Noel

Awesome thanks for that! Cheers

Did you let GSX ground crew know you're engines are running so they can disconnect? Until that happens the tug remains connected and you won't be able to move.

Assuming you have a lot of basics already mastered have you had a look at Self Loading Cargo? This is a very well-designed program from a very talented developer that supplies captain-crew-ground comms, crew announcements during flight, some very good sound packs from various airlines, recordings of actual interactions but for me most of all is its decent flight scoring routine. Here's an example of a scored flight I did the other day and you can see it covers various areas including passenger comfort, adherence to basic operating procedures, crew management etc. Flight Report - Delta Air Lines DAL555, from Venice Marco Polo Airport (LIPZ) to London Heathrow Airport(EGLL) | Self-Loading Cargo Passenger Flight It's not nearly as detailed as you might want to delve technically into but for me it's enough to keep my head in the game and supplies an artificial consequence and consequences are kind of missing in a sim, unlike the RW. Plus, the developer continues development at a nice pace. I use it for all flights in my five aircraft flown regularly.

Thank you for your insights and dedication to BATC. Despite its shortcomings I always use it. Is there any chance in the Premium captain's voice options we might be able to access various languages such as German, French, Italian, Russian, Spanish, Norwegian? I would love to have those because as stated previously there are enough times that BATC seems to fail as an ATC agent such that I'm use it mostly for ambience. Point being, despite this, I still always use BATC FWIW. Some things it does do puzzle me. For example you might be 190 miles from destination and BATC ask you to verify you see the airport, things like that that seem so basic it's puzzling it's not been addressed. Or, sending an airplane rated for a minimum runway of 5600' on a runway that is 3200'. And in general it too often sends you in too high. So it's like it's really not monitoring the plane in much detail. But def agreed, it continues improving. My other big issue is the low quality traffic animation, compared to other injectors like FSLTL. And I understand basically why so not looking for a rationale for it. So I use BATC for ambience mostly, and still use FSLTL's injection. I periodically come back to try BATC's traffic but the other issue there is that it makes Premium voices too expensive. Thanks again

Awesome that is great!

Very nice! Presumably I can program a button my yoke? My goal today is to RTFM! I still haven't done anything but Flyby which I really enjoy but look forward next to figuring out how to do tower or takeoff and landing views. Cheers

Did you try again today? If so I can head there shortly to see... I had no blurry textures today flying into EBBR, but I and some others notice weekends can have this happen more so than weekdays which I assume potentially implies strain on servers.

They're not ig-nor-ant of course, but this user is ig-nor-ant about exactly how and why Asobo prioritizes what it does. They're not obligated to adhere to anyone's set of priorities. They have to consider EVERYTHING, financial and otherwise, not just what this party or that party thinks matters most. This is a massive project developed to work well on a giant range of performance capabilities and do it in such fashion that it is sustainable and that last piece is the most challenging of all considering the franchise is attached to MS. I flew CYEG>CYVR yesterday and it was an absolute downpour with puddles all over the runway and wretched visibility, and some lightening strikes nearby such that I would never have been allowed to TO, but I did anyway! MSFS continues to deliver an astoundingly good simulation overall and I'm very thankful for it. I'm looking forward to night lighting being added to default airports and so much more...

Overblown vitriol by the usual culprits always ready to bash Asobo with every opportunity. The real extremely factual is that any degradation that happened is so modest it's hardly noticeable. Go look at the images I posted from 2020 and 2024 and on no uncertain terms the difference is so modest to be irrelevant and that is a remote area and is very close to surfaces involved. In fact 2024 is sharper and more detailed.

"Different standards" seems a bit broad and subjective to the point of potentially obscuring reality. If we are truly comparing apples to oranges we would need to both look at images captured from 2020 of old, and 2024 current, from similar distances from various objects, and at a zoom level we would actually use in game. Something like that has the best chance of being as close to an objective comparison as possible. My bet is that if you and I did that somehow, we would likely concur w/ each other. 30FPS was the best I could do at the time and discovering the value of sterling FTV truly made 30FPS tolerable, when that was the best I could reliably get while keeping all parameters at Ultra. It would be hard to accept now that I have become used to 60-90FPS. But I've also traded in best image quality for that higher FPS-fg. Because of the strobe effect in some terrain types using NV DLSS FG at low rates like 60FPS I sometimes have to go to 90 FPS or more....or turn FG off and live with 45FPS-native. From late 2020, Fussen, Germany: Similar view from 2024 now. I see more detail in this image especially in the mountains and even the grass field immediately below:

