Which Simulator Should You Buy (April 2019)?

Whenever I talk to people about my hobby, sooner or later during the conversation I always receive the same question: which simulator should I buy (and will my computer be able to run it)?
This is not an easy question, as it vastly depends on which kind of person you are talking to. He or she may be a gamer, an aviation enthusiast or an experienced pilot...and may prefer a long peaceful flight in an airliner, a scenic bush-flight over a wild region or an historically accurate air battle.
Therefore I typically reply with another question: what would you like to do in the simulator?
Depending on the question I will try and direct them to the simulator that may be the best fit between the ones I know (relatively) well.

So, as a quick recap and a go-to reference for the people I speak with, here is what I think of the simulators I use the most, and what I believe to be their strong and weak points as of today April 20th 2019.

But first, a word about the hardware:
In general you need a fast computer (I'd say a 3.0 GHz quad core minimum) and a good graphic card (by today standards a GTX 960 is probably the bare minimum). Some simulators run better than others, but running a modern flight simulator without a good computer is an exercise in frustration. A Windows PC is preferred over an Apple computer since not all the simulators are available on the latter.

Along with a fast computer with a good graphic card, you'll need memory (some sims can run with 4Gb but 8Gb should be the standard) and a sizeable available space in your hard drive. The required space will depend on the add-ons you will use, but I'd say that 256 Gbyte is the bare minimum...but be warned that many simmers typically have dedicated hard disks with 1 Terabyte or more: some add-ons (and in particular high detail photoreal sceneries) take a lot of space.

One last thing before we start: you'll need a flight stick. You do not necessarily need a replica of a real one, and you can buy a decent one for 40-50 Euros or less. But trying to use a flight simulator without one will drive you crazy. Be sure that it features a throttle control and a "twist" motion for the rudder.

Prepar3D v4

Published by: Lockheed Martin

Latest version: 4.5

Price: USD 59.95 (Academic); USD 199,95 (Professional)

Available on: Windows (64 bit)

Several years ago, Lockheed Martin acquired the rights to the Microsoft ESP platform, which was basically a tentative to market Flight Simulator X for professional simulation / visualization purposes. Lockheed Martin has constantly upgraded this simulator, adding a new rendering engine and a 64 bit code and maintaning a good backward compatibility with FSX. With the failure of Microsoft Flight and Dovetail Flight Simulator World, Prepar3D is the "de facto" heir to the venerable Flight Simulator legacy.
Disregard the incredibly expensive "Professional Plus" version which is meant for military use.

Strong Points:
- Backward compatibility with many FSX add-ons means that there are literally thousands of good quality add-ons, either free and payware. It is highly likely that a good rendition of your favourite plane or airport alreadyt exist for this simulator.
- Very flexible experience: you can fly anything from a glider up to a 747 anywhere around the world.

Weak Points:
- Default content is not great and the base scenery is outdated (looks a lot like Flight Simulator X). You'll need some add-ons to make it look good.
- Needs a very powerful computer to run well.

Recommended to:
Basically anyone who has an interest in flight simulation...but be warned: the default content is not great and you'll need to get some add-ons: there are some great freeware ones, but the best ones are typically payware.

Not recommended to:
Users who have no will to look for (and eventually buy) add-ons to improve the simulator.
Users interested in air warfare simulation: while P3D has a wide choice of (excellent) military aicraft, it does not support weapon functionalities by default (unless you buy the professional plus edition - which I do not recommend) although it can do that with packages such as vACMI, Tacpack or others. If you are interested in air combat you should first check DCS.

X-Plane 11
Published by: Laminar Research
Latest version: 11.33
Price: € 64,99
Available on: PC, MacOS, Linux

Strong Points:
- Simulation engines is based on an actual fluid dynamics model: arguably a superior approach with respect to table-driven engines like the one of FSX/P3D.
- Graphic engine runs well and does an excellent job in portraying small scale details.
- Some of the default aicrafts are really well done.
- Fantastic night lighting effects.

Weak Points:
- Default terrain textures are quite bland and repetitive. You'll need add-ons to make it look good.
- During the day, the default lighting engine is not great (poor water rendition, bland daylight brightness and shadows, poor cloud rendition).
- While there are some excellent add-ons out there, P3D in my opinion still has the lead with a wider selection of better quality add-ons (but the tide is changing).

Recommended to:
Basically anyone who has an interest in flight simulation. It is a great simulation and does a lot of things better than P3D (but not everything). If you have an Apple or Linux system, this is the best flight simulator you can buy. If you have a PC, choosing this over P3D may depend on your computer and which add-ons you would like to use.

