I am in 'Sim Heaven'....that's all I can say....

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I have XPX.35 final crammed to the gill slits (as you have seen...) with fabulous 3rdP scenery.

I have my hangar crammed with the GA and tubes...

 

and I have a constant 30 FPS, with absolutely NO animation stutter of any kind, macro, or micro.  The only two sims that gives me this...is FS9 and XPX.  You can't get rid of stutter, no matter how much horsepower you throw at FSX.X or P3D.x  If your plane is in motion...you will get stutter of some kind.

 

On the flight above beautiful parts of Tennessee today....the clouds are moving past as in real life.  The plane is handling as it would in real life, smoothly through all planes of animation. Today, I am in truly, 'sim heaven'.  I'm not riding on rails, folks...I'm floating upon the winds.....   Wow...wow...

 

1  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/dRn

 

2  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/dR1

 

3  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/dRE

 

4  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/dRs

 

5  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/dRw

 

6  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/dRz

 

7  http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/dR4

 

XP is sweet...as all you folks already know..., so jes preachin' to the choir, lol:

 

http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/image/dRj

 

[CaptCWGAllen 49]

Fabulous pics Mitch - and yes it really is a sweet sim - can't put it down

 

cheers

Peter.

[scotchegg 4,158]

Love the infectious enthusiasm but dude, when are you going to learn to embed your screenshots?!

[ryanbatc 12,770]

Love the infectious enthusiasm but dude, when are you going to learn to embed your screenshots?!

 

Was just thinking this hehe...  Oh look... it's just that simple....  scroll down below your pics where it says "About" and "Embed Codes"  Click Embed codes...  Scroll down to the first instance of BCCode...  mouse click that line, Ctrl+C, and paste here, voila!

 

[mdavis 10]

The main argument against embedded screenshots, especially when there are 8 or 10 of them, is that those of us on slow connections take the page too long to load.

[ryanbatc 12,770]

So penalize the majority?  I find it annoying to click individual links to look at someone's shots.

 

But since this isn't the screenshot forum there probably shouldn't be pics/links anyway.

[scotchegg 4,158]

I can vaguely remember how annoying loading times are and that's a good point if you don't have a good connection.

 

OTOH it does mean I just never bother to look at exactly why Mitch is so excited...

[deetee 164]

Mea culpa, I rarely bother clicking image links or tiny thumbnails, so if it ain't embedded I'm usually too lazy to look. The guy still on 56k probably won't bother either, so why lose sleep?

[tonywob 4,768]

Postimage is a great site to use for posting on Avsim. I use it all the time to embed images in posts, etc.. For larger screenshots, it's often better to do Mitch's approach, but try and organise them into a gallery, so you open one and then can click through the rest of them. Otherwise, people aren't going to bother, which is a shame.

[deetee 164]

Just as a test, here is an old screenshot of mine.

I didn't need to embed anything, just clicked the little "Image" button and pasted the URL.

 

[Humpty 751]

I use fsfiles. Yeah it does take a little time to upload. But what I do is I convert it to a jpg so the file is size smaller.

[tonywob 4,768]

Nice pic Dave. When embedding images on the forum also try to compress them directly jpegs so they load faster for people with slower connections (including me, who is stuck with a rubbish connection :-). 

[mdavis 10]

My comment wasn't a complaint, just a suggestion.  I have a relatively slow DSL line (250 kb/s) which is the best I can buy in my rural U.S. location.  Those of you who enjoy fast broadband forget how it used to be.  Heck, I started with an old Atari 800 with 800K of RAM (that's "K", not "M" or "G") and a U.S. Robotics 300 b/s modem on Compuserve.

 

Many of these screenshots are displayed at the wrong resolution or image size.  If you capture an image at your monitor's default resolution and then smash it down with JPG compression, then display it at the original size, it becomes fuzzy and pixellated, so a large sized image is a waste of bandwidth. 
 

And, @tonywob, is there a recommended size and resolution preferred by Avsim for display of these screenshots?  I think there should be a guideline or at least a recommendation.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Many of these screenshots are displayed at the wrong resolution or image size.  If you capture an image at your monitor's default resolution and then smash it down with JPG compression, then display it at the original size, it becomes fuzzy and pixellated, so a large sized image is a waste of bandwidth. 

 

second quote:

Love the infectious enthusiasm but dude, when are you going to learn to embed your screenshots?! 

 

third quote:

 

So penalize the majority?  I find it annoying to click individual links to look at someone's shots.

