2 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

I also had the backwards / forwards movement working perfectly fine in the previous version before SU5. 
I believe if all of the if the 'Head Tracking Position sensitivities' were not set above 0 in the original in-game settings, then backwards / forwards movement didn't work, so for SD_Flyer, this may not have been set correctly originally. 

The only thing that changed on mine between SU4 and SU5 was the movement sensitivities, which were way too strong.
Mine are now very similar to yours, with all the head tracking settings for yaw, pitch, and roll set exactly the same as yours, at set really low at 0.2, 0.15, and 0.1.  Works well!

 

 

How is the transition from external to internal camera for you now Rob? It's much better isn't it? 

3 hours ago, Wise87 said:

See weather has not been addressed as reported by others in SU5

Yeah, unfortunately I don't think we'll EVER get any kind of "visual" weather updates in MSFS2024, even Seb said it himself. I believe they have mentioned that there are limitations in the engine that will prevent that. And, much like prior dev updates they skirted around the question about true "visual" cloud and visibility updates and instead pushed that they implemented up/down drafts inside of a storm cloud and weather radar improvements. That's great and all, but the problem with that is #1 storm clouds (i.e. supercells or stand alone high top thunderstorms) are non-existant in live weather and #2 even if using a storm as a preset the turbulence effect is not strong at all. So what is the point in an improved 3d weather radar if there are no realistic storms to avoid anyway? Cloud tops 10k? Blahh.

Don't get me wrong, it was still great to hear them again and they are trying to improve what they can. I just don't think it's possible within the limits of the current engine, and sharing the code with x-box performance limitations.

Did the first flight with SU 5 with my first flight on VATSIM from IVAO. Very smooth but I had this for the first time GPU related crash on starting up the sim. It was okay the second attempt. 

13 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

It's a data set issue, not a sim issue.

Which they’ve known for quite a long time and have still failed to address. 

Helicopters feel a lot more smooth.  I only flew the Taog MD500.  They mentioned improving ground effect, and it is much easier to hover and hold just above the ground now.  Maybe it was just a placebo, but everything felt more smooth, even out of ground effect.  I  didn't try any of the default helis.  

1 hour ago, KERNEL32 said:

That's great and all, but the problem with that is #1 storm clouds (i.e. supercells or stand alone high top thunderstorms) are non-existant in live weather and #2 even if using a storm as a preset the turbulence effect is not strong at all. So what is the point in an improved 3d weather radar if there are no realistic storms to avoid anyway? Cloud tops 10k? Blahh.

 

 

Unfortunately, it's not only that. In any other sim available for our hobby, when a WX phenomenon is reported, it at least resembles or simulates it to some degree. This example shows it is exactly their weakest link. In this picture, as is often the case, we see a METAR reporting a visibility of 5.4 NM, while the runway and surrounding areas are clearly visible from far away, with visibility exceeding 10 NM. It is not, as some claim, "incredibly GOOD" compared to other sims. Actually, quite a serious discrepancy. 

This is how the metar should look.

METAR LRSB 011200Z 31006KT 5SM SCT058 11/M04 Q1024 NOSIG

Edited May 1May 1 by LRBS

1 hour ago, KERNEL32 said:

even Seb said it himself.

Post a link of him saying that, please.

I've done 5 or 6 short flights since installing SU5 and to be honest, I've not noticed a jot of diference from flying thes routes in SU4 yesterday.  I can see from the change log that MS/ASOBO/GAYA have updated a lot of things, but so far, I have seen no perceptible difference.

1 hour ago, KERNEL32 said:

Don't get me wrong, it was still great to hear them again and they are trying to improve what they can. I just don't think it's possible within the limits of the current engine, and sharing the code with x-box performance limitations.

I also believe they're lacking in expertise in this area, but that's for another thread!

SU5, for me is just like SU4.

I see zero improvents to weather, atc, ai traffic, or performance. I just wonder what the hell they have been working on for the last 3 months?

The atc window & time & weather window are still stuttery. Ask and you shall not receive. That's their motto.

Having said all that, I would not change this sim for a multimillion dollar "professional one" from anywhere. 😀

`OK - I'm a little confused by what's going on with in-air traffic. I see 0 aircraft (user, AI or live). I have JustFlight traffic and not seeing anything (just lots of parked aircraft. If I use default live traffic in MSFS SU5, I get the same results. I know there was a lot of chatter with Flightradar24 but I was under the assumption this was only a FSTL issue.

