Impressions on SU8 (Beta)

[sightseer 895]

concerning prop animation:  has no one tried modifying the texture found in fs-base\texture\generic  ?  I haven't tried but it looks like you just change the 'PROP_BLUR_ALBD' file.  maybe even just take the contents and apply a rotational blur and then resave...maybe. recreate the DDS of course.

[bobcat999 8,509]

39 minutes ago, Romeo_Tango said:

Does the new prop physics affect both standard 152 and the aerobat?

Just the standard 152 at the moment, not the aerobat.  Not sure why, as apparently it would be a simple copy and paste of the relevant section of the config file.

Edited February 12, 2022 by bobcat999

[Romeo_Tango 143]

5 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Just the standard 152 at the moment, not the aerobat.  Not sure why, as apparently it would be a simple copy and paste of the relevant section of the config file.

Thanks, appreciate the quick response. I suspect there is more to it than a cut and paste; If that was it, I think all default prop aircraft would have it. Plus from the last Q&A, I got the impression that developers wont be able to use the new physics till SU9 or 10, so there has to be more to it.

[bobcat999 8,509]

34 minutes ago, Romeo_Tango said:

Thanks, appreciate the quick response. I suspect there is more to it than a cut and paste; If that was it, I think all default prop aircraft would have it. Plus from the last Q&A, I got the impression that developers wont be able to use the new physics till SU9 or 10, so there has to be more to it.

Well, have a read here then from the official forum. The thread is about a three minute read.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/new-prop-physics/497323

Edited February 12, 2022 by bobcat999

[Claudius_ 326]

3 hours ago, DylanM said:

You may have misinterpreted- they enhanced the prop dynamics, not the animation (that bit has room for improvement as others have mentioned).

just hoping to see improved both the animation and the dynamics. 😟

[Ricardo41 5,959]

9 hours ago, turbomax said:

yes, the recommended switch of newly introduced selection of sound output device, 

didn't make a difference on my system, so I left it as is. 

[Fielder 3,750]

13 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

didn't make a difference on my system, so I left it as is. 

Same here. Changing the sound device away from default makes absolutely no difference in fps that I can see at all.

[DAD 2,662]

2 minutes ago, Fielder said:

Same here. Changing the sound device away from default makes absolutely no difference in fps that I can see at all.

Same here but considering I did not see the fps drop anyway I was just hoping to suddenly and miraculously further increase my fps. Did not work. But it is so smooth and fluid anyway here that there is no need. But it should be the first fix for anybody installing the beta and complain about an fps drop

[turbomax 3,307]

not all pc's were created equal, let alone their configurations. the fact that many (incl. myself) found a 15 fps change clearly shows there is a bug, and I am confident it will get fixed. why bother to optimize MSFS and at the same time giving away 15 fps to such an easy fix. what surprises me is the fact their in-house testing didn't catch this. qu'est-ce que c'est ?

[bobcat999 8,509]

19 hours ago, Romeo_Tango said:

Thanks, appreciate the quick response. I suspect there is more to it than a cut and paste; If that was it, I think all default prop aircraft would have it. Plus from the last Q&A, I got the impression that developers wont be able to use the new physics till SU9 or 10, so there has to be more to it.

And as just another footnote to this, CptMoustache has modified his Twin Otter flight dynamics to take the new prop physics into account by including this in a new update - MSFS beta version only, obviously.

https://flightsim.to/file/26633/ccm-s-twin-otter-mod

So it looks like it is a simple copy and paste, then modify the config file slightly according to the aircraft (prop aspect ratio etc.).  The code to handle the text file is in the core MSFS code.

Edited February 13, 2022 by bobcat999

[abrams_tank 7,477]

6 minutes ago, turbomax said:

 what surprises me is the fact their in-house testing didn't catch this. qu'est-ce que c'est ?

I think Jorg mentioned they have something like 50 people on their in-house test team.  Sadly, bugs like this still get through their test team.  I can’t imagine what bugs their test team are catching then, they probably catch a lot of bugs that we never see.

Anyways, this is why we pushed Microsoft/Asobo to do an opt-in open beta test.  So far, the opt-in open beta tests are doing wonders in catching annoying bugs.  They should have done opt-in open beta tests from day 1. Oh well, better late than never, I guess.

[Ricardo41 5,959]

I like the new Market Place interface. 

[MarcG 3,035]

42 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I think Jorg mentioned they have something like 50 people on their in-house test team.  Sadly, bugs like this still get through their test team.  I can’t imagine what bugs their test team are catching then, they probably catch a lot of bugs that we never see.

Anyways, this is why we pushed Microsoft/Asobo to do an opt-in open beta test.  So far, the opt-in open beta tests are doing wonders in catching annoying bugs.  They should have done opt-in open beta tests from day 1. Oh well, better late than never, I guess.

I mean yeah, it still baffles me they didn't have a proper user beta testing system in place from the outset, 1 1/2 years since release and it's barely any better now in the sense that they don't interact at all which is a main reason for having a Beta. We're talking to brick walls most of the time, which is unlike anything I've ever seen with regards to gaming/simulation beta testing from other developers, their almost showing ignorance and only having the beta because a lot of users asked for one.

My current Mojo with Asobo is very low overall, it's never been really high to be fair but right now I'm wishing a different developer would take over certain aspects of the Sim, the physics (Seb) side are doing great work moving forward but they're severely lacking in other areas, here's just a few;

• Bring in Staff to control the beta process and make it more efficient, with direct communication with the actual developers on what they want testing, the procedures, asking for specific feedback etc etc.
• I'll beat the same drum but FFS Asobo get some Quality Control Management in place, it's shockingly apparent they have none.
• Hand over the Weather to a new group like what they did with Working Title on the GARMINS, it's very clear they're struggling with the Weather.
• Hand over the VR development to a competent group who know what they're doing (again akin to WT), Asobo are currently treating VR like a nuisance they had to incorporate when they didn't initially want to.

 

[jcomm 6,020]

Took the Plunge !

- Installed, tested for 45 min - So Far Gorgeous ! Great performance overall, even more stable ( no stutters at all ) and smooth as silk.

- weather rendering and effects feel better ! Weather I tested at a few airfields was very consistent with the reported ( METAR ) observation, and transition to the "above sector alt" areas was convincing - at least I didn't detect the usual problem with a wind reduction in altitude during the transition from observation-based to model feed data.

- didn't have time to properly test the new prop effects on the C152, Caravan em Beechcraft 350i, but I did get the sensation of feeling some "prop-braking" effect during a Caravan approach. The C152 isn't the best aircraft to test stronger prop effects. I'll wait for the effect to be ported to aircraft like the P51 from the Reno Air Races, the Extra or the Pitts.

It's the first time I opt for a beta since I use MFS. Was easy and didn't take long to get the updates, and the guide at the Flightsimulator.com forum gives all of the information.

I do have the MFS Community and Oficial folders in a different disk/ parttitoin from the system and base install.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2022 by jcomm

[jarmstro 2,405]

1 hour ago, MarcG said:

Bring in Staff to control the beta process and make it more efficient, with direct communication with the actual developers on what they want testing, the procedures, asking for specific feedback etc etc.

So let me get this straight. Reading between the lines you are outraged that they released a pre-release beta with bugs in it? And are further annoyed that they haven't patched it yet to your satisfaction? As far as I am aware SU8 isn't due for release until March 1st. You might want to keep your hat on until then.