Not recommended to:
Users interested in air warfare simulation: while XP-11 has a limited support for weapon functionalities, DCS is the simulator your should check first if you are looking for military flight operations

Aerofly Flight Simulator 2
Published by: IPACS
Latest Version: 2.
Price: € 59,99
Available on: Windows (64 bit), MacOS, Android

Aerofly FS 2 started as an attempt to bring a decent flight simulation experience to high end mobile devices and then was scaled up to a fully-fledged desktop experience. While its heritage still shows in the user interface, the fact that the simulator was designed for the limited resources of a mobile device makes it so that it runs really well on desktop computers, providing exceptionally good frame rates even if your hardware is not the latest and greatest. However there is no traffic, no multiplayer, no ATC and basically no weather system. It is just you, your plane and the photoreal scenery.

Strong Points:
- Exceptionally efficient graphic engine: runs really well and provides a fantastic performance in Virtual Reality.
- Very sharp photoreal textures (default scenery covers the majority of the western United States).
- Excellent choice of good quality default aircrafts. Both external and internal models are done really well.

Weak Points:
- No ATC, no traffic, no multiplayer: it is just your aicraft and the scenery.
- No water shaders, no cloud shadows, very basic clouds and almost non-existent weather system.
- Scenery coverage is limited to some areas of the world (coverage is slowly being expanded through add-ons).

Recommended to:
Anyone who would like to fly over a super-sharp phoreal rendition of the State of California or over the Grand Canyon. Flying in Virtual Reality is very impressive in terms of immersion and "feeling" due to the exceptionally high frame rate.

Not Recommended to:
Anyone looking into something more than basic flying: absence of traffic, ATC or multiplayer is a big drawback. And needless to say there are no military functionalities.

Digital Combat Simulator (DCS)
Published by: Eagle Dynamics
Latest version 2.5.4
Price: base software is FREE (one map, two planes)
Available on: Windows (64 bit)

Starting from the heritage of a successful combat flight simulator like Lock-On Modern Air Combat, Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) has become arguably the best air combat simulator available on an home computer. You can download the base software for free but it only features one map (Caucasus) and two planes (SU-25 Frogfoot and the TF-51 Mustang) - then you can buy a number of sceneries such as the Persian Gulf or the Nevada training range, and a growing selection of excellent aircrafts (including the F-14 Tomcat, the F/A-18 Hornet, the A-10 Thunderbolt and the AV-8B Harrier II). These add-ons are not cheap...but they are extremely realistic and detailed. WWII and Korean War warbirds are available too. DCS also includes a detailed simulation of ground vehicles and ships. 

Strong Points:

- Excellent rendering engine providing good performance and great scalability to small details

- The general quality of the add-ons is outstanding: while some of the planes are a little expensive, they are typically the best rendition available of the machine they depict.

- Arguably the best combat environment you can play on your PC

Weak Points:

- Some ground texture repetitions

- Weather engine is not great in some instances

- Scenery is divided in "maps" you need to buy. While they are large, you cannot fly anywhere in the world.

Recommended to:

Anyone interested in digital military simulations. DCS is the best combat simulator on the market.

Not Recommended to:

Anyone not interested in air combat. You may also want to check in advance if your favourite plane is or will be available for the platform, since the current selection of vehicles is somewhat limited.

Other Simulators:

The simulators listed above are the ones I know and use on a regular basis. But there are many Others you may want to consider… here are some of the most popular:

Flight Simulator X is still available on STEAM for 24,99 euros, although I think it is outdated and I do not recommend buying it. You may still consider it as an option if you do not own a high end PC.

Flight Gear is a collaborative effort to create an alternate, open source flight simulator platform - I have not checked it in a while but it seems way behind the simulations I have mentioned above.

If you are looking to WWII combat simulator, IL-2 Sturmovik is still considered by many the best simulator in that niche. I have to confess I have not tried it.

Believe it or not, Falcon 4.0 has still a large dedicated community that over the years has improved it considerably. Frankly I have not checked it in years and I think it is outdated.

...and then there are a many other simulators I have not played. But again these were just my two cents.

Aerofly Flight Simulator 2 - a quick review

 

If you follow my Facebook page, you know that, from time to time, I have been making some experiments with IPACS Aerofly FS2 flight simulator. 
This simulator has left the "Early Access" area on Steam and it is now available as a "finished" product. Since many of you are asking if it is any good, I thought it was a good idea to share my opinions - much like I did when it was originally released in Early Access.

