v1.27.13.0 New beta build today!

[peloto 213]

21 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

I never found it difficult... I mean you need to keep your hands on the controls, push forward and use the rudder. Never flown in real life though, is that so different?

I don't think you can just give full throttle on a single prop aircraft and it goes straight, especially when it's windy. Even a car doesn't 🙂

I flight always with a gamepad and its mini sticks, maybe not difficult, rather less easy?

 

I usually watch online users with heavies or general aviation wobbling in the runways or not going straight.

 

I believe in the Trovis message quoted by me.

[Cpt_Piett 4,645]

Been flying a lot in 1.27.13.0, Flysimware Cessna 414 Chancellor with the TDS GTNXi. Nothing else in community folder.

12900KF (no OC), 3090 (no OC), 32GB DDR5 @5800MHz, WD Black SN850 2TB

3840x2160, DX11, DLSS quality, all settings ultra (terrain LOD 200)

Generally about the same performance as the last beta update, although I’m getting slightly more stutters when panning. Moreso with DX12 hence I switched to DX11. Performance is decent even with heavy scenery (NYC).

Average CPU usage has been less than 10%. GPU 60-100%. Guesstimates as I haven't logged these values. However I've been looking at the average values in HWiNFO after each flight. 

These are the average values (logged with MSI Afterburner) for all flights combined (13hrs):

Average framerate : 65 FPS
Minimum framerate : 25 FPS
Maximum framerate : 99 FPS
1% low framerate : 37 FPS
0.1% low framerate : 29 FPS

Edited August 6, 2022 by Cpt_Piett

[Cpt_Piett 4,645]

I might add that I've been battling with some elusive "memory could not be read" CTDs both in this beta as well as SU9 after upgrading my system (10900KF=>12900KF, z490=>z690, DDR4=>DDR5). After (too) many hours of troubleshooting I've found that the CTDs most likely were caused by a combination of DDR5 XMP (default is 4800MHz, XMP is 6000MHz) and GPU factory OC (my Asus ROG Strix 3090 has a factory OC of +165MHz compared with founders edition). After disabling XMP and returning the GPU to default clocks, the CTDs have disappeared. Thought I'd mention it, might help someone with similar issues.  

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

4 hours ago, GSalden said:

I don’t like the undone DX12 optimizations. Hopefully they will be back with the release of SU10.

My 3090s worked perfectly….

Likewise.. 

[rjquick 224]

5 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

FYI, I am one of the people who kept pushing for an public opt-in, open beta.  I was part of the crew (there were many others as well) that kept posting this topic, kept bumping the topic, and kept voting the topic to push Microsoft/Asobo to implement a public opt-in open beta (there were even some naysayers who said a public opt-in open beta was a waste of time, they were the most annoying to convince).  And in the Dev Q&As, I also kept persistently asking in the Twitch chat, the status of the public opt-in open beta (because once in a while, the Community Managers ignore some top voted questions during the Twitch Q&A).

And finally when Microsoft/Asobo started the public opt-in open beta, I then started being vocal about having a longer public open beta, which we now have with SU 10. So yes, I was not satisfied with their testing either.

I remember in the first few months of MSFS's release, there wasn't even a beta, nevermind a public open beta.  Microsoft/Asobo just dropped the patch on us like that.  That was in September and October of 2020, and I even recall the famous patch back then where people that plugged in certain peripherals got an instant CTD before getting to the menu screen - a "show stopper" bug that could have been avoided by a public opt-in open beta. 

So if you ask me, the testing and bug fixing process for SU 10, is miles and miles ahead of the first few months of 2020 after MSFS was released, when Microsoft/Asobo would drop a patch on us with no beta testing at all, not even a private beta test.

The public beta seemed to me to be a white flag by Asobo/Microsoft that their beta testing process (however they were doing it) was not working. There were some horrendous and obvious issues/bugs when updates were released that strained the imagination of how anyone beta testing could not have encountered it. Which makes you wonder if the beta testers actually did notice it and were ignored or had no good way communicating it or if the beta testers were not taking the testing seriously and were just saying "it's all good". IDK.

The issue with the public beta is that you get people who may have long-standing computer issues reporting their problems as bugs in the software and they become angry if someone suggests that. How is the developer supposed to sort through forum posts and discern whose bug is credible or not? Seems messy at best.

I have been involved in beta testing in an industry setting with software controlling mechanical devices. The beta-testing is well structured and you are asked to put the software through many different scenarios and it is made clear what the expected outcome should be and why. Any differences or issues are reported back and must be addressed before release. There is also prerequisite for being a beta tester that you have sufficient knowledge to make such determinations.

