Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/28/2011 in all areas

  1. I've been working on and off the past two years with the scenery for LEMU Muchamiel. Now that XP10 is here, the roads around the area is finally a lot better, and I can start fine tuning placement of buildings and the airport itself. Got home today, bought the Carenado Bonanza, installed Muchamiel scenery to see how it would fit. Not bad. not bad at all. I made a flight, following the route I had with my friend Alexander when I visited him in 2009. And to kill some time, I made a video too. Hope you enjoy! Hopefully, Carenado or Laminar, or whoever can fix it, should take a look at the flickering shadows. Too bad traffic is paused during replays. Otherwise you'd enjoy the traffic as much as I did on that way fast approach.
    1 point
  2. I bought it myself for christmas, and I find it quite enjoyable. I would call it an "ONLY" simulator: It is day-only, VFR-only, switzerland only. The photo scenery for switzerland is *&!"HOLY CR*P THIS IS AWESOME£~+!@ impressive. The dynamic shadows are as good as X-Plane(10)'s. The fps are incredible: Everthing set to "Ultra"+HDR+8xAA=170fps on my machine. The aerial photos are good. The colors look credible (i have seen a lot awful blue-greeny photo sceneries, this is not one of them). The resolution is okay, but it could use either autogen buildings or an even higher resolution because most houses are simply brown blobs if you look very close. However, the scenery is ideal for VFR flying. I flew around areas I know from winter holidays and immediately recognized the skiing areas I'm familiar with. Also the highways I know were easily recognized and some adjacent villages also. The autogen scenery lacks houses (there are some, but too few). The trees are gorgeous however. The flightmodel physics feel plausible as in "it feels very similar to X-Plane". I would say X-Plane and Aerofly FS feel roughly the same, whereas FSX feels quite different. The weather options are barebone: Two cloud layers and one global wind setting. Thats all. However, it has thermal generation for soaring: dark patches of landscape in the sun generate thermals you can easily find when flying over them and hear the Variometer go "boouuuueeeiiiiii! beep! beep! beep! beep! beep!" The aircrafts are barebone: Only the "holy six" instruments are working. No radio navigation is implemented. No Autopilot. No electrics. No working switches, no electrics. Engines are always running and cannot be shut down or started. The piston engine model is nonsense: it has no idea of density altitude, so you can climb the C172 to FL200 with 1000fpm. Mixture control is not implemented. Also the manifold pressure is nonsense, as are the temperatures (neither fuel flow nor EGT gauges work). For me, Aerofly FS makes for a very good soaring simulator, and awesome VFR flying with simple aircraft. However, I would love the density altitude effect as it would make mountain flying really interesting, when you really have to plan ahead because your performance is limited. Philipp
    1 point
  3. Finally got home a few days early. Got two days to fly as much as I can.. Installed CRJ200 v1.3 to test performance. Stunning 20fps with a lot of high settings.
    1 point
  4. Again some screenshots, now with XP10. Did some more texturing, this and that, but the most did XP10 - with the dynamic shadows and the better mesh elevation. Unfortunately the latter is still not good enough for LPMA (especially for the runway on pillars), and I painfully experienced that it is not (yet) possible to edit the elevation, so we have to wait. Maybe I will release an intermediate version without the runway on pillars when I'm finished so far. And now for something completely different ... the screenshots:
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...