5 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

Right now I'm dealing with a bug where lights don't show up at arrival airports. This sim is bad, bad, bad. I don't know if MSFS is the answer but I hope eventually it provides an alternate platform for the add-ons I use.

I have DL when I arrive, but what the issue is (of many with the night lighting as a whole) is that they are so dim as to be almost useless. 

6 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

That is putting it nicely.. 😉

This whole topic is just:  Complain, Complain, Complain..

Reminds me of a short paragraph from one of my favorite authors.

"Those guys that made it back from WWII, they never talk about it. Nothing seems to bother them."

What he's saying here is those guys knew how bad it could be.

Wind the clock back a short 10-15 years ago in flight simmimg.

Nothing in this thread bothers me.

Cheers,

Mark

3 hours ago, newtie said:

Reminds me of a short paragraph from one of my favorite authors.

"Those guys that made it back from WWII, they never talk about it. Nothing seems to bother them."

What he's saying here is those guys knew how bad it could be.

Wind the clock back a short 10-15 years ago in flight simmimg.

Nothing in this thread bothers me.

Cheers,

Mark

Yes I know. Bad those guys do never change the world and bring no new tech stuff. So if we follow that one, we did not have ANY flightsim at all. It is us users and other customers generally, who ask for change who drives the supplier to deliver. Who else?

If everybody was satisfied, who will earn money than if no one does buy the next gen?

Marcus

8 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

despite what people wrote in this thread, it is fairly easy to make an airport with a sloped runway in ADE

However, the problem is not what you do in ADE, because I don't think anybody is really looking forward to a default style ground poly. The real trouble is making a custom ground poly that properly follows the ground, for which there are no tools at all, for as far as I can see. But even if you restrict yourself to the ADE alone, setting up the various height differences is a tedious and laborious process, especially for larger airports, that then also require significant retooling on the mesh front. All the while in MSFS the groundpoly that you design adapts to the existing mesh, and is thus a thousand times easier to work with. This, I think, is the way P3D should be going. All combined, it's just not a particularly enticing proposition to do sloped runways in P3D. In my own projects I've seriously considered doing it, specially for one of them where it could really benefit the airport scenery. It's also a rather small airports, so wouldn't require a ton of work. However, the more it became clear the amount of work that would need to go into it, I held off on it. Of course, that's just me. I consider myself a hobbyist - as I said before, I'm not in it for me. I'm mroe cocnerned about the time I have to work on these things.

47 minutes ago, Benjamin J said:

However, the problem is not what you do in ADE, because I don't think anybody is really looking forward to a default style ground poly. The real trouble is making a custom ground poly that properly follows the ground, for which there are no tools at all, for as far as I can see. But even if you restrict yourself to the ADE alone, 

Thanks Benjamin! I appreciate your feedback. Something I did read before at MSFS forum and other platforms as well.

It is a pity that this is the way it is in P3D now. Because, visually and physically sloped runways can be really nice and challenging. Madeira is one good example. Hit the runway right "at the highest" point..........because after that it will be very late. Or before that incl. some neg. wind conditions it can get very bumpy!

I don´t think so that this effort is just your view. Combine this with the actual situation of MSFS and it becomes clear why devs have some caution to invest in P3D.

We are already in 2021. Maybe some good airliners are "taking off" this year in MSFS and performance wise they will also invest further. 

I do really hope P3D does deliver also a further nice and stable platform. In my case P3D is VERY stable. 4.5 was and V5.1 is too! Never had one CTD due P3D. If I had one, it was caused by a instable OC, Addon or other hardware not performing well.

Marcus

Edited January 4, 20215 yr by mpo910

Even though I do not have many of the mentioned issues I certainly hope on further EA improvement.

Not everyone wants to fiddle with Shaders and the VolumetricClouds.cfg file to improve the look.

I now have 2Profile CFG files :

- Late Dawn-Day-Early Dusk with EA and Auto Exposure on

- Late Dusk-Night-Early Dawn with EA off 

 

Before I had :

- Late Dusk-Night-Early Dawn with EA on but Auto Exposure off

This one has the ugly orange low pixeled cloud look, however the one without EA shows that unrealistic  pink/purple sky.

The best thing about V5 is the improvement in performance with the newer faster graphics cards (DX12)...

 

Edited January 4, 20215 yr by GSalden

We should also ask why Devs Patched airports for v5 from v4 but don`t bother implementing the features of the full SDK. 

1 minute ago, G-RFRY said:

We should also ask why Devs Patched airports for v5 from v4 but don`t bother implementing the features of the full SDK. 

I guess the reason is called : MSFS

Although less design features can be used for MSFS the time it takes to make objects is faster (Umberto explained it a few months ago) and easier...