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

Here's the problem, at least the way that I see it, and prefer to only have a link to a pic, is that if you are going to represent (or try to...) that wonderful still shot of what is prompting you to take the time to snap, process, and upload that visual gem....is that by doing anything to reduce, process, meet the size restriction requirements of the site you wish people to see it from or are posting from, you are reducing the visual quality, sharpness, acuity...whatever, of that scene upon your monitor. I for one, would rather see a screen-grab as little processed, size-diminished, pixel-reduced, squashed, compressed....and would wish to see it as close to the actual screen-rez, and screen quality output that the poster had happening upon his/her, her/his screen at the moment they captured it.  

 

Others might not too much care about the actual end result...but merely wish to see in general what you are posting about....if the subject also includes a pictorial representation. I feel that keeping the picture as close as possible to the original screen output upon your monitor, and original-generation faithfulness/fidelity, to be of the utmost and vital metric.

 

So...my M.O. is to compress/process...ONLY down to the bare minimum required to be accepted for upload to the hosting site...and that also, with AVSIM having a 20 limit picture number for any post, having a link, ONLY within a post is not a picture, it is only code, no more then what you are reading here as typing, and is NOT a picture that is embedded for instant view that starts the picture restriction counter, and most likely,moderation coming into play upon your post.  It takes a user an active action to view my grabs, and by the way I see it....if someone takes the three seconds to have the pic appear upon their screen, then they are truly interested in what you took the time to bring to their attention, and will not have an issue with taking that action, and the few seconds to have it come up upon their monitors.

 

I know that some of you (already within this thread) would not agree with my M.O., and that is perfectly fine, and that you like to embed a pic as your M.O., is also most perfectly fine. We all approach posting, and screen grabs, from different meet's-needs....and so, I might also include embedding to the bag of tricks as well in future postings having pictorial content, but, I still like links, that takes up no download resources, especially when you are viewing from 3G or 4G mobile phone accounts upon your phone, tablet, what-have-you, on the go...and have to wait for the embedded screen grabs to resolve themselves, and eat up bandwidth limits.  Having only a line (clickable link) for each picture, gives the user a choice, whether to only read the post, or to also take the action to view the pictures the post is referencing.

 

We all do things differently guys....and for our own reasons to to so.  I shared with you, the reasons and feelings of why I prefer to only use a small text link to represent a screen grab, until you might decide because of reader-interest, to see it a mere, few seconds later in your browser window.

 

Cheers,

 

Mitch'er

Fabulous pics Mitch - and yes it really is a sweet sim - can't put it down

 

cheers

Peter.

Thanks, Peter.  I run them all, each day in fact, but truly XPX.35 is the one that is drawing my user-time, more and more.  There are times within a flight, over terrain, or passing through sky metrics, that simply has me pause the flight...and enjoy how close to real world depiction, it actually is. Using the LUA haze/scripts, can be breathtaking, when viewing the screen output. I feel that no other sim at this time, can match the HDR algorithms and visual effects, that Laminar Research has been able to render/achieve.  Night ops, are simply stunning, with your aircraft lighting systems, actually illuminating the objects of the airports.....OMG...is one feature ALONE, that would have me purchasing this wonderful flight sim. I can't tell you how many times, at taxi...and lighting up the other aircraft, the support vehicles...the WALLS of the buildings, that my taxi lights touch to infinity....my landing lights bringing the surface of the approaching runway to view...all of it...that just locks and loads, realism into the 'chamber' of the eye and mind.  I can think of no other sim that can portray world-reality, at the time of day that covers what we call Dusk or Dawn. When you are between night, releasing, and giving into day, or the opposite. It is stunning, simply rock-solid stunning to view, ...and to be lucky enough to view upon a home computer system!

 

When the XP franchise gets a working ATC module, much as we have in the M.S. based franchise, as well as the A.I. side of things....then it will be the sim that others are judged by, as a baseline. That is my take on the XP franchise.  When the two above happens...look-out....watch out for the stampede to happen, and at 64 bit, no less! Until those two 'modules' come into play,..... to not have the fabulous abilities as they are (at present) in XPX.35,... NOT upon your monitor...would be a shame, if those two 'modules' is all that is holding a prospective and inquisitive purchaser back, coming from the M.S. side of things. Those two XP-weaker links (at present in XPX.35 release) of the flight simulation world is not a good reason to 'throw the baby, out with the bathwater....'

 

 Nope...

 

Mitch