So I guess dynamic lighting actually hasn’t been addressed?

Mike

59 minutes ago, Joseph29 said:

I started with P3D v4, and when 4.1 came out I uninstalled v4 and then installed 4.1. Now when I did that I didn't have much of anything installed. Now that I have some add-ons installed and a lot of AI, how do I go about updating to 4.2?

 It's no different than from 4.0 to 4.1 was also previous to that with V3. Uninstall the Client and if you want the content as well, then install the new Client and content. It's in the release notes, not to mentions Poppet's fantastic tutorials.

28 minutes ago, mikeymike said:

So I guess dynamic lighting actually hasn’t been addressed?

Mike

 

  Addressed in how? Dynamic lighting is going to come at some cost. Again, in the release notes, they said "Improved Dynamic Lighting performance by filtering lights based on distance and size".  

 

 

 

167 replies on some minor changes?  Has anyone checked the DL?  Is perf better?

4 hours ago, joepoway said:

Here’s a response thread I got from my post on the Prepar3D forum:

P3Dv4.2  Single Pass Rendering Question

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6306&t=128467&p=174837#p174837

things are looking very positive for the future of VR take a look .

Joe

Yes. I found that the Single Pass Rendering is great. It still has the depth that dual mode has and doubled my FPS. Happy camper :)

15 minutes ago, Riah069 said:

Yes. I found that the Single Pass Rendering is great. It still has the depth that dual mode has and doubled my FPS. Happy camper :)

Good to hear, I assume it’s still stereo but done in a single pass and that’s why depth is still fine. LM was going to make the single pass default but there are some AMD issues to be resolved so for now it’s optional.

Thanks for the feedback on performance

Joe

Any comments regarding non-VR performance gains in 4.2? Autogen pop-up issues? slow loading textures/Autogen?.

So far the only thing that draws my attention is the fix for the add-on xml texture corruption bug and the timezones issues.

If there were any enhancements in things such as improving stutters, significant DL performance gains or the Autogen popping up issue, I believe we'd know by now, I'm afraid.

Thanks Dave I just updated to v4.2 (I updated everything). Tried to fly the new CH-53, but I did something wrong and the engines stopped before I could even get it off the ground. Now I have to find and see if there is a instruction manual for it. Beside the new helicopters I didn't really notice any of the new changes.

PS: Why don't LM include pilots with the Blackhawk MH and the new Seahawk? They look a little weird in spot view with no pilots.

6 hours ago, Drumcode said:

@simbol I hope you got what's needed for ya in the SDK to complete the runway utility now? 

Haha, not all but some.

Simbol 

I also get a very good boost when using the single pass rendering! Could not notice any obvious visual differences when switching to default stereo either.

As I am eagerly waiting for my Odissey to arrive, I would appreciate if anyone with a WMR device could give some feedback on how it performs on 4.2.

Thanks 

At the moment I am getting a weird custom autogen issue wit  single pass stereo on Rift . Have not looked in to it yet so could be something with my scenery order seen it at aerosoft egll and egkk . Move your head a bit of cutom autogen looms at you ie ship , bridge power station . Switch to normal stereo all is well but performance drop. Will do some fault finding soon but would be interested to see if anyone else has seen/solved this .

On a plus note,  up to now have never been able to use stereo mode before its great now even at low FPS.

9 hours ago, virtuali said:

I'm not sure why you think Couatl it's not compatible "as usual"...

First, Couatl was never tied to the precise version of the sim. It wasn't even affected by the move to 64 bit. Being an external .EXE and a fully compliant Simconnect client, is what saves the Couatl engine from being dependent on the version of the sim, and the one and only Couatl executable, can happily connect to FSX+SP2, FSX:SE, P3D 1, 2, 3 and 4.

If anything, it was our Addon Manager that, as a .DLL, used to be dependent on the exact version of the sim, because it used to peek in memory to get data which wasn't otherwise available by other means.

However, since more than one year, this is no longer the case, because LM has added the things we missed to be retrievable without using direct memory access so, starting with some version around P3D 3.x, even the Addon Manager is no longer version-dependent, the only difference (being a .DLL) it's if the sim it's 32 or 64 bit.

So, as far as FSDT is concerned, the requirements or the steps to update to P3D 4.2 are exactly None and, thanks to our usage of the add-on.xml method and our default install location outside the sim, you can even wipe out your existing P3D4 installation, and it wouldn't affect our software in any way, which will still stay installed and active.

In fact, P3D 4.2 fixes what was the most annoying bug for us, which was the random disappearance of textures when many addons were installed using the add-on.xml, introduced with 4.1 so, it would be best if anybody would update to it as soon as possible.

I don't get it why you get so upset when somebody mentiones couatl engine. My post was not directed to you personally or offending your work. Cheers

8 hours ago, Farlis said:

So you think it is fine to have a professional simulation product out in 2018 that uses a database from 2003 for Navaids, Intersections and Airport layouts and leave the updating of that to third party companies?!

Yes.  Because third parties generally do a better job of it .

Think about what you are saying.  Take a look at the default aircraft offered in the sim.  Do you think that represents a professional simulation product in 2018?  If your answer is 'yes', then I have no words....   If you have answered 'no' then I assume you have also spent vasts amounts of money on third party aircraft.  What, therefore, is the difference?

What Lockheed M have made perfectly clear a long time ago is that they want to create a stable platform into which third parties can plug-in, add to, enhance and build on.    Personally, that is what I always wanted Microsoft to do (wishful thinking) and that is what I wanted LM to offer - and they have.    I accepted a long time ago that the cost of flightsimming will far exceed the initial cost of a good computer and the base sim.   

P3D without addons is pretty useless.  If that's all we had, I'd have given up on simming a long time ago.

 

 

 

Anyone tried FSUIPC v5.123.b  , so not v5.123.c which causes stutters ?

http://forum.simflight.com/topic/84933-prepar3d-v42-simconnect-and-fsuipc-5123c/?do=findComment&comment=513549

7 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Isn't that the industry norm now? AIRACs change less than monthly. Do you expect everyone writing flight sim software to provide that service for free?

This may apply to the navaids. I don't know anyone providing upgraded runways/taxiways for the default airports, Freeware or Payware, yet. So you may end up using an up-to-date ILS pointing nowhere visually.

I agree to LM's strategy of feeling responsible for the core simulator, however, in my small mind the default airports + navaids belong to the core. The update workload for LM as well as addon makers would be much lower if they put all those data into a database instead of hardcoding them into the bgls. Providing such a database would clearly fall into the responsibility of LM.

I wouldn't require them to update that database for every point release but, say, for the major versions.  Anyone requiring and wanting to pay for a monthly updated navaids + default airports database subscription may do so.

Anyway, such a switch to a database itself is certainly not suited for a point release as it would make a host of  (AI, ATC, Flight Planning...) addons incompatible.

Kind regards, Michael

12 hours ago, kand said:

Use this version of FSUIPC with 4.2, no issues with the pausing until Pete returns

What perplexes me, is that LM are still happily reliant on an independent third party developer to keep most of our addons running. They must surely pay the good man a retainer fee for this.  

Why have they not developed their own module which does the same thing inherently?  If Pete (bless his soul) was eaten by a Great White shark while paddling in the ocean on one of his many holidays, we'd all be screwed.