1 hour ago, hanhamreds said:

Cirrus clouds are new and they have changed the lighting - other than that no other weather changes have so far been mentioned.

And judging by the tone of your post(s) I suspect you think these changes will not come? Maybe, maybe not. As always, my glass is half full. I'm looking forward to all the marketing, Q&A's and hype and whatever else they come up with. I bet there will be something in there regarding improvements in the weather system 😎

14 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

And judging by the tone of your post(s) I suspect you think these changes will not come? Maybe, maybe not. As always, my glass is half full. I'm looking forward to all the marketing, Q&A's and hype and whatever else they come up with. I bet there will be something in there regarding improvements in the weather system 😎

You are being judgemental and have made the wrong assumption 

16 minutes ago, hanhamreds said:

You are being judgemental and have made the wrong assumption 

Not intended, I placed a question mark:

32 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

And judging by the tone of your post(s) I suspect you think these changes will not come?

Like inviting you to answer 😉 But I still feel my glass is half full and yours is not; all good 👍

Edited September 7, 20241 yr by Rimshot

3 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Well, a render scaling of 160 (at 4K?) will surely consume a lot of processing power, even on the 4090

Yep, fully aware, and 99.5% of the time GPU use hardly exceeds 65%.  But there is something bizarre about a certain type of cloud that does this and it's usually large but thin, low density clouds.  I forget what that translates to on my 3440x1440 display but again it's very rare to get into this type of cloud.

Edited September 7, 20241 yr by Noel

45 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Not intended, I placed a question mark:

Like inviting you to answer 😉 But I still feel my glass is half full and yours is not; all good 👍

No worries 

 

I'm cautiously optimistic 👍

5 hours ago, Noel said:

Yep, fully aware, and 99.5% of the time GPU use hardly exceeds 65%.  But there is something bizarre about a certain type of cloud that does this and it's usually large but thin, low density clouds.  I forget what that translates to on my 3440x1440 display but again it's very rare to get into this type of cloud.

i've noticed the same thing with that one specific weather pattern/cloud type. because of it, i drop the volumetric clouds quality setting from ultra to high - but i feel like it's more of a bug that could be sussed out of the cloud rendering algorithm than just a hard limitation of the method in general. one of many issues i hope is/has been addressesd for msfs2024. it might also be closely tied to the "light shafts" setting, which in reality is the "volumetric lighting" setting you might see in other games. that one cloud layer type might be making every light in a large radius volumetric, adding a ton of gpu load.

Edited September 7, 20241 yr by molleh

On 9/6/2024 at 12:12 AM, Jeeeno said:

Don't care about anything else if physics and weather are not improved. 

The physics have already been and are continually improved over the course of the last 4 years.

They may not be to your satisfaction - and that is a very subjective matter...

But to imply that they haven't, or by extension - won't be, when all evidence is to the contrary, is patently ridiculous.

On 9/6/2024 at 1:23 AM, KERNEL32 said:

@Jeeeno has a good point; a flight simulator should prioritize these two things, as they are two of the most important factors of simulating a flight. But clearly that does not create sales.

It seems as though so many have completely lost perspective AND are ignoring literal history.

Please - compare and contrast where ESP/FSX/P3D "flight simulation" stood in regard these in 2019.

Pre- MSFS 2020, FSX and P3D didn't even have real time weather. And the physics, aside from the efforts of a few magician developers, were abysmal (relatively speaking).

Again, to imply that physics and weather are not priorities within the sim simply ignores the absolutely undeniable improvements implemented in v2020 and all its iterations since then.

It even forced other simulators to vastly upgrade their game (pun intended), etc., so not only has v2020 improved over its forebears, it's actually brought improvements to the entire industry...

Don't forget - it's a simulacrum, a simulation, to wit: "a representation of something".

It's NOT a literal mirror or "digital twin", for pete's sake., which seems to be what "simulation" has been twisted to mean by so many...

16 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

The physics have already been and are continually improved over the course of the last 4 

But to imply that they haven't, or by extension - won't be, when all evidence is to the contrary, is patently ridiculous.

Can you elaborate? Improved how? Can you provide specific examples?

