6 minutes ago, udidwht said:

Could've...should've... would've have been around since mid 1800's it's use is not incorrect. It is also flashlight not torch. LOL! Want a torch get a stick and light then end of it. LOL!

Agree. I wasn't suggesting they were incorrect. The use of would've instead of would have is correct and widespread in spoken English. The problem arises with the phonetic transcription to would of.  This language discussion is interesting, I guess were all a little on edge waiting for the 27th. Just when I think the thread has gone off into the rockery and a mod will close it, someone kindly comes along and puts it back on the rails.

 

4 hours ago, n4gix said:

I was in Korea for 14 months...

...back in 1967-68. 😁

'68?  Wasn't that the year when N. Korean commandos raided the presidential compound?  Hope you missed that one.

25 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

You must believe

You are one of the few who actually sees this stuff going on.

This thread needs to be put out of its misery.....

12 hours ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

I am entirely disappointed and dismayed that a certain number of individuals under NDA have taken an opportunity to discuss a beta build in public forums. If you want to sabotage the Beta program and put Microsoft/Asobo on defensive and make them question whether or not to hold these things in the future, this is a GREAT way to do it. 

Have some discipline, for the love of god.

hey Jeremy

Do you think a New York minute that MS doesn’t know that people will leak when setting up such a lax beta environment, that it is not even a risk they take, it is a certitude. I know of serial leakers since the alpha ( not on Avsim) that are still beta-ing. MS hasn’t ejected them from their list. I would go as far as saying that the leaks are a good trial balloon to test the water.

To put Asobo in the defensive is exactly what it is made for. The updates are mandatory, I didn’t ask for them when buying the sim, and the last eleven months have made us a bit worry of MS ability to deliver something clean. Add to it that SU5 should be the mother of all updates.

At last, the beta process is not a gift to us but a means recommended by the community to speed up their debugging process.  Their loss if they stop the process.

Edited July 23, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

5 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

Lol at the people whining about people 'whining' when they are just discussing their concerns - never changes.

Concerns about what? Nothing is out.

33 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

You must believe

All the so called insider naysayers have been proven wrong every time about MSFS but sure keep panicking . 🤓

1 hour ago, mobeans10 said:

would of.

That's actually incorrect as well. You should say would have. Hence the abbreviation would've.

Edited July 23, 20214 yr by jarmstro

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

Nothing wrong to pray for their soles if they pray with their feet 😇

Not everybody has soul, or maybe he lacks soles....

 

 

 

1:18 "Yeet"....🤣

 

 

2 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Nothing wrong to pray for their soles if they pray with their feet 😇

I don't see anything wrong with that either 😬

https://gamefront.de/archiv07-2021-gamefront/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator---Xbox-Series-S-Screenshots.html

Three screenshots of the XBOX Series S version, safe to say the game will look pretty bad on this console.

I have a 12 year old PC with mediocre specs and the sim runs beautifully for me. I would rather they enhance the visuals and make the sim more future proof in terms of visuals and not focus so much on performance, which in my view is already very good.

Edited July 23, 20214 yr by 767lover

2 minutes ago, 767lover said:

I agree. I run MSFS on a 12 year old pc with very mediocre specs and could never complain about performance. I just do not get how people with twice the PC specs could ever have performance issues that would need another visuals degrading update.

It's not a "visual degrading update" based on the information shared with us from the beta testers in this thread, if the 3rd party developer implemented all LODs for their objects.  The problem is if the 3rd party developers did not implement all LODs for their objects because they didn't follow the SDK.

I think you need to read through this thread to understand the underlying issue.  It seems like you missed bits and parts of the discussion.

26 minutes ago, 767lover said:

I agree. I run MSFS on a 12 year old pc with very mediocre specs and could never complain about performance. I just do not get how people with twice the PC specs could ever have performance issues that would need another visuals degrading update.

See. My only complaint is the tree distance issue. Otherwise, I feel like my immersion from the visuals has not changed since release. Thinking back to release what I’ve been unhappy about I’m still unhappy about. For example. 
 

-LOD Of photogrammetry so that building in the NYC skyline don’t look like a pointy triangle arriving into EWR or JFK. 

- Constant headaches with the FPS looking forward. 
- Tearing of the ground while the scenery loads and morphs. 
 

Everything else for me has improved in visual and performance. I remember a day I took off from EWR on a overcast day. The sim became a  slideshow as I climbed in the clouds because clouds were a FPS hog in the beginning. Nowadays, I see an improvement with anything that has to do clouds. 

Edited July 23, 20214 yr by Alcides Segovia
Grammar