2 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Maybe a sensible solution would just be to ask Asobo to tweak them back down a bit - an easy fix.  We should give them feedback on how much.  Reduce by 50%?  33%?

No.  The solution that makes the most sense is to have a slider in the settings menu so people can set a different size and adjust the size to their liking.  

Without a slider, I like the taxiway signs as they are now.  They are just readable enough that I can use them on VATSIM.  

42 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

And you realize a lot of people play MSFS on their laptops, where the monitor size is even smaller for laptops?  So if the taxiway signs are already unreadable and unusable on my 1920 x 1080 monitor which I use for my PC, it's even worse for people that play MSFS on their laptops? 

One could also argue that lots of people have invested in hardware to come as close to realism as possible, only to have realism taken away from them by Asobo to accomodate those who have not.
In my opinion, as a starting point, Asobo should strive to create an environment as close to realism as possible, and use optional features to increase accessibility wherever wanted/needed. That could be a setting to increase the size of signs, or add labels,markers ribbons to enhance readability in the sim.

35 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

No.  The solution that makes the most sense is to have a slider in the settings menu so people can set a different size and adjust the size to their liking.  

Without a slider, I like the taxiway signs as they are now.  They are just readable enough that I can use them on VATSIM.  

Good one.  Then people can set them to whatever size they want and it avoids all the arguing over if they are too big or too small etc.

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by bobcat999

2 minutes ago, orchestra_nl said:

One could also argue that lots of people have invested in hardware to come as close to realism as possible, only to have realism taken away from them by Asobo to accomodate those who have not.
In my opinion, as a starting point, Asobo should strive to create an environment as close to realism as possible, and use optional features to increase accessibility wherever wanted/needed. That could be a setting to increase the size of signs, or add labels,markers ribbons to enhance readability in the sim.

And realism for me starts with being able to read the taxiway sign!  If I can't read a taxiway sign in VATSIM, how am I supposed to follow the instructions of ATC?

The solution is probably a slider so that people can set the taxiway sign to a size that fits their needs.  Without a slider though, I would keep the taxiway signs as they are in the latest patch because it's finally usable to me.

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by abrams_tank

1 minute ago, bobcat999 said:

Good one.  Then people can set them to whatever size they want and it avoids all the arguing over if they are too big or too small etc.

Yes, the slider is the optimal solution.  I doubt people will want the padding to removed around the letters like FSX, because then people will complain the taxiway signs look unrealistic without the padding around the letters. Either way, for me, I want the letters themselves to be large enough that I can read them.  And with this latest patch, I can finally read the letters.

There might be some technical challenges implementing adjustable sizes for taxiway signs. An idea for an easier solution could be to have floating labels above taxiway signs near you that you can toggle on and off with a button. 

i like them better now, at least readable.

but thas thread proves again that we will never agree about anything.

No, please leave it as they are now!

For the simulator they are the right size:

 

Peter / LSZH

In FSX/P3D there were 5 definable taxiway sign sizes. The default was 3. If you were using ADE you could easily create the padding with appropriate use of spaces and square brackets per the SDK. Default airports didn't have any of that.

I'm happy the MSFS taxiway signs are now readable. If the sim was previously rendering them all at size 1 and is now reading defined sizes, or defaulting to the largest available size if no size is defined, to me that's no problem. They're there for me to read them, not drive up to them with a tape measure.

FWIW this airfield sign maker says their signs are around 885mm high at their largest and it looks like the legs add another 150mm or so underneath. Total height just over 1 metre. https://www.atgairports.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/IR858i_LED_Guidance_Signs.pdf

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

No.  The solution that makes the most sense is to have a slider in the settings menu so people can set a different size and adjust the size to their liking.  

  

Not really. The more configurations you have (sliders/options etc) the more testing is needed because there are so many more combinations to worry about. This usually results in more bugs.

Sure we need sliders and configs for some things but personal preference for taxi way sign size is not one of them.

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by sanh

I don't think a slider is a good idea, for the following reason:

- 3rd party Developer A creates a scenery named B, and for some reason ( maybe he use a 5K+ monitor ) to keep taxiways fairly small, so he set the size of taxiways in the scenery to 1 or 2

- 3rd party Developer C creates a scenery named D, but he has a 1080p monitor, so he sets taxiways at larger size, like 4 or 5.

- User of scenery B complain with A about not being able to read the taxi signs, because they have smaller monitors/worse AA settings, so developer A suggest "just increase the taxi sign slider!"

- Users of scenery D complain with with C saying "hey, I just bought your scenery, but there's a bug, your taxiway signs are too big", so developer C suggest "just decrease the taxi sign slider", users will complain "but if I do that, taxiway sign at B will be unreadable, why should I change the slider just for your scenery, it's your fault, you must fix it"

- Developer E tries to be smart, and will use custom taxi signs, so he won't be affected by these changes. Unfortunately, using custom taxi signs have the drawback that you either place them in batches, so their are very good for fps ( less draw calls ) but won't follow the sloping terrain so, every time there's a slight change the sloping terrain you'll have to *move* all affected taxi signs manually, or you place them individually, which will fix the issues with sloping terrain, but will make the scenery running slower. Developer E thinks having "custom taxi signs" it's a selling feature, surely doesn't want to be affected by tiny changes in the sloping terrain, doesn't care so much about fps, and will suggest users to just buy a new PC ( assuming they could find it in the first place...).

That's another funny day at work...

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by virtuali

8 hours ago, Silicus said:

Asobo has some kind of issue with size.

First trees now taxi signs. How about measuring the real thing and in the case of the trees take an average?! I mean they get so much right, but SIZE seems to be an issue.....

 

Maybe they are trying to compensate for something?

My taxiway signs don’t seem to have changed at all.

edit: ok, EGHI has the huge ones. Yuck.

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by scotchegg

48 minutes ago, virtuali said:

I don't think a slider is a good idea, for the following reason:

- 3rd party Developer A creates a scenery named B, and for some reason ( maybe he use a 5K+ monitor ) to keep taxiways fairly small, so he set the size of taxiways in the scenery to 1 or 2

- 3rd party Developer C creates a scenery named D, but he has a 1080p monitor, so he sets taxiways at larger size, like 4 or 5.

- User of scenery B complain with A about not being able to read the taxi signs, because they have smaller monitors/worse AA settings, so developer A suggest "just increase the taxi sign slider!"

- Users of scenery D complain with with C saying "hey, I just bought your scenery, but there's a bug, your taxiway signs are too big", so developer C suggest "just decrease the taxi sign slider", users will complain "but if I do that, taxiway sign at B will be unreadable, why should I change the slider just for your scenery, it's your fault, you must fix it"

- Developer E tries to be smart, and will use custom taxi signs, so he won't be affected by these changes. Unfortunately, using custom taxi signs have the drawback that you either place them in batches, so their are very good for fps ( less draw calls ) but won't follow the sloping terrain so, every time there's a slight change the sloping terrain you'll have to *move* all affected taxi signs manually, or you place them individually, which will fix the issues with sloping terrain, but will make the scenery running slower. Developer E thinks having "custom taxi signs" it's a selling feature, surely doesn't want to be affected by tiny changes in the sloping terrain, doesn't care so much about fps, and will suggest users to just buy a new PC ( assuming they could find it in the first place...).

That's another funny day at work...

That's easy to solve! Now we just need to create a taxiway sign size committee. That committee will check that every developer is using a standard size. Also, it will have its own governing body, an enforcement police, an once a year convention in vegas etc.

Aren’t the taxiway names wrong in MSFS? Or did Asobo fix that? I haven’t really been following the updates