On 9/6/2024 at 5:50 AM, CO2Neutral said:

I thought AVSIM was deleting these types of compare X vs. the world messages?  In the MSFS forums they seem to go unaltered, very odd.

Improvement depends and what one wants to enjoy, for some the graphics are just fine "as is", the weather/physics pretty bad, ok very bad ... hence the desire to see a focus on those elements for "improvement".  Before everyone gets all defensive about MSFS weather and physics, I don't care, this is an opinion, we have opinions, welcome to the human race.

Nope - it's okay to compare and contrast. There is simply no other way to have adult conversations.

The thing that the Partisans forget is their manners - they're in somebody else's house, and need to show at least a modicum of deference to the mores and values when visiting.

///

You say the weather/physics is "pretty bad, ok very bad". In relation to what...? Reality?

Of course they don't measure up well to that nearly impossible Standard.

In relation to other simulators? Well, let me tell you I have pretty much every flight game with even the slightest indication of being a "serious simulation" of some aspect thereof.

And I gotta tell ya, it's really just trading subjective preferences at this point. I.e., it's rather easy to obtain "pretty bad, ok very bad" physics and weather effects in any of them.

And it's also rather easy to have a spectacularly immersive and reasonably realistic experience in all of them, depending on your goals and preferences for "training".

25 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

It's NOT a literal mirror or "digital twin", for pete's sake., which seems to be what "simulation" has been twisted to mean by so many...

Actually, MSFS is very much a digital twin. Most people just don't understand what that means 😄 

24 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Can you elaborate? Improved how? Can you provide specific examples?

It's hard to believe that this question has been asked in good faith, unless you have not paid attention, at all, for four years. 

On 9/6/2024 at 6:14 AM, Abriael said:

Aside from the fact that MSFS has been improving physics and weather for 4 years, and they'll continue to improve, if that's what you think, you never stepped on an actual professional airliner simulator, which prioritizes procedures by a LOT over physics and weather. 

 

GREAT point. My dad spent the last part of his career as an IP for a well known biz jet manufacturer. As such, I got to spend way more than my fair share of time in the vaunted Level D simulators they ran.

The guys they trained, who were from literally all over the world, were able to receive their actual TYPE RATINGS from operating inside a simulator that had graphics SO BAD that 100% of flights were flown on moonless nights, with just the barest nod to the IRL topography and scenery of the local environment.

But let me tell you, sitting in there with the guys receiving the training, their "immersion" levels were astonishingly high - and their sweat wasn't simulated in the least 😁

On 9/6/2024 at 6:24 AM, sd_flyer said:

All aviation industry is about sales. In theory simulators can be used for several things: certificate, currency, or  safety. We can clearly see from GA accident statistic in recent years that loss of control is still number one cause of all accidents! And none of existing hardcore desktop sims haven't change that dynamic . In contrast level D sims clearly do something amazing because there is huge difference between GA  and commercial aviation safety. You 14 time more likely to do in GA aircraft than in the car.  So here are big news -  desktop sims are  all about entertaining and big sales . Austin wouldn't  be able to buy Lanceair Evolution if XP wasn't selling LOL 

Can desktop sim be used for real pilot? Ask a certified pilot! Literally anything can be used even of office chair if you know how to use it for training. Aeronautical decision making is still a big thing. Asked  hardcore simmers when last time their deviated due to weather and "go around" when approach was not stable LOL Yep we all play games - admit it and be happy 🙂

 

Good points, but I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that Level D sims are the differentiator in aviation crash rates.

The critical differentiator is the professional pilots and the AMOUNT of high quality training they receive, not the simulators they use.

There's a high number of GA fatalities for the same exact reason there are a high number of car fatalities: amateurs behind the controls.

 

38 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Can you elaborate? Improved how? Can you provide specific examples?

Yes. I can refer you to practically all of the release notes, including the pre-release notes, as well as the literal thousands of pages of articles and SME posts over the last four years.

Have fun catching up!!!

On 9/6/2024 at 9:44 PM, Noel said:

because I have render scaling at 160 now.

Wow!

On my 4K display I see little difference at Render Scale 110 or 120, but at 130 there is a big increase in clarity.  After that I can raise Render Scaling until my 4090 is on its knees without a great deal of difference in quality.