55 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Sadly this plane is an absolute VRAM killer. Starting up at T2G VHHH, I am already at 8.6GB of VRAM. Simply ridiculous...

Has it ever caused a crash? just curious.

I have flown this plane all over the world, hundreds of hours and never once had a CTD. And I only have 8gigs of Vram.

1 hour ago, TurboKen said:

Has it ever caused a crash? just curious.

I have flown this plane all over the world, hundreds of hours and never once had a CTD. And I only have 8gigs of Vram.

VRAM wasn't an issue in v4.. it is in v5

Is the VRAM issue related to reallight and Trueglass?

Could somebody please confirm if this is the case?

Excellent update!

I'm happy with the update.  But the smooth scrolling altitude and speed ticker isn't constant.  At takeoff it felt much better.  But in other aspects of flight it still bounces around.  It's a small thing, but an annoying thing   I really don't know why they can't just recode it completely.  

This is what Lars has to say concerning the DU refresh rate.

“ Mroberts95 wrote:

Sorry to ask so soon. Are refresh rates of screens locked to 18FPS still or have they been increased to something like 30FPS?

 

Thanks,

We have spent quite some time looking into this issue.

The refresh rates have never been locked at 18 FPS.

In fact we have seen refresh rates of up to 36 FPS during our testing. Nevertheless some of the movements appeared somewhat stuttery.

We have made improvements to this and rolling digits on the altitude and speedtapes now move more fluently.

The same applies to the FPV and FD on the HUD.

However, we also noticed that sometimes during our testing the refresh rates dropped for no obvious reason.

One factor which contributes to this are the high resolution gauges.

So if you experience very bad refresh rates on the gauges while using the high resolution gauges, please try to use the standard ones and see if that makes a difference.

At any rate we're looking into this but please understand that it's not a simple increase of a limit we hardcoded.

If it was that easy we would have fixed it a year ago already.

 

Thanks,

Lars “

4 hours ago, AnkH said:

Sadly this plane is an absolute VRAM killer. Starting up at T2G VHHH, I am already at 8.6GB of VRAM. Simply ridiculous...

I'm seeing so many reports of VRAM  and Device_hung issues in P3Dv5, I can't see how this can be pinned on any single addon product. 

Myself I get a fairly consistent 6.7 with my GTX 1080 with the QW787.

is all liveries up to v5 standards in download section?

Thanks Michael Moe

10 hours ago, ttbq1 said:

I can confirm that the line is moving with the airplane

Bugger - was hoping they would fix that. Ah well... maybe something for the next one.

12 minutes ago, silentghostx said:

Bugger - was hoping they would fix that. Ah well... maybe something for the next one.

There are two lines:

the horizon line doesn’t move with the ac, it stays flat as the horizon

the other line (dotted line) is moving when the aircraft banks 

VRAM issue with an update to Windows 10 2004 resolved. Happy camper now.

Well, its a great looking aircraft inside and out but sadly it has lots of faults. As much as I like it its just not up there, no even close sadly. Back in the hanger it goes 😞 I find it funny that these type of aircraft do things wrong, imo I want to know if somethings wrong its me not how these things are programmed or show there short coming. Does look great even so.

54 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

As much as I like it its just not up there, no even close sadly

It depends what you are comparing it against.

At its price point, it wins hands-down against all the other twin-engine longhaulers, IMO.

Without turning this into a bashfest, you can go more expensive and get more detailed flight systems modelling or you can pay a similar price and end-up with either just one model or even just one engine variant.
The amount of features and models it is packaged with, combined with continual improvements, makes it the best value-for-money option.

Well first of all I was not bashing it.

Secondly, I wish it was better that it is, because it’s so good in some ways.

Thirdly, It has nothing to do with price to me. It does a lot of basic things badly and it’s a shame because it could be so good. 
 

A could buy a pair of shoes for £xx and a week later thrown them away, but hey for £xx there the best value for money option!!!

But let’s forget the shoes come with holes in them and my feet got wet from day one. But if I had spent double/triple the price they would be close to perfect and never let water in and last me years. That’s value for money.

My totally hours in the QW 15 total hours in a FSL 2300, now do the math for value for money. One will get a lot more one will get none sadly, because if I have 3 hours spare there is one clear winner on what to spend that time in.

So the bottom line is I really wish it was better because there is much I like but it has so much wrong I don’t care about that it might be “value for money”.

I wish It was better. I really do. Because I love the aircraft. 

 

Edited May 21, 20206 yr by Nyxx

I really like QW787, I am not a real pilot so I really don´t have to much to compare if the aircraft is accurately simulated or not. But I find it really fun and enjoyable, for example landing in FSDT KJFK 13L via COVIR after crossing DDNY City Manhattan using only the HUD and not having a performance impact is really great nowadays. I know it has some flaws with the VNAV behavior, but nothing really major, actually I spend some time checking that it will cross the waypoint at the defined altitude.

But, I besides that I would really like to know which are those things badly done?

Also, for the price you are getting 3 models with 2 engine variants each, and the modeling is really good to be honest.

Edited May 21, 20206 yr by ttbq1