14 minutes ago, Konterhalbe said:

I don't know how much power an average PC consumes while doing this (monitors off, just the sim and the PC running).
Lets say 250W. You do this for 8 hrs, equals an energy consumption of 2kWh.

I pay 0,32EUR per 1 kWh. This flight would cost me 64 cents at the end of the day...

Absolutely acceptable imho

250W? You running a potato? 😄 Most GPUs alone use more than that at decent (=MSFS) load.

Edited January 15, 20233 yr by Nixoq

7 hours ago, Nixoq said:

250W? You running a potato? 😄 Most GPUs alone use more than that at decent (=MSFS) load.

Doesn't have to be that way.  I run a liquid smooth low frame rate of 33 or so w/ near zero frame time variance and that produces perfectly liquid smoothness on a 3440x1440 display.  By doing this my GPU will go from 99% to 65% or something along those lines, and same same for the CPU in large part.  So this is a substantial drop in power demand.  There may be a potential other benefit and that is there then becomes more immediate access to resources in the event of sudden demand spikes during runtime.  I get essentially zero stutters, none during taxi nor at arrival airports in the PMDG 738.  Often people report what is thought to be a chunk of scenery loading as you're on final, but I don't have that anymore either.  

There is almost no benefit of running wide open when it can hit 40-60fps w/ Gsync, versus near zero FTV at 33 or so w/ Gsync.  The key is the near-zero FTV.

Also, and I use A Pilot's Life v2 one can increase sim-rate and this will not impact scoring of each flight according to their criteria mentioned above.  So on anything over 2h or so I just do 2x to 4x sim rate and all's well. 

Edited January 16, 20233 yr by Noel

10 hours ago, Konterhalbe said:

I don't know how much power an average PC consumes while doing this (monitors off, just the sim and the PC running).
Lets say 250W. You do this for 8 hrs, equals an energy consumption of 2kWh.

I pay 0,32EUR per 1 kWh. This flight would cost me 64 cents at the end of the day...

Absolutely acceptable imho

Here, we pay ZAR2.00 per kw/h so a bit cheaper. 2kw/h x 2 = R4.00. R18 to the Euro so 0.22 Euro.

Wondering, no one is talking about the A 350. Is there anything about this modern heavy in the horizon?

On 1/15/2023 at 8:43 PM, Nixoq said:

250W? You running a potato? 😄 Most GPUs alone use more than that at decent (=MSFS) load.

Does a PC system consume more than 250W if monitors are off?
I guess a GPU doesn't have much to do when there's nothing to display, isn't it?

2 hours ago, Konterhalbe said:

Does a PC system consume more than 250W if monitors are off?
I guess a GPU doesn't have much to do when there's nothing to display, isn't it?

That's not how it works!
Try it for yourself. The fans whirring inside your case will tell you that your PC is still working hard to create images, even though you've turned your monitor off.
Depending on the scenario being created by the sim, and the components that make up your build, I reckon you'll use up to three, maybe even four times as much power.

5 hours ago, F737MAX said:

Depending on the scenario being created by the sim, and the components that make up your build, I reckon you'll use up to three, maybe even four times as much power

No. At a recent 4-hour flight from LFTM to EGLL (MSFS in the Fenix A320) my 4090 pulled on average 249 watts (max 305) and the 13900K pulled average 113 watts (max 160). Average temps GPU 55 c, CPU 65 c. Add fans, cooler pump etc. and you’re maybe at 500 watts.
That’s on a system that’s as hungry as they come at the moment.

9 hours ago, F737MAX said:

That's not how it works!
Try it for yourself. The fans whirring inside your case will tell you that your PC is still working hard to create images, even though you've turned your monitor off.
Depending on the scenario being created by the sim, and the components that make up your build, I reckon you'll use up to three, maybe even four times as much power.

For me just checking some ultra long haul like SIN-JFK on Flightradar24 on my phone a couple times per day might be best. Pretend I'm flying it and just quit flight simming.

One thing I've noticed though between FSX:SE and MSFS is the scenery in MSFS is always instantly available, and admittedly it does look quite spectacular, even up at FL380. Whereas in FSX it might take a minute for the blurry textures to re-focus. This is when I'll dim the monitor and minimize the flight sim window, go away for a few hours, and later check back on the flight. Using FSX the computer is as quiet as if it were switched off, but on MSFS the fans will still be whirring at least medium loud. 

I know longhauling is wasteful. Would be cool if MSFS has some setting to blur out the scenery when not in use. Of course one could ask why bother? But it seems like heavies like the 767, 777, 747 have been popular for simmers in past sims. The allure of setting off on a long journey, travelling half way around the world. I just got the 737-700 so I could use the BBJ for such purposes. It actually runs very well on my machine, I was worried my specs would be too low. But the whirring fans in MSFS in general on any plane are troublesome. It'd also be better for me to just do long flights on FSX and short scenery flights on MSFS. I've alwas heard good things about FS Labs, but have never tried out any of their products. Was excited to hear they'd be bringing out an A330 for MSFS. Apart from the money factor, hardware, software, electrical bills, it sure is time consuming figuring all these things out, but fun too.

4 hours ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

But the whirring fans in MSFS in general on any plane are troublesome

Well, AFAIK, the majority of planes (gliders and maybe rocket planes excluded) have at least one big fan whirring. As real as it gets 😝

Now, seriously, if only MS/Asobo could fix the Travel To function. The only time I tried it (jumping to 1-2 waypoints before TOD), I ended up with my plane buried in the sand, and that was with SU10 or 11 (I don't remember well).

On 1/16/2023 at 3:02 AM, Nemo said:

Wondering, no one is talking about the A 350. Is there anything about this modern heavy in the horizon?