Aerofly FS2 is the latest product from IPACS, a Swiss company that produced the popular Aerofly RC series (a series of radio-controlled aircraft model simulators) and Aerofly FS (their take on a full scale flight simulator). The original Aerofly FS was praised for its good performance, nice photoreal scenery and good visuals - although it failed to catch the attention of the vast majority of the simmers community.

The second iteration is in a much better position as its early version was released with native support of the HTC Vive and the Oculus Rift right when these two headsets were gaining popularity - and due to its super-smooth frame rate, it quickly become popular within the niche of simmer who own a Virtual Reality headset. I bought it when I got my HTC Vive - and I was amazed on the smothness  and graphic quality of the experience.

Aircrafts

Although it only comprises fixed wing machines, the aircraft selection of Aerofly FS is second to none. There is something for everyone: starting from the Cessna 172 up to the 747-400 and everything in the middle, including two gliders  

(the ASG 29 and the Margansky Swift S1), twin-props (Beech Baron B58 and King Air C90), a business jet (Learjet 45 of course), unlimited acrobatic planes (Extra 300 and Pitts S.2B), warbirds (Corsair, P-38 and the Sopwith Camel) and military jets (F-15, F-18 and the MB-339 trainer). By downloading and installing the SDK you can also get the DR-400, while the Dash 8 Q400 is also available as free download (and it is probably the best Aircraft in terms of system modeling.

The visual quality is great and very consistent - by far the best default fleet of any simulator.
The flight models are less consistent - some are very good, some are just OK. Most of them will not be as accurate as the most demanding simmers would like, but in general they are acceptable and deliver a good "sensation" of flight.

Scenery 

Much like its predecessor, AFS2 takes the photoreal approach. The base scenery covers most of the West Coast of the United states and includes California, Nevada and Arizona - Colorado and Utah areas are available as free downloads, as well as a higher resolution version of the base scenery. The New York area and Switzerland are available at pay-for DLC (currently 14.99€ each). Orbx has released Innsbruck and Meigs Field, and will release Monterey shortly.

Sticking to the default content, if you are into photoscenery in terms of image quality it does not get much better than this, provided you download the high-res version (pretty big download...90 Gigabytes!!!). Flying over the Sierras or the Death Valley is AWESOME - the image quality is really good and the overall impression of realism is fantastic.

On the bad side, autogen coverage is sparse and inconsistent - some areas are well done and include buildings, some others have just trees - and some other have nothing. Also, there is no shader or mask for water - just the texture... which is disappointing.
Another bad thing is that not all the airports in the base region are included - for example Point Mugu NAS is not there. On the flipside, the default airports are nice and detailed (although generic) - much better than other sims.

Simulation and Graphics Engine

The Aircraft simulation engine takes a very interesting and powerful approach: the core of the engine is basically a rigid body simulator, which includes linkages, servos and dampers - and a number of aerodynamic and system features. It is much more complex and flexible than what most people think.

Its major drawbacks, at the moment, are the fact that it only supports fixed wing aicraft and that it does not support custom code for advanced avionics.

The environment simulation is one of the weakest points. No ATC, no traffic, weather simulation is basically limited to wind intensity and direction - there is a lot of work to do in this area. Also, at least for the moment, NO MULTIPLAYER.

The graphic engine is GREAT for three reasons:

- The performance is really good - you can easily exceed 120 frames per second on a decent machine, and it is definitely good enough for simming in Virtual Reality and 4K displays. Granted, this is also because there is no traffic, nor ATC

- The draw distance and image quality is INCREDIBLE.

- The shaders are quite good. The reflections work well, the glass shader is awesome and the day lighting is very good (I'd say it is the best around as it delivers a good, natural contrast).

Unfortunately the lack of water shaders and masks is a big drawback - and then the clouds are very basic and do not cast shadows. Bummer.

SDK and Third Party Support

Third part support is quite limited at the moment - basically there are just three Orbx airports (Meigs Field, Innsbruck and the soon-to-be released Monterey). They are awesome...and they really shine thanks to the smooth frame rates and draw distance. Innsbruck in particular is awesome. A short flight around this airport in VR in a Cessna 172 is incredibly immersive.

The SDK is quite powerful (it is the same tool used by the authors)...but also poorly documented. Developing or converting an aicraft is not very difficult...but requires A LOT of manual text editing. A LOT. On the other hand, once you get used to it, the process of converting an aircraft from FSX is straightforward and not very long (probably around 20 hours tops).

