Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DTG Martin

What options and settings do you want in DTG Flight Simulator? (Official Discussion)

Recommended Posts

 

 


Give us settings that we can change, but PLEASE get away from the need to tweak!

 

And that is the big question Silicus. What should these options be? How much control should players have over the way the sim looks and plays on their PC? Some of the best selling add-ons out there like Accu-feel and ASN allow simmers very detailed control over their experience. We went for a very simple set of options in DTG Flight School, and we got lots of feedback from players saying that we didn't include enough options. 

 

- Martin 

Share this post


Link to post

When I read this thread I just couldn't help feeling like going to the doctor and having him asking where I'd like him to make the cut, what to take out, what to replace and so on.

It's really simple. All efforts should be on improving the code, we need performance, lots of it. We need to be able to use addons without fps in the teens.

Any respectable game these days should hold at least 60 fps in any situation. A flight simulator if done right should have no problem with that.

Most of us I'm sure would like to access as many settings as possible, but the interface needs to be clear and well layed out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


We went for a very simple set of options in DTG Flight School, and we got lots of feedback from players saying that we didn't include enough options. 

 

I think that was largely because of FPS issues. People needed to be able to change individual settings like tree density, Cloud view distance and etc to adjust for the strengths and weaknesses of their individual machines.

 

Unfortunately not only did Flight School not appear to have enough granularity in that regard, but what was there was insufficiently documented on its exact effects within the game.

 

Left with insufficient control, people again resorted to the CFG.

 

A lot of that complaint should be easy to make go away. Take a look at the P3D's granularity and take a page from that.


We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i5 13600K @ 5.1GHz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series Ram 32GB / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING OC 12G Graphics Card / Sound Blaster Z / Meta Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 1x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 2x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB /  1x Samsung - 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe /  1x Samsung 980 NVMe 1TB / 2 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX Motherboard LGA 1700 DDR5

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


When I read this thread I just couldn't help feeling like going to the doctor and having him asking where I'd like him to make the cut, what to take out, what to replace and so on.

 

To be fair, Peter, I don't think that's quite the right analogy. If you went to the doctor, he would ask you quite detailed questions about your symptoms and ailments before then making a decision about what to do to treat it (and even then, he may lay out some options for you if there are a number of possibilities).

 

What you're suggesting is more like walking in to the GP's surgery, immediately being put under general anaesthetic and waking up later to find that he'd decided to amputate your hand even though you didn't think there was a problem...

 

In answer to Martin's question -- I think the posters above have mainly nailed it. People want, largely, two things: "improvability" (by being able to easily add replacement texture sets, weather engines that allow for more realistic depiction of conditions than could reasonably be achieved by a team working on an entire simulator and not just weather depiction) and the ability to adjust the graphics settings with enough of a degree of granularity that it's possible to obtain sufficient performance whilst also retaining the visual features that are important to that individual player -- and that's something that you will never get the community to agree on. Some people take the view that it is a "flight" simulator, not an "airport" simulator and would be perfectly happy with generic wireframe buildings a la FS5 if it meant they had good, fluid performance throughout: others like the immersion of a highly detailed 3D environment with enormous textures, piles of autogen and exquisitely-modelled cities and landscapes, and don't mind accepting a bit of a performance hit if that's what it takes.

 

The majority, of course, lie someone on the scale between those two extremes and what MSFS has done fairly well over the years is provide the framework for both sides to be reasonably happy. So you can remove road traffic, but retain trees, for instance: or you can cut back on the autogen and still retain highly-detailed add-on airports - and so on.

 

There will always be those who just love to fiddle for the sake of fiddling, but I think most people indulge in tweaking in search of obtaining the greatest performance increase with the minimum overall apparent loss of graphical complexity, and if someone claims that changing setting "X" in FSX.cfg gives you a "Y" FPS boost with no obvious loss of fidelity then people will give it a go (especially if they are running marginal systems). So, broadly -- the more options that are available in the GUI, the better I would say -- I think the current FSX layout of having four (or however many it is!) "main" sliders where you can adjust scenery/aircraft/weather/graphics complexity, but then being able to click a button access much more detailed settings for each category, is a good compromise between simplicity and flexibility.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
To be fair, Peter, I don't think that's quite the right analogy. If you went to the doctor, he would ask you quite detailed questions about your symptoms and ailments before then making a decision about what to do to treat it (and even then, he may lay out some options for you if there are a number of possibilities).
 