5 minutes ago, GSalden said:

I guess the reason is called : MSFS

Although less design features can be used for MSFS the time it takes to make objects is faster (Umberto explained it a few months ago) and easier...

So when MSFS goes DX12 this will not affect addons or will they not bother also with PBR and DLSS that`s the reason Asobo said DX12 was needed and for XBOX X.

And will Asobo update the MSFS SDK for DX12, possibly why PMDG and A2A said it will take some time before they can bring there aircraft to MSFS.

Edited January 4, 20215 yr by G-RFRY

4 hours ago, Benjamin J said:

However, the problem is not what you do in ADE, because I don't think anybody is really looking forward to a default style ground poly. The real trouble is making a custom ground poly that properly follows the ground, for which there are no tools at all, for as far as I can see. ...

Benjamin, thank you very much for your post and insight. This is exactly the problem I tried to explain in my comment about undulating runways that stirred this whole thread here. Doing sloped runways in Airport Design Editor is indeed easy. The fun starts when you want to cover it with your custom ground poly. 
________________________________________________________________________________________________

I think Marcus @mpo910 raised a question we yet have not fully covered: Why are the LM implemented features hardly used or fail?

My answer to this is the whole development environment (tools, documentation, etc.) that P3D offers. For example, take the sloped runways again: The P3D SDK is very vague in that respect. Accessibility to the P3D SDK (which allows more than MSFS, no doubt) is not as easy as in MSFS. Yes, terraforming in MSFS does also require a lot of tuning. But at least one can see the result in real time in the sim. P3D does require countless reloads whenever you try something. P3D has the technical features, but it is not an easy task too utilize them.

Most of the tools we are using today are either dating back to the days of FS2004 and earlier or are freeware tools like ADE or SBuilder. And one needs a lot of background knowledge how those tools work and which tools do exist. Now imagine a young 3D artist with no FSX/P3D background. Getting started with P3D is a nightmare IMHO compared to the development environment you will find in modern game design. Just compare the tools shipped with P3D SDK with something like the Unreal Engine.

MSFS is doing a better job here and makes development easier for newbies. Hence, you will see a far larger output of airports from new developers who just getting started with sim add-on design.
 
I am sure that something like MSFS's developer mode would make it easier for content creators to engage more with P3D. (Only speaking from a scenery point here and not aircraft design).

All this means not that P3D is a bad sim. All of us are here because we use P3D and enjoy it. But there are certainly areas that are in desperate need of improvement. Naming them is not just mere complaining but simply a concern about the future survival of the platform.

3 minutes ago, Wolkenschreck said:

All this means not that P3D is a bad sim. All of us are here because we use P3D and enjoy it. But there are certainly areas that are in desperate need of improvement. Naming them is not just mere complaining but simply a concern about the future survival of the platform.

I have no concern of the future survival of P3D i will bet you now the LM will continue with P3D long after MS stops putting money into MSFS which they will when finished and final. They have no plans for a new version only this for XBOX.

58 minutes ago, G-RFRY said:

I have no concern of the future survival of P3D i will bet you now the LM will continue with P3D long after MS stops putting money into MSFS which they will when finished and final. They have no plans for a new version only this for XBOX.

You may be right on this.

But don´t making developing for P3D more attractive is also not really motivating devs to bring nice enhancements to the sim. And that is something I really would like to see, also in future.

And if P3D and MSFS share lots of "tools" and "ways" to work, so the outcome is high and the dev speed is high too, but it takes less effort, then I think we all have some benefit from this.

- Devs can concentrate on more than 1 platform (risk spreading too)

- Devs can have faster ROI

- Devs can have more profit

- Users can have more addons for decent prices

- All have less risk being dependent on 1 single platform

This is what I would like to know if this could be possible.

Marcus

So the devs should get behind one platforms way of doing things and in 5-7years when tech has moved on and left the present titles behind like they always have done, FSX was hard to run on the tech at that time now it`s old and dated.

In 5 years users will be saying the same thing this product does not use the full benefit of todays PC.

 Games however will have moved with times and tech and have the biggest share of the market.

The only reason that I would upgrade to P3Dv5 is if the "big" stutters that I experience in quite a few locations across the UK would be considerably reduced (or removed altogether). However, the VRAM issue is a concern. If I could not run P3Dv5 with all of my current addons (and at the same scenery complexity and texture resolution settings) without suffering a CTD, then it is a non starter. I have a 6GB GTX 980Ti, and I run P3Dv4 @ 1080p resolution with 2048 textures. Reducing those textures to 1024 is not an option for me (I have seen the difference on my current PC).

Edited January 4, 20215 yr by Christopher Low

I run P3D5 on 1650/6GB of Ram, my vram usage usually is 2.7 to 3 GB with EA on and all my addons - no problem at all, and sim look way better than P3D4