21 minutes ago, psolk said:

I'm amazed you know how it performs without installing it... 

I did specifically not say "poor performance" but "time lapse video to suggest higher fps/fluidity than there actually is".

I would prefer real time video captures, nothing doctored up. If Asobo/Microsoft can do it, so everybody else should.

why use time lapse for anything else but simulate increased fluidity?

Edited March 11, 20224 yr by turbomax

8 minutes ago, turbomax said:

how can the 737's take off from a lousy 5383 ft. runway when

"A Boeing 737 requires a landing runway length of about 6800 feet . Also the runway length required to takeoff is about 9700 feet."

 

"What is the shortest runway A 737 can take off?

"Of the former, the Boeing 737-100 can operate on runways of 1,830 m (6,000 ft), The smallest variant of the Airbus A320, the A318, only needs 1,780 m (5,840 ft)"

 

is that without seats and no pilots and just a pint of jet fuel?

Yes, of course, i know. In the video, which i shared, you see planes taking off. So far, haven't seen anything yet.

20 minutes ago, psolk said:

are you seeing what turbomax is as well or decent performance on your end.  

You mean graphics performance in the sim? I have had no impact so far.

Some very impressive animation aspects in that promo video!

quote from virtuali

"Quick hint to spot a fake smooth scenery, which has been used far too many times. Pay attention to the runway strobe lights or anything that flashes in general. If they seem to be too quick, it's because the video has been recorded at 1/2 ( or even 1/4 ) frame rate and 1/2 or 1/4 time acceleration, and was then played back at an higher fps, resulting in an incredibly smooth video, even with all settings to the max. I believe one of the popular recorder products for FSX/P3D even had a specific mode to record videos this way, so you won't see any stuttering or low fps.  And let's not even start with color grading or video post processing, which has been abused a lot.

But I have no faith discussing this will result in any change: most people WILL be impressed by flashy videos and will buy based on that"

 

31 minutes ago, turbomax said:

I would prefer real time video captures, nothing doctored up. If Asobo/Microsoft can do it, so everybody else should.

why use time lapse for anything else but simulate increased fluidity?

Fair play

Perhaps to speed the video up as the full sequence of all of the animations would have made for too long of a "preview" video?  

4 minutes ago, psolk said:

Perhaps to speed the video up as the full sequence of all of the animations would have made for too long of a "preview" video?  

yeah, right, absolutely definitely "perhaps" 🤣

Edited March 11, 20224 yr by turbomax

30 minutes ago, turbomax said:

yeah, right, absolutely definitely "perhaps" 🤣

Again, not owning it how can either of us know whether that was the intent or as you say they are trying to "deceive people" with better performance in the video than in the sim.  

I will have it fired up in sim shortly then I can "accurately" comment instead of making accusations and assumptions.  

  

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

how can the 737's take off from a lousy 5383 ft. runway when

"A Boeing 737 requires a landing runway length of about 6800 feet . Also the runway length required to takeoff is about 9700 feet."

 

"What is the shortest runway A 737 can take off?

"Of the former, the Boeing 737-100 can operate on runways of 1,830 m (6,000 ft), The smallest variant of the Airbus A320, the A318, only needs 1,780 m (5,840 ft)"

 

is that without seats and no pilots and just a pint of jet fuel?

Like this...  https://komonews.com/news/local/new-boeing-737-max-set-to-take-first-flight  

Doesn't even seem to use the full runway.  My guess is delivery flights are only enough fuel to get to Paine Field for delivery.  Test flights are only going to have minimum personnel and only required test equipment.  I believe the Max only requires 5,000 ft for landing and it needs 7000ft at MTOW for takeoff so 5,383 empty should be feasible.  9,700 feet for takeoff came from  a-900 at MTOW...   A bit "deceptive" picking the longest distance any 737 requires as your reference for all 737 MAX to make your point 🙂 

 

Edited March 11, 20224 yr by psolk

If you want to have an overview in picture:

 

2 minutes ago, Alaska738 said:

If you want to have an overview in picture:

 

Excellent and impressive screen captures!

13 minutes ago, Alaska738 said:

If you want to have an overview in picture:

 

Where did that PMDG bird come from???  Yes, I caught that LOL.  Great shots!  

47 minutes ago, psolk said:

Doesn't even seem to use the full runway.  My guess is delivery flights are only enough fuel to get to Paine Field for delivery.

They're usually off the ground around the A4 taxiway, which is about half the runway.  Having no pax makes a huge difference in performance.  They typically have enough fuel for a B1 flight to KMWH for a couple approaches, and the return to KBFI.

 

This does look like pretty nice, and I'm glad to see that the tower is a lot more accurate vs. the P3D version.  The trees on the west side of the field look far too thick though to me.

Edited March 11, 20224 yr by BrianW

I think the Boeings will take just enough fuel for 1 pattern or a very short hop to Everett.

WOW! I never thought devs would be so creative.

14 minutes ago, turbomax said:

I think the Boeings will take just enough fuel for 1 pattern or a very short hop to Everett.

Most end up in KBFI not KPAE.  Fuel generally isn't an issue, they have no takeoff limitations even with several hours of fuel on board.

Edit:

Here's a recent example.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/BOE125

Edited March 11, 20224 yr by BrianW