GOOD:

- Fantastic frame rates and overall performance

- Great selection of aicrafts with excellent visual models

- The high-res version of the base scenery is awesome

- Fantastic sense of immersion in Virtual Reality 

MEH....

- No water masks and shaders

- Clouds are very simple and don't cast shadows

BAD:

- no traffic and no ATC

- no multiplayer

In summary, at the moment AFS2 is quite a barebone simulator. There is just your aicraft (with excellent visuals and decent simulation) and there is a huge beautiful photoscenery (which looks AWESOME except for the water)...but this is delivered with an incredibly smooth frame rate and a fantastic draw distance. If that is enough for you, it is highly recommended. It is also highly recommended if you own a VR Helmet.
If you are looking for extremely detailed procedures, ATC or multiplayer, AFS2 is not your simulator (...yet).

The F-15E modeled by MilViz is part of the default aicrafts...and looks awesome. The cockpit looks great, but its functionality is limited. 

   

The Dash 8 Q400 is available as free DLC...and it is probably the best aicraft of AFS2 in terms of simulation...it may not be on part with the best of the best we've seen in other sims, but it is not bad.  

The draw distance and frame rates are amazing

Orbx Innsbruck is AWESOME - extremely detailed (same as the FSX/P3D version) but with the added bonus of the frame rate and image sharpness of AFS2.

The first attempts to export my SIAI S-211 in AFS2.

Impressions on X-Plane 11

The worst thing of being a flight simulation developer (well...apart from the sleep deprivation) is that you do not have much time to look and play with other people's creations.... there are literally dozens of aircrafts and add-ons that I'd really love to test, but I do not have the time. Let alone testing a completely new simulator.

So, I took a little break after the Typhoon release and had a look a X-Plane 11 while I am trying to decide what is better to do next... and here are my impressions. Please remind that this is X-Plane 11 Vanilla... no add-ons used.

Flight modeling

X-Plane series has always been famous for its flight modeling... basically, the flight model is derived from the "shape" of the aicraft, rather than numbers and parameters like in FSX/P3D. In some sense this is a much more elengant approach.

I do not know the intricacies of any of the stock aicrafts so well to tell "how good" they are - nor I have flown any of them for real... but the impression is that the all of the aircraft I tested had a very solid and realistic flight modeling. I have particularly appreciated the takeoff dynamics... for some reason I cannot explain they give you the best "takeoff run" feeling of any simulator I have ever tested. 

Graphics

The graphic it engine is impressive.... with a couple of drawbacks. Let's start with the things I did not like: the sea/water rendering, the stock textures and the day lighting. The water looks "fake" and a little flat - P3Dv3 makes a much better job in that respect (although still fa away from what modern graphics can do). And day lighting seems washed out - again P3Dv3 is superior in that respect IMHO... and actually Aerofly FS2 is even better - actually much better...it is the only one that manages to capture the intensity of a bright sunny day.

Stock textures are OK, better than FSX/P3D defaults (...not surprising as they are 10 years old!), but nothing to write home about.

And that's it for the not-so-great things...everything else is awesome.

The night lighting is miles above anything else - IT LOOKS REAL. And when you realize that even the cars in the streets have their own light source you marvel at this techical achievement.

Weather is also really good... and gives its best in the rendition of fog and low visibility conditions.

Another fantastic thing is the Autogen system. Much better, more flexible and more complete than FSX/P3D with an amazing level of detail (fantastic for helicopter flying!). By "flexible" I mean that it positions buildings and structures following the streets and the terrain features in a much more consistent and realistic way than FSX/P3D. Awesome job - with a minor note: the buildings look a litte tall, and there are not that many trees in italian cities and towns.

...and NO BLURRIES and NO STUTTERS.

Graphics performance

I would say it is very good to excellent. Sure, you I do not get the 200+ frames per second I get from AFS2, but if you consider how much is happening on the screen it is amazing. Sure, if you max out the sliders my old 3770k at 3.9GHz and the GTX1080 struggle to keep a smooth flight, but in general the performance is better than FSX/P3D in similar conditions.

Stock Aircrafts

Stock aicrafts are good, not great. The selection is OK and includes some planes specifically rebuilt for XP11, and some from previous versions. Considering only the XP11 aircrafts, they are good... I'd say they are great but the modeling and texturing (coupled with the "washed out" daylight rendering) makes it so that they do not look as good as stock AFS2 aicrafts. Still, they are way better than FSX stock aicrafts. In terms of systems and flight modeling they are really good for being stock aicrafts.   

