7 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Sure, and you can sit in an airport for 8+ hours on standby filler and then have to return home …

😬 If you can do that, you need a new contract. 

6 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

So, when I e.g. flip the switch for the landing lights, why do the landing lights do have to get lit in sim? What do I learn from it? It's something I already knew before.

Well, you're right actually that they don't.  They should in a detailed model of an aircraft because that's what this software is trying to be, but there are absolutely zero consequences if they don't.  That's the whole point. 

1 hour ago, FPVSteve said:

A simulator which adds the jeopardy of potentially finding yourself in a situation that needs to be managed to get out of it seems far more rewarding than sitting down to have a completely a bland experience unless manually triggered. 

A simulator cannot add any jeopardy, and neither can desktop software.  You can impose consequences on yourself in the sense that maybe if you get in on this approach you'll grill that nice steak up for dinner, and if you don't it's leftovers 😁.  But software can't do anything to you.  You can always reset anything you want; you don't have to start over.  That's the beauty of something that isn't actually an airplane.  Endless redos.

Anyway, the point was just that you're getting down in the weeds in an irrational way when claims are made that the game must make aircraft fall from the sky if they enter icing or encounter uncontrollable turbulence in storms, because "that's what real simulators do"..  when the only real simulators that actually exist don't even bother with that kind of thing.  It would need to be manually triggered and it's pointless so we don't. 

Someone above made the same point that I had earlier, about "serious" simmers being more roleplayers.  I think that's where the disconnect lies.  I don't want to get in the way of anyone's roleplay, and it's perfectly fair to wish your software did anything you'd like it to do.  I was just correcting the assertion that "real simulators" must do this kind of thing, since in reality they actually don't.

As far as what I'd like to see after SU3 in 2024: an ability to set visibility.  THAT is something a real simulator absolutely must be able to do, and it has existed on every version of the desktop software... Right up until 2020.  It's an embarrassing omission, and difficult to believe it STILL hasn't been added.

In the eye candy category, the new XP weather does indeed trounce MSFS in some areas, so more of that would be fun to have, but to me that would just be a nicety.  But geez, the visibility...

8 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Well, the developer has to specify SOMETHING (e.g. contours) in order to define the plane. But the fact that each developer has to write things 'into the flight model' (if at all) individually and for each aircraft over and over again, which could also be calculated automatically by the core engine, is a bit silly. 😁

Agreed, as said, seems like a more elegant solution.  UNLESS...that SOMETHING entails a similar amount of work 😉.

14 minutes ago, Noel said:

Agreed, as said, seems like a more elegant solution.  UNLESS...that SOMETHING entails a similar amount of work 😉.

Carpet has some kind of perception that the flight model just has a flag that works something like..

`fly_out_of_sky_in_ice=true`

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

😬 If you can do that, you need a new contract. 

Well, you're right actually that they don't.  They should in a detailed model of an aircraft because that's what this software is trying to be, but there are absolutely zero consequences if they don't.  That's the whole point. 

A simulator cannot add any jeopardy, and neither can desktop software.  You can impose consequences on yourself in the sense that maybe if you get in on this approach you'll grill that nice steak up for dinner, and if you don't it's leftovers 😁.  But software can't do anything to you.  You can always reset anything you want; you don't have to start over.  That's the beauty of something that isn't actually an airplane.  Endless redos.

Anyway, the point was just that you're getting down in the weeds in an irrational way when claims are made that the game must make aircraft fall from the sky if they enter icing or encounter uncontrollable turbulence in storms, because "that's what real simulators do"..  when the only real simulators that actually exist don't even bother with that kind of thing.  It would need to be manually triggered and it's pointless so we don't. 

Someone above made the same point that I had earlier, about "serious" simmers being more roleplayers.  I think that's where the disconnect lies.  I don't want to get in the way of anyone's roleplay, and it's perfectly fair to wish your software did anything you'd like it to do.  I was just correcting the assertion that "real simulators" must do this kind of thing, since in reality they actually don't.

As far as what I'd like to see after SU3 in 2024: an ability to set visibility.  THAT is something a real simulator absolutely must be able to do, and it has existed on every version of the desktop software... Right up until 2020.  It's an embarrassing omission, and difficult to believe it STILL hasn't been added.

In the eye candy category, the new XP weather does indeed trounce MSFS in some areas, so more of that would be fun to have, but to me that would just be a nicety.  But geez, the visibility...

You're being extremely pedantic.

The fact is the capability exists in the simulator/game whatever you wish to call it and because you don't HAVE to trigger it manually as you put it, means it is great at simulating an actual flight rather than fixed scenarios in a "real simulator". The weather is dynamic and so are the decisions you might need to make to get from point A to point B safely in the context of the flight based on that.

I don't expect to be shaken around on my computer chair, but the fact that I may need to make a decision to ensure the "safety" of my arrival on the simulator is much more rewarding to me than what you seem to enjoy.

I guess I just don't understand why you bother flying if you're not interested in the dynamic of the medium your aircraft flies in - i.e. the sky, having an effect on the aircraft you're piloting.

