Okay, fine, I'll calmly explain why I think it's not just a good idea to create a topic for AeroFly FS 2, it's important to the future of our hobby.
Speaking as an individual and not as a member of staff I'm asking why?
It's an early release and pretty rough at that
Yes, it's an early release game. So it's important now to get people to check it out, so that it will get enough interest and early purchases that it will continue to be developed and become more sophisticated. And actually, what's there now is a tiny percentage of what you'll find in FSX, but it's not "rough." I've spent many, many hours having a blast flying VFR in the sim and in general the experience is more immersive and less glitchy than my FSX/P3D installs with a number of add-ons.
IMHO more of a 'Game' than a 'Sim'
Well, you're entitled to your HO, but that's an unfair characterization. Turn up the turbulence to medium and take the Cessna for a flight. It feels significantly more like flying in a real small plane than FSX, which with its lack of "bumps" typically feels like it's on rails. (Until you turn the turbulence up to wacky levels). Right now it's limited to VFR, GPS flight, or navigation using VORs, but if we support it, then hopefully down the road we'll get ATC, air traffic, and so on.
If you call every sim that doesn't have the feature set of FSX/P3D or DCS a "game" we're never going to get new sims. FSX had the benefit of a code base that had been worked on for
30 years.
The Pitts and Extra do aerobatics and departures
dramatically better than FSX. The other flight models feel good, and differentiated, as well, from the torque on the Corsair to the momentum of the 747. There are edges of the envelope that still need development, but overall the flight models feel more like the real planes I've flown than any stock FSX plane.
Also, this industry
needs some sims that have a level of "game" to them to entice new people to try it. Otherwise, it's going to become a niche old man's hobby like model trains and HAM radio. Except both of those will still be around in the future because they're cheap to develop, unlike sims.
and overpriced for the current standard.
You mean the current standard of $5 sale games on Steam? If we expect that, we might as well all sell our PCs now and head to consoles because it costs money to develop games. And from a money standpoint, you can make a lot more developing a shooter or RPG per invested dollar than you can making a niche game like a flight simulator.
$49.99 is a
very fair price. It's $10 below the cost of most mainstream games. It's the price, or LESS, than most good FSX add-on planes.
Yeah, FSX costs half as much. But it's a 10-year-old program, and its development was paid for and abandoned a decade ago. Prepar3D Pro is supposed to be $199 if you're not a student.
And you know what? When I bought SubLogic Flight Simulator II for my Amiga 1000, which I might remind you looked like this:
It was $49.99 in 1985 money. Hitting up an inflation calculator, that's $115.78 in 2016 money.
And look at the various 'sections' we already have on the SOH board, a (very) rough count shows almost 50% log zero activity.
Well, I never asked for X3 Terran Conflict or Train sim topics.

But this is different. This is a sim that right now brings an immersive experience that's a generation ahead of anything we've seen before, and if it gets support and people are encouraged to check it out, maybe it will be the gold standard after a few more years of development. But if we poo-poo it because it's not FSX and it costs as much as a Pokemon game for your Nintendo DS, then I guess we'll be staying with FSX forever and hoping by 2025 we'll have computers fast enough to get a smooth frame rate over downtown Seattle.
Please note, this is my own personal opinion, but if the subject came up as a formal request via the Admins I'd be voting no.
WHY DO YOU HATE FLIGHT SIMMERS?

<kidding!>
But in all seriousness... Back in the 1990s and early 2000s there was so much activity in the flight sim market I could write a monthly flight simulation column (first for Computer Gaming World, and then for Computer Games/Strategy Plus magazine) and each month I could write about a different sim. Sometimes more than one!
Now this year seems incredible as there have been
two new sims released in early access and another one announced for next year. Compare that to the days when we had MicroProse, Spectrum Holobyte, Digital Integration, Interactive Magic, Microsoft, Kesmai, Jane's Combat Simulations, Velocity Development, Novalogic, Looking Glass, and others I'm forgetting
all releasing flight simulators in the same year. (Sims that cost $50+ in 1990s money.)
So now we have a sim that offers VR support, photoreal scenery at smooth frame rates on a 3,400x1,440 display even over scenery-packed cities, and a developer who wants to build it long-term.
So I vote yes. Because I would love to see this sim get every opportunity to move flight simming forward, instead of being stuck in a rut of trying to patch ancient FSX code with add-ons until the industry finally dies.
If the other admins agree with you on not supporting the sim, then perhaps we could at least create an "Other Sims" section so that there's somewhere logical to post about new simulations when they pop up?
Sim fans should be psyched someone's doing a modern-technology flight simulator, not dismissive of it. If we don't support the new guys, and support them enthusiastically, then we're dooming a hobby that's already on life support.</kidding!>