Stock Scenery

EXTREMELY complete. Right out of the digital box you have the whole world, but the vectors and landclass definitions are much better than the stock FSX/P3D database - and they basically have a similar level of detail as ORBX Global Vector. Also, the default airports are much more detailed than in FSX and in general the stock scenery is way better. Still... the stock textures are good but not the best I have ever seen, and while the autogen is extremely detailed, some of its buildings look a little out of place (at least in Italy...but that is always the case in any simulator!).  

Weather

Weather graphical rendition varies from very good (cloud transitions) to excellent (fog). The effects in the aicrafts are just right - but my real life experience of flying in bad weather was really too short to judge.

Sound

Frankly the least impressive part of the package... it is not bad, but on my system it sounds OK but not great (maybe I am too much used to third party sound packages in FSX). Still, no complaints here.

Long story short:

LIKES

• It is the most realistic and complete flight simulator you can buy for your home computer.
• Night environment and lighting is absolutely superb.
• Astonishing level of detail and scalability of the autogen system
• Good stock aicrafts and extremely complete base scenery

DISLIKES

• Daylight rendering looks a little washed out
• Water rendering is not great
• ...it does not have the same add-ons as FSX ;-)!

Final remarks:

If you are looking for a complete, serious and realistic simulation (and you have a modern, relatively powerful computer) - right now X-Plane 11 is probably the best thing you can buy.

Out of the box it is a solid, complete package that will give you hundreds of flying hours and fun.

You have to consider, however, that FSX/P3D add-ons availability is unbeatable...and new versions of P3D and Flight Simulator are likely to arrive in the near future. Also, P3Dv3 does a couple of things better than X-Plane 11 IMHO.

Aerofly Fight Simulator 2 has its own merits too - but at the current status of its development it is not as complete as the other contenders. Still has the best daylight rendering, the best aicraft models (graphically speaking) and delivers a conving Virtual Reality experience (which P3Dv3 and XP11 do not do with FlyInside). 

The night lighting is FANTASTIC - by far the best I have ever seen in a home flight simulation.

Cloud transitioning in a MD-82 - Weather rendition is very good to excellent. Cockpits are in general very detailed (but do not look as good as the ones in AF2).

Day lighting is not as bright as it should be. This is one of the few things I don7t like about XP11.

The Autogen system places houses and buildings following steets, highways and geographical features and delivers a convincing (but a little "fake"-looking) rendition. Vector database is excellent.

Virtual Reality at home... Impressions after one week with the HTC Vive...

I have been playing with the HTC Vive for a week now, and I really like it... so I thought it may be useful to give my impression on this whole Virtual Reality hype, especially for those who may be considering to purchase it.

First, it is not cheap. You need a good computer to run it, and my 3770k with a GTX970 is barely considered sufficient. Then the headset... in Italy it is 599€ for the Oculus Rift and 849€ for the Vive, plus taxes and shipment.
The two headsets have similar resolution and characteristics, but while the Oculus ships with an XBox 360 controller, the Vive comes with two "motion tracking" controllers... which are really nice and work well - but at first they look quite strange. The other big difference is that the Vive supports full "room-scale" VR, which means that you can actually stand up and walk through your room - up to 5m x 5m.
The last big difference (maybe not that big for us simmers) is the software availability - while both can work with software distributed in other ways, the Oculus has its own store, while the Vive relies on Steam (which also has a VR mode). The Oculus at the moment has more games and in general a better support - and its content is (supposed to be) locked, so you cannot play it with the Vive...although of course you can find hacks on the internet for this.

Reason why I picked the Vive over the Oculus is simply that, apart from being a simmer, I am also a technology enthusiast and a gamer... and I really liked the idea of room-scale VR. If you plan to use your helmet only, or mostly, for simulations (that means for "seated" experiences), the Oculus is perfectly fine and significantly cheaper.

The only word of warning on the Vive is that if you want to use it a room-scale, you need to have 2.0mx1.5m minimum free space, although some applications require 2.4x2.4 or more - I had to move some furnitures to make room for it - by the way there is a safety "chaperon" feature that will prevent you from hitting the walls by projecting virtual walls when you are getting too close to the real ones...very well implemented IMHO.

You will also need to drill some holes in your bookshelves or walls to fasten the two motion sensors.

Then...after the setup (which takes one hour or more)....here comes the magic. You are literally transported in the virtual world. You can walk, kneel, jump look around and you really "feel" you are there. The biggest drawbacks are:

- the resolution is not great: 1080x1200 per eye...not enough to read some instruments.