Anyway... I'm hoping for a good outcome. I do see people trying their best.

Edited August 6, 2022 by rjquick

[Tuskin38 6,492]

15 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Since first beta build in DX12 VRAM was exceeded for a large number of users, causing visual glitches and artifacts. The infamous "Elden trees" amongst others. Whatever that means 🤷‍♂️ Users with 3090s didn't experience this and were happy. And are now complaining as the temporary fix - to disable the VRAM memory manager - has caused a performance hit for many. 

I'm on an Nvidia 3060 12GB and never had that happen to me. It's weird.

15 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

If you are going to quote me, why don't you post what I said in it's entirety before you edit out the first part of of my post  so you can spin it the way you want?    This is what I said prior to your edit.

 

My guess, having been a beta tester for years, is that much of the "testing" done now is worthless as far as reporting back to Asobo, so they can fix things. 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the full quote doesn't change what I said.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Tuskin38

[bobcat999 8,482]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

I might add that I've been battling with some elusive "memory could not be read" CTDs both in this beta as well as SU9 after upgrading my system (10900KF=>12900KF, z490=>z690, DDR4=>DDR5). After (too) many hours of troubleshooting I've found that the CTDs most likely were caused by a combination of DDR5 XMP (default is 4800MHz, XMP is 6000MHz) and GPU factory OC (my Asus ROG Strix 3090 has a factory OC of +165MHz compared with founders edition). After disabling XMP and returning the GPU to default clocks, the CTDs have disappeared. Thought I'd mention it, might help someone with similar issues.  

I had a very similar problem Captain.  My 4 sticks of DDR4 cannot handle XMP4400.  I have took them back to about 4200 manually and they have been solid as a rock since. 
I had random CTD's in MSFS, and even a memory error in Windows, which kind of gives it away. 

I confirmed this by using the BIOS built in ram checker.
It showed quite a few red flags on a ten minute run, some almost immediately, but now all green for half hour run since set at 4200.

[Cpt_Piett 4,645]

9 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

I had a very similar problem Captain.  My 4 sticks of DDR4 cannot handle XMP4400.  I have took them back to about 4200 manually and they have been solid as a rock since. 
I had random CTD's in MSFS, and even a memory error in Windows, which kind of gives it away. 

I confirmed this by using the BIOS built in ram checker.
It showed quite a few red flags on a ten minute run, some almost immediately, but now all green for half hour run since set at 4200.

Yeah memory can be tricky. XMP is a memory overclock, and MSFS seems to be finicky about overclocking in general. 

I ran Memtest86 at XMP (6000MHz) and it found multiple errors. Reduced to 5800MHz and it's all fine. 

It's the same really with GPU clocks. Many may think that since they haven't OC'd theirs, it's all good. But many GPUs are sold as factory OC'd, like mine. 

[abrams_tank 7,416]

38 minutes ago, rjquick said:

The public beta seemed to me to be a white flag by Asobo/Microsoft that their beta testing process (however they were doing it) was not working. There were some horrendous and obvious issues/bugs when updates were released that strained the imagination of how anyone beta testing could not have encountered it. Which makes you wonder if the beta testers actually did notice it and were ignored or had no good way communicating it or if the beta testers were not taking the testing seriously and were just saying "it's all good". IDK.

The issue with the public beta is that you get people who may have long-standing computer issues reporting their problems as bugs in the software and they become angry if someone suggests that. How is the developer supposed to sort through forum posts and discern whose bug is credible or not? Seems messy at best.

I have been involved in beta testing in an industry setting with software controlling mechanical devices. The beta-testing is well structured and you are asked to put the software through many different scenarios and it is made clear what the expected outcome should be and why. Any differences or issues are reported back and must be addressed before release. There is also prerequisite for being a beta tester that you have sufficient knowledge to make such determinations.

Anyway... I'm hoping for a good outcome. I do see people trying their best.

This is the beauty of the voting system.  The highest voted bugs are likely the most critical bugs that Asobo should address in the public opt-in open beta.  And they are addressing the most critical bugs very well in the public open beta.

An example is the spad.next bug that was caught, I think it was the SU9 open beta. The spad.next bug was causing an instant CTD for people using spad.next. The open beta caught this bug, it was patched by Asobo within a few days, and a huge disaster was avoided because it happened in the open beta only.