What you're suggesting is more like walking in to the GP's surgery, immediately being put under general anaesthetic and waking up later to find that he'd decided to amputate your hand even though you didn't think there was a problem...
Spot on!

 

 

We want you all to be part of the development process. If you have some other ideas about how we should do this then we would love to hear them.

I strongly support this attitude!!!

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


And what would those settings be jymp?
I'm no software developer but I would assume it would be in the graphics settings, maybe DTG could work closely with Nvidia and ATI to achieve this ?, I see race sims such as iRacing, Assetto Corsa and Project Cars with outstanding graphics, no shimmering, no jaggies with smooth frame rates, however I am aware you are working with dated tech with the FSX engine, but then again Microsoft Flight did run smooth and looked great, 

Share this post


Link to post

rather than options. i would like just 2 basic options.
1. simulator presets: this will based on user hardware configuration
2.advance settings: which user can use for further tweaking.if u ask what settings to be exact. i say combine fsx+p3d+xplane 10.when u combine them all there is logically nothing left to customize.

& frankly speaking i don't think anyone complained about GUI or settings in the simulator.bcoz all we do is flying. not tweaking the with the settings all day long.
what we really expect from u give us a 64 bit fsx(literally) or if u can't do 64 bit just make sure no matter what user do there will be no OOM & user friendly fps.say if any user have intel x series cpu with latest gpu like 1080 he/she should be able to fly with maxed settings with all those complex addons like pmdg,asn,flytampa scenery,orbx with vector!!!!! @60fps. deliver us that & we will be just more than happy.

Share this post


Link to post

RVxSpeed, on 28 Jul 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

 

rather than options. i would like just 2 basic options.

1. simulator presets: this will based on user hardware configuration

2.advance settings: which user can use for further tweaking.if u ask what settings to be exact. i say combine fsx+p3d+xplane 10.when u combine them all there is logically nothing left to customize.

 

& frankly speaking i don't think anyone complained about GUI or settings in the simulator.bcoz all we do is flying. not tweaking the with the settings all day long.

what we really expect from u give us a 64 bit fsx(literally) or if u can't do 64 bit just make sure no matter what user do there will be no OOM & user friendly fps.say if any user have intel x series cpu with latest gpu like 1080 he/she should be able to fly with maxed settings with all those complex addons like pmdg,asn,flytampa scenery,orbx with vector!!!!! @60fps. deliver us that & we will be just more than happy.

They already did the 64Bits part, look at flight school. No ooms anymore.

 

 

On topic:

 

I would like to see:

- Vsync: Adptive, Half Adaptive etc.

- Anti Aliasing options. SMAA, FXAA SGSSAA etc.

- Buildings and trees density sliders.

-Texture Resolution Slider

-Slider for the Air traffic, road traffic, sea traffic.

-Sliders for options like brightness, gamma and colors in general.

-Sliders for Shadows (cloud shadows, cockpit shadows, general shadows).

 

 

For sure there are other things I would like too see, but only those come to my mind right now.

 

The most important thing now is to improve Graphics and Performance, this way we can have immersion. Looking to Flight School, I see lots of room to improve it graphically (Shadows, Colors, Clouds, Textures Blending with autogen etc.), on the other hand, The aircrafts are amazing, they look really nice, you did a great job on those.

 

And Please Martin keep the good work.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 


Most of us I'm sure would like to access as many settings as possible, but the interface needs to be clear and well layed out.

 

And what exactly these "many settings" are and how exactly they are "layed out." is why we are here asking questions neumanix

 

- Martin 


 

 


there was insufficiently documented on its exact effects within the game.

 

This is an interesting point. How do you all feel about the way things are documented in terms of settings? In an ideal world how would you like these things explained? In the GUI, in the manual? In a separate guide? 

 

- Martin 


 

 


if u ask what settings to be exact. i say combine fsx+p3d+xplane 10.when u combine them all there is logically nothing left to customize.

 

This is another great point. What options and settings do people like from the various simulators available? What does each one do well? What does each one do terribly? 

 

- Martin 

Share this post


Link to post

what we really expect from u give us a 64 bit fsx(literally) or if u can't do 64 bit just make sure no matter what user do there will be no OOM & user friendly fps.say if any user have intel x series cpu with latest gpu like 1080 he/she should be able to fly with maxed settings with all those complex addons like pmdg,asn,flytampa scenery,orbx with vector!!!!! @60fps. deliver us that & we will be just more than happy.