- if there are "judders" (which may be due to both the software implementation and/or the hardware) you may feel a little dizzy...this can become motion sickness if you use it for too long.

- Anything less than 60-90 frames per second may induce motion sickness... which happens (of course) more often in softwares like flight simulators. You may want to avoid too much acrobatic flying at 15-20 frames per second...

Here is what I tried, in no particular order:

PREPAR3D v3.4

The latest version of Prepar3d has native support for the HTC Vive, along with the Oculus. Unfortunately, the implementation is not great - apparently there is no Asynchronous Time Warp nor any other technique to prevent judders... so the experience is shaky and a little unpleasant.
On the good side image is well filtered looks good... let's hope that P3Dv3.5 has a better implementation.

PREPAR3D v3.4 with FlyInside P3D

Now, there is this nice software called FlyInside, available for both P3D and FSX, which not only renders the simulation with Asynchronous Time Warp, but also provides a number of functions and shortcuts to operate the simulator within the virtual environment. Albeit the image quality is a little more jaggy than the default P3D support, the difference is day and night. The experience is much smoother and you can actually enjoy flying in the virtual cockpit with an unprecedented level of immersion. Also, you can use it in Avatar mode too... and walk around your aicraft (albeit this mode is a little buggy especially if you hop-on, hop-off the aicraft a couple of time).

NOTE - FLYINSIDE P3D has some issues with  Tacpack experimental features (HMD and TFLIR imaging)... the HMD will not work as intended, and TFLIR sometimes works and sometimes not. It may be better to turn those features off.

FLIGHT SIMULATOR STEAM EDITION with FlyInside FSX

The magic of FlyInside works very well with FSX too... and it is even more valuable given that FSX does not support Virtual Reality natively. Also, the performance is really good and is smoother than P3D - although P3D has better shadows that result in a more realistic image rendering...

AEROFLY FS 2

As per my previous post, I also tried AEROFLY FS 2... And I was not super-happy as I thought. Sure the frame rates are stellar, and there is native support of the Vive... but, at least on my configuration, the head tracking suffers from occasional judders... resulting in a little discomfort in some flights. Still, cockpits are amazing - and so is the scenery. 

 ASSETTO CORSA

Assetto Corsa does not support the Vive, but, as I said, there is a hack on the Internet which allows you to use Oculus compatible games with the Vive. It works great...and you can even walk out of the car and be amazed by the level of detail of the modeling. No judders - very smooth performance and amazing immersion. 

THE LAB

We simmers have an headstart with respect to the rest of the "gaming" population... we have been building virtual cockpit for years, and it is awesome to finally "feel" there. But Virtual Reality has a huge potential for games and education. The Lab (directly from Valve) is a collection of mini-games / experiences that will make you fully appreciate the potential of these devices. Some of the games are really funny... but the whole interaction with The Lab is amazing. Really cool - try it (it's free)!

STAR WARS: TRIAL ON TATOOINE

Yes, there is a official free minigame of Star Wars. Yes you can wield a lightsaber (cool!)...but the game is disappointingly short. Just few minutes and it's done - and not much of a challenge. It is free, but I unistalled it immediately.

QUANERO

Another free game, Quanero is a cool experiment in storytelling... basically you are a CSI guy in a futuristic bar in which a bomb exploded and a guy has been killed. You can rewind the time and look around and your scope is to find who has done what. Really cool and quite well done... it suffers a little from the fact that it is an indie games and so some 3D assets are not top-notch... but don't get me wrong, it is well done and a very interesting experiment.

UNREAL ENGINE
I made a quick test just to see how difficult it would be to develop virtual reality experiences... and a look at the Unreal Engine VR support. It is quite good - and it would be possible to create something in a reasonable time...unfortunately, there is my real life job...

SO, SHOULD YOU BUY IT?

Well... it is a lot of money, and a pretty cool technology. Strictly speaking of flight simulation it offers an unparalleled level of immersion. For the first time in my life a computer program made me feel into the cockpit. It is great...unless you do a lot of IFR, then the resolution is a problem. Also, if you plan to use it with FSX/P3D you will have to face the poor frame rates - even with the magic of FlyInside you may feel a little uncomfortable.

The best things is to try before you buy. Don't get me wrong...it IS AMAZING. But it is also very expensive and my guess is that, in a couple of yearsm these devices will have better resolution and cost less.

In any case, Virtual Reality is probably the next big thing in home entertainment.