Thankfully, I can't relate to what you describe, at all. I have PG on currently but I often have it turned off to avoid its downsides depending on where we are. If the past was 'so much better', I'm stumped as to why it isn't absolutely obvious to me as well, as that is such a strong claim. But again, it's just too similar, or the same, from my vantage. Maybe it's down to where we fly most of the time. I managed to find a screenshot done in late 2020, flying into Fussen, Germany, and at that time, 2020, it was absolutely stunning as I'd never witnessed anything like that in my prior 30y of simming. So the other day I went back to that same spot in 2024 this time and as predicted, it really was essentially the same, except 2024 was sharper, clearer. That may have been time of year, time of day, and atmospheric haze in 2020 that was less so in 2024, at that day and time. I will take a screenshot for comparison and post them both here. What I would not contest is that if you go to point-blank range that is where it ought to be obvious and from Ryan's and your comments indeed I assume it is, at least in some areas. That being said I am one who since FSX days fly zoomed OUT, and that is a case of sacrificing a more accurate FoV, in trade for a faster sense of speed while low or taxiing, and also this always makes image quality a little sharper which is always a function of zooming out. As mentioned, I use primary scaling of 130, as well as the sharpness hack and AMD sharpener as well though at 60%. I wish I could post images here that reflect what my display generates but alas they're compressed and a little degraded.

I'm a graduate of the Trial & Error Flight School....and wonder if anyone here knows why when I took off on 36C at EHAM on a SID dictated by BATC, and decided to engage the autopilot at about 2000' AGL, with VNAV and LNAV enabled, the plane shot up severely, well over 20 degrees at which point I turned off the autopilot to regain control. I used to be able to do that and get away with it, right or wrong pre SP1 update.

My primary point is in very large part the degradation in texture resolution varies greatly by region. Further, it's critical to appreciate tile size does not determine resolution--what matters in any tile size is how much terrain is covered by the tile. Further still, while console architecture likely played a role in opting for 256x256 tile the rationale IS NOT to create low resolution per se, it likely has more to do w/ the value of using smaller tiles vis a vis how much data gets streamed in a unit of time. It may be part of the reason we have the performance we have today, which verges on perfection. And in the end, when you look at what regions have the highest resolution, those TIN/vexcel regions, it makes no sense to say Asobo went to 256x256 tiles, with and without lower detail, to accommodate consoles, and yet the areas of the world that indeed are highest detail (major cities and environs, much of Europe and the US, Japan, places like US Grand Canyon etc) and again I do not see any significant difference over 2020 in these areas, and then have consoles not be able to process those well because of their high detail. I think the primary rationale for 256x tiles has to do w/ the total impact on performance for all users, not just console users. So the 'dumbing down' to accommodate consoles (and lesser PCs) is really only one element that was considered. What I do know for sure is that as an airliner flyer I do not see any meaningful degradation in image quality, sharpness, etc on the ground in in the air.

BATC has an elegantly simple GUI, fabulous audio especially if you are using Premium voices. But it is weird how some of the most basic ATC elements fail. Even ground traffic conflicts. This is why I actually use it for ambience in large part. I use the old free FSLTL injector, get ample traffic for less performance cost plus ultra smooth animation in the AI aircraft unlike BATC's injection/management. And bonus: by NOT using BATC's traffic injector this limits use of Premium characters to comms between me and ATC, not all controllers talking to all other traffic because there is no traffic BATC recognizes, so it become very affordable. It's not all bad sometimes it all controls like you would expect it should.

I have quite a few dated 2022 from up high and don't see a lot of difference and the farther you go from any resolution texture the less blurry it becomes, unless Asobo actually lowers resolution as you go to high altitudes. I've always been struck by how little impact TLOD 100 is from 400 just looking at for example distant mountain ranges. Maybe now from what you're saying it makes a significant difference. Flying over Europe, over the mountains east of Santiago Chile and most areas of the US I see, as said early on, perhaps subtle degradation. And at taxi and takeoff it's all quite good still almost everywhere I fly. If there are higher resolution areas, and if all this was done to accommodate console users, why would they take some of the choicest terrain to make TIN/vexcel such that console users would be duly disappointed? Again: square area per pixel is part of the logic here, not just tile size.