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.

Where did you get the 'fact' piece? What's 'non TIN/vexcel areas'? Fortunately for me as an airliner flyer I'm not seeing any significant degradation in image quality. Flying into EGLL just a moment ago, only a few thousand feet up it was gorgeous. What I never have done is zoom on down to point blank range to see differences in resolution, though as said in my original post at EDDH it was obvious there were low rez terrain compared to most of where I fly. As for the images I posted they were done by iPhone to my curved display, then cropped and were taken from where I will appreciate scenery from, not at point-blank range where resolution would be revealed. It's a little like my TV: 65", 4K, but when viewed from 13' away, 4K looks no better than 1080p. That's fascinating that you find the other attributes of 2024 compelling enough to offset low resolution, or it points to the idea you're not that adversely affected by low resolution until you really get down low. Exactly what part of 'high resolution' was 'killed'? Again, just flew into EGLL and it as was gorgeous as ever... And the other reality: tile size does not determine square area per pixel in the tile. One can have 1 meter per pixel, or 32cm per pixel on a 256x256 tile if I understood the logic correctly. And, if the native image is very low resolution to start with as in low quality satellite imagery, it doesn't matter what tile size is used. All this aside time marches on and I would predict resolution will increase down the road, perhaps when the new Xbox arrives... Official architecture previews from GDC 2026 and subsequent leak data detail Project Helix as a console-PC hybrid powered by a custom AMD "Magnus" SoC built on TSMC's 3nm process. [1, 2, 3] Graphics Memory and Bandwidth Microsoft is implementing a unified memory pool designed to sustain 4K at 120 FPS performance targets. [1] Memory Capacity: Current industry leaks point to a massive 36GB to 48GB of GDDR7 memory. [1] Memory Bus: The platform utilizes a 192-bit wide bus. [, 2] Raw Memory Bandwidth: The combination of GDDR7 speeds and the 192-bit bus pushes estimated native bandwidth to roughly 864 GB/s. [1] Universal and Neural Compression: To drastically amplify effective bandwidth without relying on more expensive physical memory, Microsoft is leaning heavily into Neural Texture Compression (NTC) and a universal compression software layer. This allows data to compress tightly as it travels across the graphics pipeline, easing hardware constraints. [1, 2] DirectStorage + Zstandard Compression: Upgraded DirectStorage APIs bundle hardware-level Zstd decompression. Massive, high-fidelity 4K and 8K assets are uncompressed in real-time, streaming straight from the M.2 SSD to the GPU memory pool while completely bypassing CPU bottlenecks. [1] Core Technical Architecture GPU Layout: Built on AMD RDNA 5 architecture, featuring approximately 68 Compute Units (CUs). For context, each individual CU is tracked to run roughly 65% faster than those in the current Xbox Series X. [1, 2] Hybrid CPU: Features an 11-core hybrid setup using Zen 6 architecture. This divides tasks between 3 high-performance cores (meant to stabilize high-refresh-rate PC gaming workloads) and 8 efficiency cores. [1, 2] Dedicated AI Co-Processor: A hardware-siloed Neural Processing Unit (NPU) sits directly on the SoC. Drawing just 6W of power, it delivers up to 110 TOPS to compute AI rendering independently without robbing performance from the main GPU. [1, 2]

100% a function of your internet or your PC settings and capabilities, or a combination of both.

That sounds fabulous thanks! I will give it a go shortly, at EGLL ;o) Is there a hotkey to turn CAM off and on per chance?

I'm ultra thankful for your project as I sorely miss the Flyby and Tower views of old and I agree it's a must-have for 2024 flyers. I would only caution against getting overly complicated as we already have that in ChasePlane. I actually own ChasePlane but after using it in 2020 decided it is overkill for my needs as I'm ultra content w/ the default camera system save its lack of a good Flyby routine. I really like the variety of passes you configured using the Flyby routine. I guess 'Tower' view really is a case of 'locating' the individual tower you're at, versus Spotty26 knowing where it needs to be to do a tower view?