7 hours ago, MarcG said:

That doesn't mean to say the developers ignore bugs with live weather that have been present for years though, or the fact that things could be a lot better if they just opened their eyes and realised that's we've been saying all this time.

It's seems to me they also think it's "good enough" which is a problem in itself.

Who says they’re ignoring it?  Maybe they just can’t fix it yet. 

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

 

Unfortunately, it's not only that. In any other sim available for our hobby, when a WX phenomenon is reported, it at least resembles or simulates it to some degree. This example shows it is exactly their weakest link. In this picture, as is often the case, we see a METAR reporting a visibility of 5.4 NM, while the runway and surrounding areas are clearly visible from far away, with visibility exceeding 10 NM. It is not, as some claim, "incredibly GOOD" compared to other sims. Actually, quite a serious discrepancy. 

This is how the metar should look.

METAR LRSB 011200Z 31006KT 5SM SCT058 11/M04 Q1024 NOSIG

METAR is only good with 5 stature miles of the station beyond that weather can vary. I really so no big deal because I experienced weather little worth or better comparing with METAR reporting. Have you ever shot an approach when METAR showing OK minimums, until you find out at missed approach weather suddenly rapidly deteriorated ?

31 minutes ago, tamsini said:

`OK - I'm a little confused by what's going on with in-air traffic. I see 0 aircraft (user, AI or live). I have JustFlight traffic and not seeing anything (just lots of parked aircraft. If I use default live traffic in MSFS SU5, I get the same results. I know there was a lot of chatter with Flightradar24 but I was under the assumption this was only a FSTL issue.

I fired up FS Traffic last night at JFK and I had traffic moving, but everyone piled up at the departure point and each plane just clipped into each other.  FS Traffic is schedule based, so won't be impacted by anything with live traffic.  

I recently reinstalled FS Traffic after the FSLTL changes, but I had tons of issues with it prior to SU5.  Sometimes no traffic at all, other times, parked AC but nobody ever moved.  Other times it worked fine.  I had a long back and forth with their support and they basically offered me a refund.  We could never get to the root cause of it.  I was hoping something in SU5 fixed it.  

One known issue is it can take a long time for traffic to get rolling with FS Traffic.  Their support told me it can take up to 90 minutes for traffic to move (which did not sound right to me).  

Granted I only had time for one flight.  I never took the refund but honestly I've never had good luck with the product.  I moved to BATC recently anyway so I usually use that.  

2 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

METAR is only good with 5 stature miles of the station beyond that weather can vary. I really so no big deal because I experienced weather little worth or better comparing with METAR reporting. Have you ever shot an approach when METAR showing OK minimums, until you find out at missed approach weather suddenly rapidly deteriorated ?

I know that technically the metar is only for the inner ring of airspace but from a practical perspective, it does cover a much broader area.  I know you fly a lot, but so does LRBS.  I got some flying experience too but mostly my experience as a tower controller for over a decade tells me METAR is very reliable for most of the country.  Where you fly it may not be unless the controlled airports put out SPECIs any time new weather became available.  You guys have marine layers that come and go there, or haze etc.  

In the upper Midwest, whatever the metar says (ATIS which can be updated every 6 minutes at towered airports), is very accurate for miles around.  

If you go to an uncontrolled airport, yeah it's possible the metar is off because those typically only update once per hour.  Some of them do generate a SPECI though.

If you remember some years ago, MSFS 2020 didn't even use metar, and I'm glad they switched, because without it meteoblue was almost worthless in the USA.  MB is based in Europe and frankly they do a much better job in that area.  But a lot of simmers do not want metar based weather.  Which shocks me.  Airlines use that data along with TAF for like everything.  As for the sim I think they try to mix the global stuff with metar but they seem to have issues transitioning the visual appearance.  

IMO, even with the knowledge that metar is limited in range, the sim should still render the airport in those conditions.  Because that's the most current snapshot of the weather.  MB is usually not that close in my experience.  Asobo really needs to model visibility.  Frequently a metar says something like 1/2SM and I see the airport 5 miles out lol.  It's not even close.  That's embarrassing.  Again this is a towered airport that WOULD have its metar updated approximately every 6 minutes irl.