen about all of the AFS2 videos I can take. Yeah, the guy putting himself in the video was cool the first time, and after that...not so much, reminds me of people showing you pictures of their kids, their dogs, or their vacation to Disneyland.

That said, it seems that all of you who have paid the price of admission are enjoying the fruits of your labors and that is cool. I will continue to monitor this thread in order to follow the saga of Lionheart's pioneering efforts to convert and / or create content for this new flight sim.

Thanks Gman. You summed up my feelings exactly.

Best of luck to Aerofly and all who fly in her.

 

[HiFlyer]

"A creative process?" Are we talking about Hollywood blockbuster movies or just short flightsim clips for youtube etc? The truth is that very very few of those AFS2 videos involve 'the creative process' - only the green-screen guy and one or two others come to mind as 'creative'. All the others just post what is captured and wouldn't know 'a creative process' if it flew out and hit their windsheild ;-) Heck most of them cant even be bothered to edit their videos to get rid of loading screens and those totally unrealistic rotating camera shots that kill any sense of realism

Yes, a creative process. Choosing a theme, choosing music to fit that theme, deciding on how it should all come together, editing....... But there are some restrictions. The polished camera tools that took years to appear for FSX and X-plane are still just a dream for Aerofly, and will likely remain so for quite a while. Aerofly is also still lacking many things that will take time to implement.

People are still mostly doing what I call review, or even just "Hey, look at this!" videos, which isn't that surprising for a title in early access. The mistake lies in comparing a new and growing sim to the end result of 30 years of development. Honestly I've seen DTG Martin warning against that repeatedly for the upcoming DTG Sim, and often just shake my head and wish him luck with that. Its not a quality I've seen much in evidence in these things.

All the others just post what is captured and wouldn't know 'a creative process' if it flew out and hit their windsheild ;-)

I'm thinking back now on zillions of hours of FSX "wing" videos, or videos purporting to showcase a new scenery only to find that the creator feels obliged to show his hardcore bonafides by doing a 20 minute startup so we can get to a 5 minute look at the scenery the video was supposed to be about.

I would say that outside of RedPiper, I now tend to avoid FSX videos, and Aerofly has no monopoly in regards to lack of imagination. Its early days yet.

Also, I don't believe it will be really possible to make a clear-eyed assessment of the programs true potential for at least a year and mostly likely two. Since nothing stops me from using other sims (or playing the heck out of Elite Dangerous) in the meanwhile, what do I (or anyone else) lose by being patient and taking a realistic amount of time to see how things go?

I thought as much! ;-)

I'm sorry: I'm not sure what that means. I offered essentially the same answer Lionheart gave, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Yes but you're lucky. You virtually live in the virtual world. ;-)

I'm not sure what that means, either..........?

 

[Gman]

The result was that I lost nothing by running at the highest settings so why not do it?

Hi Devon,
Frame rates seem to be your benchmark for what you feel is performance, and based on your comments I will conclude that no, among all of the elaborate testing you performed while breaking in your new mega super computer you never locked the frame rates to see if the performance was better or worse, because based on the high frame rate count the performance must be better because of the high frame rates.

Apparently you are happy not knowing what you don't know, as long as you have high frame rates.

I am picturing you tooling down the autobahn in your Maserati towing a trailer full of bricks, just because you can.

Have fun!
Gary

 

[Gliderfan]

Yes, a creative process. Choosing a theme, choosing music to fit that theme, deciding on how it should all come together, editing.......

I still think you're describing the making of an actual Hollywood movie Devon. In reality, and in my opinion as someone who has worked in video production and editing, very few AFS2 videos on youtube or elsewhere feature chosen 'themes' and proper 'editing'. The standard storyline of your average flight video these days actually takes zero creative thinking beyond 'take-off' and 'land', with perhaps the pilot speaking his or her thoughts in-flight.
The whole take is usually done in 'one', with zero editing, apart from perhaps titles.

The polished camera tools that took years to appear for FSX and X-plane are still just a dream for Aerofly

Making a creative and well edited flight video has nothing at all to do with 'camera tools' or the lack of. AFS2 already has perfectly adequate views and camera angles as standard. The point I was making was that using the fly-around camera view without editing the shot afterwards not only looks sloppy but instantly destroys any realism. As an example, below is a video you posted earlier. The scenery in the video looks stunning, the mellow colours of the grand canyon are super atmospheric, in fact this could almost be a video taken of a real plane in flight, except that the camera then pans round the aircraft in a ludicrous manner that's almost impossible to replicate in real life, and camera angles and views tend to be a mish-mash.