 

At risk of wandering off-topic, I've seen this sort of thing mentioned a few times and I really think we need to be realistic.

 

A flight simulator is a complex piece of software. You are expecting something to render the entire world in 3D, with a high level of detail and at much higher speeds (consider the speed of an aircraft across the simulated world compared to a human or even a racing car, and then consider time acceleration etc on top of that) than other comparable games, most of which have very limited worlds and much less freedom both to move around and to modify.

 

Whilst all this is happening, the CPU also has to perform complex fluid dynamics calculations in three dimensions in real time. There's a reason why CFD labs are often equipped with supercomputers, and why historically MSFS was used as a benchmark for PC (and CPU) performance - it's not trivial!

 

Add to that the fact that any addon developer who develops a scenery etc and sees that everybody can run it maxed out at 60fps will see that as headroom to play with in order to add even more detail. It is just human nature, and the nature of computer software development. However efficient you make the engine, the developers will simply expand their products to fit the performance available and then push for a bit more on top. That's why it's important to be have suitably granular graphics settings options in order to customise the performance do each user can get the most possible out of their individual system, and I applaud DTG for seeking views on it.

 

Sure, let's shoot for the stars and if DTG are able to give us a sim that delivers what you're suggesting then great - all power to their elbow. But if you're expecting that sort of performance, then I think you may be setting yourself up for a disappointment.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

One more thing, Martin. It's important to have a dialogue with developers so that the sim can incorporate a number of standards in order to prevent crashes, installation, or performance issues. Also, it does not make sense to reinvent the wheel. Take, ATC, for example. Let's assume that currently there are 3 good ATC developers already knowledgeable with ATC. The sim would be better off creating a partnership with all three and provide special discounts to these addons rather than incorporating an ATC that may distract from the core sim and its on going needed code improvements.

Standards and partnerships may ultimately create a stronger, more complete and high performing sim than going at it alone.

tony

Share this post


Link to post

At risk of wandering off-topic, I've seen this sort of thing mentioned a few times and I really think we need to be realistic.

 

A flight simulator is a complex piece of software. You are expecting something to render the entire world in 3D, with a high level of detail and at much higher speeds (consider the speed of an aircraft across the simulated world compared to a human or even a racing car, and then consider time acceleration etc on top of that) than other comparable games, most of which have very limited worlds and much less freedom both to move around and to modify.

 

Whilst all this is happening, the CPU also has to perform complex fluid dynamics calculations in three dimensions in real time. There's a reason why CFD labs are often equipped with supercomputers, and why historically MSFS was used as a benchmark for PC (and CPU) performance - it's not trivial!

 

Add to that the fact that any addon developer who develops a scenery etc and sees that everybody can run it maxed out at 60fps will see that as headroom to play with in order to add even more detail. It is just human nature, and the nature of computer software development. However efficient you make the engine, the developers will simply expand their products to fit the performance available and then push for a bit more on top. That's why it's important to be have suitably granular graphics settings options in order to customise the performance do each user can get the most possible out of their individual system, and I applaud DTG for seeking views on it.

 

Sure, let's shoot for the stars and if DTG are able to give us a sim that delivers what you're suggesting then great - all power to their elbow. But if you're expecting that sort of performance, then I think you may be setting yourself up for a disappointment.

i am a developer myself.i understand the limitation & complexity of a simulator like fsx,p3d or even x plane 10.but, the thing is the developer is asking the user about their upcoming simulator.we are just giving them what we expect.plain & simple.now if u say we r asking too much from the devs.maybe at some point yes. but,that is at the end of the an user expectation.the developer target will be to complete the user expectation or try to come as close as possible.another issue is which the developer already solved that the need of a 64 bit simulator.if we can get pass that 4GB vas barrier there will be more than enough headroom to play with.

if u want an example i will give u two distinct example of already developed game which uses full use of modern hardware.

first one is euro truck simulator 2.i loved the way they used it.i can max it with my gtx 980 ti still get 60fps with vsync enable so no tearing at all & the simulator is butter smooth. that is with maxed out settings & it's incredibly detailed for a truck simulator. the graphics is not that good.but,there are mods out there to make it look better.even with those enables u can never ever get below 60fps.

the 2nd example is not from a simulator but a sandbox game & it's called GTA V.this games level of details,the visibility range & the size of the world is amazing.still average pc games can enjoy 30fps with medium class h/w.

so,my question to u.is it really that much to ask to the devs that deliver us a product which we can run at maxed settings with all our beloved addons & still maintain a reasonable min 30 to max 60 fps? i mean it's 2016.i don't think it's that much too ask.even if they fail in the end.we won't complain.if they come closer to accomplish that ,that will be one their best achievement which will put them ahead of any other simulator that is currently existence in the marketplace.& we already + to the devs for finally getting rid of 32 bit.