I have been involved in beta testing too in the IT industry.  It's a no brainer to do a public opt-in open beta test, if there are enough public testers willing to help test. In the case of MSFS, there are more than enough public testers willing to help with the open beta.

I guarantee you if we went back to the closed private beta, or worse, no beta at all, there would be huge riots.  I would be part of the riots too. What we have now, a public opt-in open beta, has made things so much more smooth in SU8 and SU9.  Put simply, the public opt-in open beta is working, like I said it would work, like many that were astute, said it would work.  If anything, the public opt-in open beta should be extended to 2 months or longer than 2 months (this SU 10 open beta is less than 2 months, but it's close enough to 2 months, so I won't criticize Microsoft/Asobo for the length of the open beta this time, given they have scheduling constraints, probably from the execs at Microsoft).

PS. This doesn't mean Microsoft/Asobo shouldn't do their own internal testing before passing it to the public open beta.  If fact, a more ideal testing solution would be solid internal testing first by Microsoft/Asobo, then pass it on to a private beta test made up of selected testers, and then pass it to the public opt-in open beta as the last step.  But I doubt this is feasible, because of the scheduling constraints I mentioned earlier, probably from the Microsoft execs.

Edited August 6, 2022 by abrams_tank

[rjquick 224]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

This is the beauty of the voting system.  The highest voted bugs are likely the most critical bugs that Asobo should address in the public opt-in open beta.  And they are addressing the most critical bugs very well in the public open beta.

An example is the spad.next bug that was caught, I think it was the SU9 open beta. The spad.next bug was causing an instant CTD for people using spad.next. The open beta caught this bug, it was patched by Asobo within a few days, and a huge disaster was avoided because it happened in the open beta only.

I have been involved in beta testing too in the IT industry.  It's a no brainer to do a public opt-in open beta test, if there are enough public testers willing to help test. In the case of MSFS, there are more than enough public testers willing to help with the open beta.

I guarantee you if we went back to the closed private beta, or worse, no beta at all, there would be huge riots.  I would be part of the riots too. What we have now, a public opt-in open beta, has made things so much more smooth in SU8 and SU9.  Put simply, the public opt-in open beta is working, like I said it would work, like many that were astute, said it would work.  If anything, the public opt-in open beta should be extended to 2 months or longer than 2 months (this SU 10 open beta is less than 2 months, but it's close enough to 2 months, so I won't criticize Microsoft/Asobo for the length of the open beta this time, given they have scheduling constraints, probably from the execs at Microsoft).

PS. This doesn't mean Microsoft/Asobo shouldn't do their own internal testing before passing it to the public open beta.  If fact, a more ideal testing solution would be solid internal testing first by Microsoft/Asobo, then pass it on to a private beta test made up of selected testers, and then pass it to the public opt-in open beta as the last step.  But I doubt this is feasible, because of the scheduling constraints I mentioned earlier, probably from the Microsoft execs.

This would indeed be the best-case scenario IMO.

[March Hare 720]

Internal testing happens constantly, every day, by the programmers themselves (a whole day sometimes turns into bug fixing). And Microsoft have their own testing team working on this sim.

It seems difficult to understand, and understandably, that bugs are simply missed, they are accidentally introduced last minute, they sometimes only show up on live builds, and when bugs are reported by public beta testers (or any tester) the developer doesn't always have time to eliminate them for an update release, or they simply struggle to track them down to the cause, or are not always able to recreate them to begin tracking them, at least not immediately.

There are professional third-party testing companies used by many publishers who often miss bugs.

But it's often presumed that Asobo don't do internal testing, that Microsoft don't do any testing, just because there are bugs to begin with or even at the end result.

Edited August 6, 2022 by March Hare

[DModjo 117]

The DLSS option has magically disappeared for me. I swear it was still there when I ran MSFS a few days ago on the latest beta and it's been working fine up until now. Weird.

[crimplene 634]

2 hours ago, DModjo said:

The DLSS option has magically disappeared for me. I swear it was still there when I ran MSFS a few days ago on the latest beta and it's been working fine up until now. Weird.

Your nvidia(?) driver might be at bit old. Try installing a more recent one. That helped on my system.

[iFlySimX 751]

Anyone getting really bad tearing in the new SU 10 build?

[FishBowlMan 56]

2 hours ago, crimplene said:

Your nvidia(?) driver might be at bit old. Try installing a more recent one. That helped on my system.

Yep exactly the same for me. I installed the latest driver, and I now have DLSS available again.