3 hours ago, JYW said:

Could you please tell us which page in that thread the details of the 'VFS Projector' are?  The link dumps me to Page 1 of an 26 page thread.   Thanks so much if you can.

Here are the instructions to run the VFS projector in MSFS 2024:

This only covers reading the CFG values. To edit the CFG values and have MSFS 2024 read the changed values, I believe you need to duplicate the folder structure in your Community folder, and then put the CFG file in the corresponding folder in your Community folder structure. But this only covers reading the CFG values, it does not cover changing the CFG values and getting MSFS 2024 to read the changed values.

Edited September 7, 2025Sep 7 by abrams_tank

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

Carpet has some kind of perception that the flight model just has a flag that works something like..

`fly_out_of_sky_in_ice=true`

You're getting it wrong on purpose buddy, aren't you? I could have described it in a more complicated way, but then there would be complaints again. Apart from that, shouldn't it be `fall_out_of_sky_in_ice=true`? 🥶

But well, let's make it a little more complicated, you wanted it 😛: what if the windshield were to (correctly) display and simulate freezing? No problem, you have (IF implemented by the developer) a windshield heater. But what if the windshield heater fails?

52 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Here are the instructions to run the VFS projector in MSFS 2024:

But this only covers reading the CFG values, it does not cover changing the CFG values and getting MSFS 2024 to read the changed values.

So what is the point behind it?

3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

Well, you're right actually that they don't.  They should in a detailed model of an aircraft because that's what this software is trying to be, but there are absolutely zero consequences if they don't.  That's the whole point.

Zero consequences? Without the (virtual) landing lights lit, you will recognize the rwy much less, what might occur in a (virtual) accident. Then, again the (virtual) accident leaves only a few bent pixels, but then we don't even need to play/simulate a flight, because it has no consequences. Then we can also fly against buildings, slam the airplane onto the rwy, ... You can do anything, but what's the point?

4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

You can do anything, but what's the point?

That IS the whole point.  It's NOT an airplane.

6 hours ago, FPVSteve said:

I guess I just don't understand why you bother flying if you're not interested in the dynamic of the medium your aircraft flies in - i.e. the sky, having an effect on the aircraft you're piloting.

I am interested in that... When flying.  Constructing it in a gamey manner is not what a simulator does because it's not what they're for.  It's fine if you want this software to do that, I'm not opposed... I'm just correcting the assertion that "real simulators" do these things, when they do not.  It's not pedantic to point out an inaccurate assertion.  You guys are really overcomplicating this in an attempt to defend your position... If a position requires this convoluted of an effort to defend, it's probably worth re-examining.  Surely you know someone who's done some training in a real simulator.  Why not just talk to them about what it does and doesn't do?

38 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

I am interested in that... When flying.  Constructing it in a gamey manner is not what a simulator does because it's not what they're for.  It's fine if you want this software to do that, I'm not opposed... I'm just correcting the assertion that "real simulators" do these things, when they do not.  It's not pedantic to point out an inaccurate assertion.  You guys are really overcomplicating this in an attempt to defend your position... If a position requires this convoluted of an effort to defend, it's probably worth re-examining.  Surely you know someone who's done some training in a real simulator.  Why not just talk to them about what it does and doesn't do?

X-plane is a simulator. It's also a "gamey" thing. The two can coexist. 
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-frequency-response-and-identified-results-of-the-quadrotor-UAV-model-in-X-Plane_fig12_373378524

Like I said you're being pedantic and I think you're just making an argument for the sake of it. The bottom line is I'd rather have a game/simulator/flight program that was capable of showing me what could go wrong in the real world without me necessarily needing to tell it to do so via an instructor station (which it also supports, incidentally) nor with me needing to suffer physically in my chair from experiencing it.

19 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

I could go on and on ...

This has to be one of the most valid and irrefutable things I have ever seen you post here... 

Edited September 8, 2025Sep 8 by psolk

A development team that recognizes key missing/lacking elements such as what is pointed out in this topic from the population of experienced users, instead of looking for confirmation of their own ideas.  

That is not the same as getting beta tester feedback on their own development team ideas as presented in betas.  Much much different.

Edited September 8, 2025Sep 8 by fppilot

On 9/4/2025 at 6:11 AM, jarmstro said:

Not for most people The sim is incredibly smooth for me on landing and just about everywhere. Must be your system? 

Count me as someone with system problem. I know my 3070Ti isn't exactly top tier, but the sim's a slideshow on the ground for me, even if there are only a couple of other airplanes nearby. Once I take off it usually smooths out pretty much immediately, when I'm still in the high-res radius for the airport. Surely the landing gear being extended isn't causing graphical glitches.

Another strange thing I noticed. I usually play in VR with a Reverb G2, but was doing some testing and didn't bother with the headset. It was even more laggy on the flat screen. A 1080p screen ran slower than the twin 2ks that is the Reverb. That's just weird. 

 

the ability to assign a key command that will allow zoom in our out of the default MFD screens, G3000 etc... ugh

I'm missing mainly three things:

A much better AI engine 

Less aggressive LOD system, which avoids near to medium distant scenery objects (inc. landing gears) to pop in.

Daylight instrumental lighting