On the other hand, someone with a passion or talent for 'creative' video making would take the time to edit the fly-around views etc so that the viewer doesent see the camera circling around the plane, but rather would see the plane shot from different angles. e.g....

The mistake lies in comparing a new and growing sim to the end result of 30 years of development.

But there's no mistake. I wasn't comparing AFS2 to other sims in this respect , it was you who mentioned polished camera tools for FSX. And I'm certainly not criticising AFS2, perhaps just the lack of creativity and imagination in the majority of AFS2 videos.

The bottom line is: there's still plenty of room on Youtube etc for anyone who wishes to upload AFS2 videos, the more creative and well edited the better. But I suspect you're more of a screenshot person than a video maker, and that you perhaps enjoy posting other peoples' videos to making your own. Which is fine, you've posted some good links to Aerofly vids over the months, so thanks.

 

[HiFlyer]

Hi Devon,
Frame rates seem to be your benchmark for what you feel is performance, and based on your comments I will conclude that no, among all of the elaborate testing you performed while breaking in your new mega super computer you never locked the frame rates to see if the performance was better or worse, because based on the high frame rate count the performance must be better because of the high frame rates.

Unfortunately, your conclusion wouldn't necessarily be correct in this instance.

I tested the sim at all of the available FPS settings as well. And yes, considering that my preferred flying mode for Aerofly is in VR, the ability to maintain high framerates is very important, especially since about 200 FPS stable is necessary to have 90 fps steady in VR, and this is made worse at the higher pixel density settings that provide maximum legibility of the instruments while unfortunately quadrupling the system workload.

What this means in practice is that I need the capability of reaching at least 400 FPS to use those higher quality modes reliably, and testing to make sure I can do so seems perfectly logical. (Plus, its cool!) All I can say is, yes, if you understand the requirements of VR, those frame-rates are very important. I'm not sure how to make it clearer.

I still think you're describing the making of an actual Hollywood movie Devon. In reality, and in my opinion as someone who has worked in video production and editing, very few AFS2 videos on youtube or elsewhere feature chosen 'themes' and proper 'editing'. And the standard storyline of a flight video actually takes zero creative thinking beyond 'take-off' then 'land', with perhaps the pilot speaking his or her thoughts in-flight.

You could safely say that of any current sim though. I see the only real difference being the absolutely enormous volume of FSX/X-plane videos that allows for a few notable gems to stand out from tons of mostly pedestrian fare. Considering the smallness of the Aerofly Userbase, we have a ways to go. Its early days, and I hope that as more areas become available, Atc and Ai is added weather is enhanced etc, there will be gradually more to showcase, and users will begin to do so, just as with our current sims. (presumably)

Making a creative and well edited flight video has nothing at all to do with 'camera tools' or the lack of. AFS2 already has perfectly adequate views and camera angles as standard. The point I was making was that using the fly-around camera view without editing the shot afterwards not only looks sloppy but instantly destroys any realism. As an example, below is a video you posted earlier. The scenery in the video looks stunning, the mellow colours of the grand canyon are super atmospheric, in fact this could almost be a video taken of a real plane in flight, except that the camera then pans round the aircraft in a ludicrous manner that's almost impossible to replicate in real life.

Isn't camera panning a matter of opinion? I hate wing view vids, for instance, yet they continue to be produced by the boatload and get good reviews.

As far as tools, I have to stand by that. Outerra for instance, has no camera tools to speak of, and believe me, its a handicap for anyone attempting to make a video. I would LOVE to be able to take a slow "sloppy" (but smooth) pan around the outside of an aircraft, but right now, its not really possible except using the mouse, with the resultant lack of smoothness. So yes, I gleefully took advantage of it in Aerofly, it was like being released from video prison. Its also a great way of showcasing the exterior of a nice model.

Continuing with tools, there are others that could also up the standard and are missed, at least by me in Aerofly. Camera shake? Not available. Smoke and particle effects? No. (but they are promised) Contrails? No. Tools to change the sky colors? No. Wet runways? No.

Other interesting rain effects? Not yet. Hard landing effects as provided by Ez-doc? Nope. My point is that many of these tools used to give other videos a bit more variety and interest just aren't there yet, nor is that surprising at this point.