Share this post


Link to post

 

This is an interesting point. How do you all feel about the way things are documented in terms of settings? In an ideal world how would you like these things explained? In the GUI, in the manual? In a separate guide? 

 

 

Do it with the GUI using mouseover pop-up text that explains each setting. No need to refer to a manual, and the info is right there where the user is about to change something. That's how X-Plane does it. Here are two examples from the Rendering Options menu:

 

1) There is a setting called "Runway and taxiway smoothness and lighting" that includes settings for Low, Default, High, and Extreme (I use Default). Without any extra info I wouldn't know what that meant. So, when hovering the mouse cursor over the setting, I get a popup that says the following:

 
This option adds little bits of detail in many different places. It looks good but needs a fast computer! This does things like draw the details of each runway light, and add little bits of detail in many other areas as well.
 
2) There is another setting (very important) called Texture Resolution, with settings of Minimal, Low, Normal, High, Very High, and Extreme Res (I use Very High). Here's what the popup says when I hover over it:
 
The higher you set this, the more VRAM you will need. After re-starting X-Plane, check the VRAM requirement at the bottom of the screen to see how much VRAM is required.
 
And then right there at the bottom of the Rendering Options screen is a panel that shows the name of my current video card and the current video driver version, and at the very bottom is a line that says:
 
Total size of all loaded textures at current settings: XXX.XX meg
 
That's very valuable feedback on how much headroom I have for making adjustments. The use of mouseover pop-ups keeps the screen uncluttered, because you only need the name of each setting, and not a full description.
 
 
  • Upvote 1

X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator on Windows 10 
i7 6700 4.0 GHz, 32 GB RAM, GTX 1660 ti, 1920x1200 monitor

Share this post


Link to post

What was said by Paraffin was pretty much where I would have gone with that question. I would only reiterate the point about granularity. In X-plane I can choose more or less trees, More or less buildings, shadows or not, large or small textures etc, and there are several choices for each, allowing me to make the compromises between speed and eye candy based on my own priorities and the capabilities of my machine.

 

And those choices are not only granular (maybe at times too much so, but then that's what an advanced tab is for) they are also clearly explained.

 

Honestly my guess would be that DTG already knows all of this. The GUI for trainsim gives plenty of choices.


We are all connected..... To each other, biologically...... To the Earth, chemically...... To the rest of the Universe atomically.
 
Devons rig
Intel Core i5 13600K @ 5.1GHz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series Ram 32GB / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING OC 12G Graphics Card / Sound Blaster Z / Meta Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 1x Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB / 2x Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB /  1x Samsung - 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe /  1x Samsung 980 NVMe 1TB / 2 other regular hd's with up to 10 terabyte capacity / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX Motherboard LGA 1700 DDR5

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the negative reactions to this type of question. How is Martin supposed to know if he doesn't ask? Would people prefer they don't do any community outreach?

 

 

 


Unless you are a nerd, you don't want to tweak. People want to fly. Not tweak.

 

A lot of flight simmers are nerds (some may not want to admit it :smile: ). Tweaking can be part of how people explore the inner workings of the sim, which is interesting stuff for some hobbyists.

 

I sometimes refer to these settings (eg. the bufferpools/rejectthreshold settings) as "nerd knobs". I agree that it should not be a requirement to dig into them, but I'd like to have information available about how the sim works and be able to understand how to tune it if I decide that I want to.


 

 


We went for a very simple set of options in DTG Flight School, and we got lots of feedback from players saying that we didn't include enough options

 

The problem with Flight School is that moving the scenery slider left turns down a swath of settings, some of which didn't actually affect FPS but greatly degraded visual quality. For example, you move the slider left because autogen is too high, but then it also turns down the texture quality. Autogen has a huge performace and stability impact, texture quality does not but it degrades visuals. The traffic settings had a similar issue.

 

I don't know what the perfect answer is but I found Flight School settings to be a very poor solution.

  • Upvote 1

Barry Friedman

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...