WHQL is the only place you'll find 'Microsoft' and 'Quality' in the same phrase.  And I make my living exclusively in Windows now.  I'm hoping now that they've cut Balmer's fat away they'll get back to whatever process they had before they started destroying themselves from the inside out.

However, I am puzzled how nVidia could get WHQL certified with their latest 340.52 driver

 

This is because it does not take these kind of bugs into account.. WHQL will only test compatibility with Windows and not applications or games as far as I know. A driver could wipe your HD if used with a certain game title [unlikely, extreme, hypothetical case] and it could still get WHQL certification, as that is not part of the testing procedure. Which is why I always find it odd some seem to have such a overreaction to using beta/unsigned drivers.

Looking forward for this update, maybe the release come next month

I've been lurking this very interesting thread. Some of you say it's not about FPS... While it is probably completely true, I still need at least 75fps for my future Oculus Rift 4k in a couple of years    B)

 

I'm kidding but it is also kind of true...  :(

WHQL is the only place you'll find 'Microsoft' and 'Quality' in the same phrase.  And I make my living exclusively in Windows now.  I'm hoping now that they've cut Balmer's fat away they'll get back to whatever process they had before they started destroying themselves from the inside out.

+101

Have they increased the LOD or allowed us to set it beyond 6.5 in the CFG?

Have they increased the LOD or allowed us to set it beyond 6.5 in the CFG?

 

My hopes are not high for this, however fingers are crossed.

Have they increased the LOD or allowed us to set it beyond 6.5 in the CFG?

 

I often wonder when I see this type of post -just what the poster is looking for. In all my years of flying IRL, I have RARELY seen CLEARLY all the way to the horizon. There is always a haze layer, even on a perfectly clear day.

 

Are you looking for something else then?

 

Vic

Have they increased the LOD or allowed us to set it beyond 6.5 in the CFG?

 

This is a common request, I have passed the feedback along.  But a high LOD RADIUS is a big source of OOMs so that is probably why it's capped at 6.5.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

EDIT: and given the number of people that were complaining about OOMs in P3D v2.x, LM are probably reluctant to change this.

I often wonder when I see this type of post -just what the poster is looking for. In all my years of flying IRL, I have RARELY seen CLEARLY all the way to the horizon. There is always a haze layer, even on a perfectly clear day.

 

Are you looking for something else then?

 

Vic

Idk on my monitor which is a 27" its easy to see the textures that aren't fully loaded in the distance like as in 4-5 miles. I fly IRL too and I can see detail for at least 10-15 miles thats all I want in the sim too

 

This is a common request, I have passed the feedback along.  But a high LOD RADIUS is a big source of OOMs so that is probably why it's capped at 6.5.

 

Cheers, Rob.

I understand that and leaving it that way in the menu is fine but changing the LOD in the .CFG seems to do nothing. The users who edit the CFG are well aware of the possibility of an OOM and if we get one will will just adjust the LOD to a more reasonable level I run mine at 9.5 in FSX and have never had an OOM.

I never exceeded a LOD radius of 4.5 in FSX on my old PC, and I was quite happy with that. Whilst terrain textures further away were slightly blurred, they were not exceedingly so, and the effect was negligible when viewed from the VC. I will probably experiment with 5.5 in P3D (assuming that I purchase it), but I can't see myself needing to go beyond that. Having suffered from OOMs frequently in FSX, I still can't understand how some people got away with 9.5! :huh:

 

 

The users who edit the CFG are well aware of the possibility of an OOM and if we get one will will just adjust the LOD to a more reasonable level

 

Maybe YOU are and a few others, but I can assure you there will be enough people that don't know what they are doing and will not take responsibility for their actions -- someone will show them what to change and then they will not understand why performance drops and they start getting OOMs -- and then it snowballs to LM support questions and bad press -- they "forget" they made these changes and say "it's a clean install", etc. etc. etc.  Sorry if I sound Jaded (and I am), but I see this scenario day after day after day after day.  So to avoid this, LM simply don't allow us to open Pandora's box.

 

But like I said, I've put in the request as part of my "job" (it's starting to feel like a job) because it is a common request and I pass those along regardless.  But just to be clear to folks, I don't get paid for this, I don't even get free software from LM (I pay for my P3D Pro Plus license just like others) ... reason I re-state this is because there have been several that think I'm employed by LM or at least get some "kickback" from LM ... I don't, nothing, nada, zippo ... and that's Ok ... it keeps me independent.

 

Cheers, Rob.

And that is why we here, respect/appreciate your opinion so much. Because you are just one of us, not some suit trying to

sell snake oil ;0)

 

  Jazz

^+1000. And I'd also like to add we're really glad you're the one representing our community to LM (with a knowledgeable and analytical head)... 

Appreciate your feedback on this forum Rob.

 

Despite getting a P3D refund because of the R6025 error I like to keep up-to-date with development. May purchase it again someday once all the issues are ironed out.

 

Cheers

 

Adam