The only A350 currently being worked on is from a freeware project by Digital Flight Dynamics. And like every freeware project promising 'high quality', expect them to shut down or take a few decades to release.

There is also the DC-10/KC-10 by Aero Dynamics which will great for long-haul flights inbound sometime this year I believe. Easily my post anticipated heavies after the PMDG 747.

2 hours ago, edu2703 said:

And like every freeware project promising 'high quality', expect them to shut down or take a few decades to release

Clearly you are not familiar with FBW or you would not have made such a factually incorrect statement concerning freeware in MSFS.

-B

Edited January 17, 20233 yr by btacon

On 1/15/2023 at 10:02 PM, Nemo said:

Wondering, no one is talking about the A 350. Is there anything about this modern heavy in the horizon?

I think it's going to be quite some time until we get a mostly complete working A350 addon. The thing is just so dang complex with a zillion avionics pages and data that is displayed, I even wonder if we'll ever get something that is close enough to the real thing to be enjoyable. I'd love to be surprised. I was mostly a Boeing guy, for like, 20 years. But, when the FBW came out, I thought it was silly I didn't know how to fly and Airbus and I have to admit that I almost prefer it over Boeing now. Crazy, huh?

Briefly went through the thread so I may have missed it, but here's an overview of all the heavies that are in development, as well as the state they are in at the moment (as far as we know)

PMDG 777 - Randazzo in an interview in the past few days has said they are already in closed testing, and will be showing previews soon™ as the 737 development winds down with the release of the -900ER. I think it is safe to say that this will be the first modern widebody release for MSFS, barring anyone suddenly appearing with a finished aircraft.

Aerosoft A330 - If the 777 isn't the first widebody release, the A330 could be. We've seen many previews of the modelling though less of systems. That said, no release date given and Aerosoft are hard to predict as they have a history of showing fairly polished looking models and then not releasing a plane for years.

TFDI MD-11 - Already for sale in "Early Access" but aside from some small previews we don't know what state the aircraft is in or what features to expect on release. TFDI have stated that they believe they will release the aircraft at the end of 2023, but personally I think 2024 is more likely.

iniBuilds A300-600F - The A310 is already in the sim and they have stated they intend to sell the A300-600F for MSFS, so in theory this would be something happening sooner rather than later. 2023 maybe?

Bluebird Simulations 757/767 - Not a wide body, but BBS have shown some relatively robust previews of the systems in a 757, and stated their intention to also develop a 767. No timeline on this at the moment, but I would guess that 2024 is more likely than 2023 for release.

PMDG 747 - We know it's coming, but I wouldn't expect it before 2024.

JustFlight 747 Classic and A300B4 - Development has been transitioned from P3D to MSFS, and they've shown a few previews. No word on release date.

FSLabs A330 - FSLabs have stated they are developing for MSFS, and that they are developing an A330. They are generally very quiet about development progress, but I would guess this is at least 2 years from release.

QualityWings 787 - Literally no information, other than that they planned to release it for MSFS in 2021, which obviously did not happen.

 

FREEWARE DEVELOPERS:

AeroDynamics DC-10 - Several previews, no release date.

FBW A380 - Several previews and flown on livestream in a clearly very early alpha state. As their A320NEO is still very WIP with regards to several key systems, I would not expect this anytime soon.

Digital Dyanmics A350 - Some previews of both modelling and systems in very early alpha states. I am still skeptical that such a complex aircraft can reasonably be made open source, but who knows.

 

WILD SPECULATION:

Randazzo had a 3+ hour chat with FilbertFlies and there were some interesting Nuggets:

• After the 747 is released for MSFS, PMDG have a fairly open window for development and they are as of yet undecided on what they want to do next
• PMDG were working on a 757 and 767 prior to the announcement of MSFS, but these projects were put on indefinite hold in favor of converting their P3D library to MSFS. Although randazzo said his decision on what to develop wouldn't be influenced by what other developers are doing, he did seem hesitant and did specifically mention the BlueBird 757/767 project
• If he could develop anything, he would maybe do a 727. But he also qualified this by saying that looking at the market this doesn't make much sense
• He then mentioned that he would be really interested in doing the A350, he's had an opportunity to look at it, thinks it's a beautiful plane and is interested in the challenge of developing such a data driven airplane.
• However...He said PMDG's entire codebase is geared toward simulating Boeing aircraft, so if he was going to do a data-driven airplane, perhaps a 787 would make more sense.
• Therefore, if I was a betting man, I'd have my money on a PMDG 787 coming a few years down the line.

 

 

Edited January 17, 20233 yr by StAgre

22 minutes ago, btacon said:

Clearly you are not familiar with FBW or you would not have made such a factually incorrect statement concerning freeware in MSFS.

-B

As if one or two examples that succeeded were enough to cover up the dozens of projects that followed this path that I mentioned.

I know MSFS freeware very well. I've lost count of how many freeware project discord channels I left because the dev saw the difficulty of coding systems and shut down the project. Those who have delivered something so far use systems and flight models from default aircraft or even from another dev (FBW). Even the paywares are doing this.

In my opinion 'high quality' and 'freeware' do not go together in the same sentence. When I see someone announcing that they are working on a freeware aircraft and the systems will be 'high quality', I already know where they will go: Either it will take a decade to release or they will shut down in 1-2 years when they don't find a coder who works for free. Or also they will release an 'early access' with default systems and will never improve. This is all the rage with payware lately.

Of course there are exceptions, but if you look at the exceptions, almost all of them fall into two categories: Those who already took a finished aircraft and just modified their systems like FBW. Not that I want to belittle the work they did, but they took a big shortcut that allowed for their success. And the other category are those who developed small and/or vintage planes, which are easier to develop because they have less complex systems to work on.