I also believe that almost any list of things Aerofly lacks, (yours and mine) videos or otherwise, is by necessity set by the yardstick of current sims, which (again) have had years of development behind them. From my (and probably the developers) perspective, time is the thing that has to heal all wounds.

Hopefully Lionheart still has an interest in porting some planes eventually, and I hope they both sell well and raise the Aerofly standard.

 

[Gliderfan]

You could safely say that of any current sim though. I see the only real difference being the absolutely enormous volume of FSX/X-plane videos that allows for a few notable gems to stand out from tons of mostly pedestrian fare

I agree. But I mentioned Aerofly videos only in relation to your claim that people were put off posting AFS2 videos because a certain poster was flooding the market, or as you put it, he is "sucking all the air out of the room".

Isn't camera panning a matter of opinion? I hate wing view vids, for instance, yet they continue to be produced by the boatload and get good reviews.

It depends I suppose if you want the video to resemble an actual flight or not. Wing view recordings obviously happen in the real world all the time; but a camera panning around the entire plane in seconds, or panning from under the plane to above it, just looks unrealistic and sim-like. But we've all done it ;-)

Continuing with tools, there are others that could also up the standard and are missed, at least by me in Aerofly. Camera shake?... .......

Yes, these extras would be nice in a video..but you can easily achieve most of these effects and more with video editing, e.g. camera shake, hard landings, rain on windshield, coloured sky, bird hits, sparks flying on a hard landing, etc. In fact there are already a few AFS2 videos featuring camera shake and hard landings.

But in my opinion AFS2 is as good as any flightsim for making creative videos, if not better. At the end of the day its all down to the video-maker and his creativity and timing. And when it all comes together it can look almost broadcast/movie quality, a work of art even, no matter what 3d environment the video is shot in. But the camera angles have to be right, and mostly believable, in my opinion...

 

[Gman]

Unfortunately, your conclusion wouldn't necessarily be correct in this instance.

I tested the sim at all of the available FPS settings as well. And yes, considering that my preferred flying mode for Aerofly is in VR, the ability to maintain high framerates is very important, especially since about 200 FPS stable is necessary to have 90 fps steady in VR, and this is made worse at the higher pixel density settings that provide maximum legibility of the instruments while unfortunately quadrupling the system workload. What this means in practice is that I need the capability of reaching at least 400 FPS to use those higher quality modes reliably, and testing to make sure I can do so seems perfectly logical. All I can say is, yes, if you understand the requirements of VR, those frame-rates are very important. I'm not sure how to make it clearer.

Ah...I see.
When I (again) asked you specifically whether you had tried locking the FPS at a lower number, your response was:

"As part of testing my machine I ran at all settings available in the sim: with clouds, without clouds, with higher and lower shadow settings, with more and less detail........ With and without external settings from the Nvidia control panel..... I even tried alternate resolutions.

I also downloaded and ran the Oculus compatibility tool, with the result that I was neither CPU nor GPU bound and met or exceeded recommendations.

I overclocked the processor and also ran at stock settings while testing the sim, and made careful observation of frame rate fluctuations while flying over 3D modeled city areas, over high resolution scenery areas and over lower resolution areas. I also checked for reported differences when flying larger planes.

The result was that I lost nothing by running at the highest settings so why not do it?"

If you had "tested the sim at all of the available FPS settings as well" why did you tell me everything but that? At this point, it seems as though you are either being evasive or just making things up as you go, which is fine. You built and tested your computer with the goal of expending all available resources to attain the highest possible FPS and still run your programs at levels you are satisfied with.

Nothing wrong with that, you bought and paid for your system, and by golly, if you want to devote unnecessary processing resources in order to see that all important FPS counter perform at its highest possible output, don't let me harsh your buzz. It's not like that extra 10 or 15 % processing power could be used by your Oculus Rift unit...right?

Hey, there's flying down the autobahn with your hair on fire, and then there's flying down the autobahn with your hair on fire with 300 pounds of gold in the trunk for better traction! Priceless.

I was only trying to reason this out for the benefit of those who might come along later wondering about such things as FPS, settings, etc. Not everyone has a mega super computer, and for many of us we need to expend all possible resources to run a flight sim at levels we are satisfied with. For us it is a good rule of thumb to worry more about how things look and feel and pay less (read little or no) attention to FPS, which if anything is like the check engine light on a car's dashboard.

At any rate, I look forward to the update on overclocking to 5.2 GHz and getting those frame rates up to 600 FPS.

Cheers
Gary