AeroflyFS 2 - First impressions

Yesterday I invested some money into an HTC Vive... Yes I am one of the early adopters which pay a lot of money for a new technology that will be outdated, or cost half that money, in a year or so. Fact is that I believe that, at this point, flight simulation developers should really start looking into virtual reality. The helmet will arrive in a few days and I cannot wait to test it.

Now, given that I know in advance that I will be disappointed by FSX/Prepar3D due to the insufficient frame rate, I have also decided to buy Aerofly FS 2 - as it should deliver a convincing VR experience.
For the few that may not know it, Aerofly FS 2 is the new version of a simple flight simulator developed by a Swiss company named IPACS.
In this new version, you can fly over a photoreal scenery that depicts a large portion of the south-western United Stated (mostly California, Nevada and Arizona) in a variety of aicrafts - from the classic C172 to the Boeing 747.

As I have read some enthusiastic reviews saying this is "awesome", "the next big thing in flight simulation" and "way better than FSX/P3D" here are my two cents for people that may be considering buying this.

General thoughs

First and foremost, this "simulator" is clearly meant to give you the "illusion" of flight, rather than simulate an aicraft in a complete and realistic fashion.
The "illusion" of flight is the weak spot of FSX for one big reason, IMHO... and it is frame rate. With just a few good addons, FSX and P3D can easily fall below 25-30 frames per second... and you can say goodbye to the illusion of flying. We got used to it - and we still use it for its fantastic add-ons and its the flexibility... but let's face it. In terms of frames per second, it is rarely as good as you want it.

Back to AeroflyFS 2, I should also say in advance it is the "Early Access" stage - which means you can buy it although it is still being developed. Now, even if the developers claim that, over time, the simulation will be as complex as FSX/P3D or XPlane, at the moment it is not. Actually it is far away from them... but you may not care (let me explain why below!).

Installation and Setup
The biggest hassle of the installation process is the download... 30Gb for the base software and another 65Gb for an optional, free upgrade that will enhance the texture resolution away from the airports.
Once the download is finished... you just need to setup you joystick (extremely easy) and you are good to go. May be you need to spend another 30 seconds looking through the options.
The interface is very simple, although it is inherited from the tablet version of Aerofly 2 and this shows... all in all if you are frustrated by the difficulty of configuring FSX or P3D, this is a much pleasant thing (...this also means you do not have much control over the sim of course)

Aircrafts
In general, the 3D modeling is good - both for cockpits and external views. It is fair to say that it is significantly better than the default FSX aicrafts... but do not believe people that claim it is on pair with the best FSX/P3D addons.
Flight models are very basic - definitely not good if you want realism... but they are very easy and forgiving so beginners, or people who just want to fly around, may like it.
System modeling also is pretty basic but varies a lot from aicraft to aircraft. However if you compare the best of these with "out-of-the-box" default FSX aircrafts, they are not that bad.

In terms of modern military planes, there are two: the F/A-18 Hornet and the Airmacchi MB-339.

The Hornet looks good, although the VC has its weak spots... does not handle in a very realistic fashion IMHO, but I guess it will be OK for people just wanting to buzz the tower... The most disappointing aspect are the cockpit systems: HUD works, and so do the steam gauges... but apart from that there is a basic HSI and an even more basic moving map. Pretty much everything else does not work.

The MB.339 is modeled very well (but no Frecce Tricolori livery!!!! WHY?), and flight model is easy and forgiving. Systems are pretty basic too...but the aicraft has no complex avionics, so most people will not notice it.

Scenery
Unlike FSX or P3D the main scenery is photoreal. No vectors, no landclass...just a big photoreal scenery covering California, Nevada and Arizona. The imagery is VERY sharp.
Some areas, like San Francisco and Las Vegas, do feature buildings and some vegetation... but coverage is limited. Same thing applies to airports... some are quite detailed, and some others are not. It is still WIP... so let's see. But at the moment, it is much like if you use BlueSky scenery with FSX.

....by the way, the water is a "still picture" (no waves or reflections) and there is no traffic. Also, the night lighting is limited to airports and the custom buildings... the photoreal base is "day only".

