Tropical water

[DAD 2,650]

21 minutes ago, captain420 said:

I want to do PHTO-PHNL. Can you recommend another good Hawaii route?

Well, PHOG to PHHN will be mine now. Drove the Hana Hwy some years ago to Hana and back. Very scenic. Will check it now by plane. Will not take the neo, though, rather the TBM

[CFIJose 5,485]

24 minutes ago, captain420 said:

I want to do PHTO-PHNL. Can you recommend another good Hawaii route?

Direct. 😀

[Bosco19 198]

5 hours ago, peroni said:

For me it looks close enough, isn't this what you get when you fly up to the pinnacles?

OMG!  No that’s not what I get! Maybe it’s because I’m not using ultimate settings. With a setup that’s a bit under what most are running, I’m set to HIGH on most things for the sake of performance. I’ll have to move my sliders up and see if it makes a difference. I also have photogrammetry turned off. 

[peroni 541]

1 minute ago, Bosco19 said:

I also have photogrammetry turned off. 

I think that's your answer, turn that on and make sure bing map data is also on.

[Bosco19 198]

Roger that! Thanks

[mtr75 653]

On 12/10/2020 at 4:22 AM, AnkH said:

True, but can you start up the plane in 3rd person view in X-Plane? Can you really properly land a C172 in 3rd person view in X-Plane? The fact that a 3rd person view is available does not qualify a sim being arcade or not, sure, but the fact that you can basically control everything of the plane is. In MSFS, you simply auto complete the checklists and your plane is up and running, this is a typical arcade mode behaviour. 

Don't get me wrong, I do not find it bad, that this exists in MSFS as long as the "realistic" approach is also working. Combination of both is a great thing to achieve, but to me, currently MSFS failed to do both so they would have better concentrated on just one aspect. Not saying that this will be changed for the better in the near future, just the current state is not really well done...

I hate to wade into this, but your argument that this is an arcade game and not a simulator is truly preposterous. And I am by no means an MSFS word not allowed. I'm a real-world pilot, and I fly the 152 from cold and dark to cold and dark in the sim exactly as I fly it in real life. And it flies in the sim exactly like it flies in real life. I do absolutely everything manually, from changing radio and nav frequencies to sqwawk codes, to running checklists. The plane performs exactly as in real life. 

If you have a specific argument against anything I've said, I'm open to hear it. But you're honestly just being absolutely ridiculous. 

[Tuskin38 6,490]

19 hours ago, hanhamreds said:

Stop going on about client updates - it's streamed

Uh Asobo themselves said the latest patch updated water masks.

3 hours ago, Bosco19 said:

OMG!  No that’s not what I get! Maybe it’s because I’m not using ultimate settings. With a setup that’s a bit under what most are running, I’m set to HIGH on most things for the sake of performance. I’ll have to move my sliders up and see if it makes a difference. I also have photogrammetry turned off. 

You need to go into the market place and download the USA Free update. Those are hand crafted models from the world update, not photogrammetry.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Tuskin38

[cobalt 798]

On 12/10/2020 at 11:25 AM, AnkH said:

Missing water masks is not an opinion.

Correct, but saying that MSFS is "just another arcade game" IS an opinion. And a preposterous one, as a real-life pilot has said elsewhere in this thread!

[Bosco19 198]

I Have Preemy with all the free standard updates. Did some testing today. Photogrammetry does bring some improvement, at a slight cost in fps. And I was able to confirm water masks around Honolulu, where I ran a series of settings tests (will post another thread soon). My 2060 Super was purchased not long ago, and can run pretty much any title I might play - EXCEPT 2020, if I want eye candy too. Unfortunately, there are no cards available anywhere now, unless you want to step up into four figures (I don't). In a nut shell - I have found that I can recoup a bunch more visuals by sacrificing fps - trading down from an easy 30 to a range between 20-30, depending upon circumstances. The surprising thing, frankly, has been in discovering that flight handling and performance is a lot more acceptable than I would have thought, even at 20 fps. I'm doing more small tweaks now and experimenting with different factors to eke out more fps without dropping back noticeably to the graphics levels I had been flying with. Been asking questions such as - If I fly without glass panels can I recoup some fps? How much difference does flying different AC make? How much frame rate do I drop as I move through differing levels of ground detail? Just how far down the frame rate scale can I go before the flying becomes unacceptable and unenjoyable?