From putting the idea to GPT that MSFS graphics were 'dumbed down' to accommodate consoles the response essentially was along the lines of it's much more nuanced than that. It made the comment that 256x256 tiles limit was a notion arrived at by community members with no official comments made to that effect by MS/A. The fact that there indeed are many areas of the world rendered at higher resolutions which fits with my own experience, that this argues against a 'global' reduction based on 256x tiles and that in fact tile size does not imply a fixed square area per pixel. And further, if it is the case that some areas are rendered at higher resolutions which absolutely is the case, this would imply those areas are off limits to consoles at some level, which really makes no sense if you're after accommodation of consoles, and especially since those areas are likely to be the most popular areas to fly in or around. It also made the point that satellite data quality varies as source data. I looked at multiple screenshots I took in 2022 of scenery in MSFS and I do not see any crisper, sharper areas than I already do now in 2024.

This seems like it could be addressed by having two pathways when streamed data is requested, if coming from console, then 256, if from PC then 512, or what have you. It just doesn't seem impossible to have done yet would have kept everyone happier. I wonder what % of all MSFS 2024 users are on PC v console.

I bought Spotty26 and love it as it has restored a high quality Flyby and that is really all I care about. I find the default camera system amply adequate, super quick and easy to setup any new planes for my 10 custom views and now that we have a Flyby that does not overwrite the default camera system I'm stoked to have it. I owned and used ChasePlane in 2020 but decided against it for 2024 even though it's essentially free to me, or was at least. Not worth the setup for me.

I fly all over North and South America, Europe, some Middle East, Oceana & the Far East and most everywhere it's very much the same as what you saw in those images I posted. But definitely regions do vary in my experience. And now that I think about it we read in this thread seemingly plausible claims of reduction in resolution to accommodate console platforms and yet you can see in the images I posted, which are compressed, that if the console argument were true we would not be seeing this much detail in many areas of the world--and again I fly over large areas of the planet. Maybe it's more a case of server capacity allocated to MSFS, but it makes no sense to attribute other areas of lower resolution to the console argument.

Nope it still works thankfully, the regedit. It's just whenever you update the NV GPU driver you have to re-modify the value and reboot after which you can then use the sharpness slider w/ GPU scaling option in NVCP. Of course 'sharpness' is not the same thing as resolution, but it does give an opportunity to get the most out of whatever native resolution we are privy to. I can see where perhaps there has been a subtle downgrade in maximum resolution in spots and maybe everywhere (and average resolution in a region) but I'm not certain, and that uncertainty only supports the perhaps qualifier I used above it's just not massive enough to go from a great experience to a major downgrade in experience. It's a bit subtle IOW. Certainly object detail is there for lateral viewing and there must be variance in base texture resolution by region. I have only flown into EDDH once and that was years ago, and just did again an hour ago landed there and was struck by low resolution textures. Immediately after that I took these images, downgraded by postimg.com and this texture detail at this altitude is apply fine. Actually I'm in a drone cam and I don't think all that far up. Standley Lake in the background a few miles from my home on the Colorado Front Range, we've over KBJC, and I play that golf course now and again: Out of KPGA. So much of long flights in the southwest US look this detailed so it's not just Grand Canyon areas: I quick pic from just over SABE, Buenos Aires: And from the mountains east of Santiago, Chile: Also, on these compression-degraded images above all were done at TLOD 100. My former PC was Win 10 and I saved quite a few shots from 2021-22 and as I look at these I don't see any improvements over what we have now, but it is a small group of images granted.

I think you're vastly overblowing the 'downgrading' piece. I still see crisp textures almost everywhere I fly and that includes all over Europe, North & South America, Oceana, and it has not changed for me since starting using 2024 around April of 2025, and I used 2020 from Day 1 until then. The move to 2024 then only improved image quality secondary to jumps in polygon objects. Of note I use a Primary Scaling value of 130, and the NVCP sharpness reg edit and AMD FSR. I wonder if something is wrong w/ the traceroute from servers to your PC to leave you with this dour description. If things were as wretched as you imply you would be seeing a bigtime exodus even out of Avsim, but that is not happening, at all.