Graphic engine and performance
Unlike most other games, the graphic engine is based on OpenGL. And the initial impression is that the performance is AMAZING - on my machine (3770k and 970) it easily and constatly exceeds 100 frames per second - and maybe even much more. Flying is super smooth and the scenery looks incredibly sharp. NO BLURRIES and incredibly crisp textures. Good job.
...so it is waaaaay better than P3Dv3, for example? Well...it is not a like-for-like comparision. P3Dv3 has a more sophisticated shadow engine (e.g. no cloud shadows here!), water features, traffic, complex avionics etc. etc.
To make a like for like comparision, you should take P3Dv3, take off all shadows except cockpit and aicraft, use only BlueSky or Megascenery add-on and turn off any traffic and any other addon...and then use a simple aicraft, like my own MB.326. Which I did.
In this case, on my machine, the frame rates is between 40-70 (as usual varies a little) - while Aerofly was definitely much smoother - and with sharper textures.

Conclusions
I understand why some people like this. No installation or setup issues. Solid and exceptionally smooth frame rate. No thinkering with configuration and dozens options. No need to worry about flight manuals, procedures, systems, traffic or anything. Just jump into a plane and fly.
If that is what you always wanted from FSX I think you will like this a lot.

You will also like it if you are looking for a nice VR experience - in this case, as you will not be able to operate complex systems anyway, some of its shortcomings become negligible - and the smooth performance is a major plus.

...but, if you are looking for a highly realistic and complex simulation - look elsewhere (or wait). In its current state delivers a visually appealing and smooth flight "experience", but nothing close to what other simulator can deliver in terms of realism and fidelity.

Long story short: the simplicity and the amazingly smooth performance are the strong points of this simulation. If you are looking for those, you'll like AFS2.

MB339 cockpit is modeled very well...definitely the best 3D cockpit for this aicraft around.

MB339 over the Sierras.... external model is pretty good, but there is no Frecce Tricolori livery!

Most airports are quite basic, but some offer a decent amount of 3D detail.

Some of the largest cities have the major building modeled in 3D as well as some 3D detail (like the trees in the picture) - Las Vegas depicted.

C90 King Air cockpit - in general the quality of the cockpits is high. You may argue that some systems are missing, but really if you compare AFS2 aircrafts with default FSX aircraft there is not much difference.

Pitts over the Grand Canyon - the photoreal textures are much more "crisp" than in FSX, and NO BLURRIES. The Grand Canyon is a spectacle to behold.

Mini-review: Frank's Dolomites

I love my country (Italy, that is)! Surely it has its own share of problems, but it is a wondeful and incredibly diverse and culturally rich country.
Unfortunately for our hobby, the great variety of the landscape means that it is not easy to develop complete scenery for the whole country - let alone the ugly FSX default rendition that looks nothing like the real thing (colors, vegetation, buildings...everything is not only ugly, but completely wrong).
Several people tried to create very large sceneries to cover the whole country - but failed. On the other hand, few dedicated developers created wonderful sceneries for specific parts of Italy - which resulted in true masterpieces, like the freeware rendition of Isola d'Elba and Northern Tuscany, or the amazing rendition of Venice from Aerosoft.

In this scattered coverage, Frank Dainese's wonderful rendition of the Dolomites is an authentic masterpiece. Frank has been developing mountain sceneries for quite a while, and its sceneries are works of pure love for our mountains.
His sceneries are simply breathtaking: detailed, crisp and amazing. With an almost unique feature: 3D modeled mountains. That is, instead of relying on FSX's terrain engine, most of the mountains are sculpted in 3D and then textured with high-resolution pictures straight from Frank's camera. The result is incredibly realistic and the washed-out effect of the default engine at high slope angles (where the engine must stretch the photo-texture) is gone!
Also, its sceneries are completely covered with Autogen buildings and trees (both accurately placed down to the individual building) and there are lots of custom building.
The current scenery covers the airport of Bolzano (which is however on a corner of the scenery), the airstrip of Dobbiaco and the (abandoned) airport of Cortina D'Ampezzo (a much popular winter resot whose airport has been closed and abandoned for several reasons, including the fact that the approach is challenging and dangerous - it is worth googling for its story!).
Frank is also constantly upgrading and expanding his sceneries, which however are only distributed privately by email.

PROs
- 3D sculpted mountains with custom, high resolution textures are incredibly detailed and realistic.
- The whole scenery is covered with accurately placed Autogen (including alternate textures for better color match)
- Custom buildings where needed
- Freeware does not get much better than this

CONs
- As with all photoreal sceneries at a certain point it comes to an end. And this means to see the ugly FSX default.

To get this scenery, you must go and visit Frank's blog, navigate to Frank's profile and send him an email requesting the scenery. Frank's blog address is this:

http://scenarialpinifsx.blogspot.it/

Happy flying!