Jump to content

Donstim

Members
  • Content Count

    295
  • Donations

    $15.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Donstim

  • Rank
    Member

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's out...Not on the insider site yet, but on the public site.
  2. Agree; it is obvious there are plenty of bugs (as expected) at this stage.
  3. Not sure how IVAO and VATSIM fit into this picture. Maybe you guys can clue me in to what you mean? I fly solely on VATSIM and would hope to have something similar with the new sim - meaning live ATC and some "control" over those flying in that "world." AI stuff is okay, but I prefer real live stuff.
  4. Yes, thanks. I had just started reading this thread and didn't look to see when the discussion had started. I decided to delete my post, but unfortunately you were quicker to comment on it than I was to delete it! Thank you also for the informative posts you made in this thread.
  5. DELETED [Responded to an obviously out of date posting]
  6. That's the only place a takeoff like that should be attempted!
  7. It would be nice if it actually could have the option to be as realistic as possible -- including different types of contamination (e.g., dry snow, wet snow, ice, slush), ground friction effects, contamination drag (both from the gear/tires moving through the contamination and the effect of the contaminant kicked up by the airplane impinging on the airplane), hydroplaning, and visibility. But, I'm not expecting anywhere near that level of detail/realism.😀 For one thing, the realistic depiction of actual runway/taxiway conditions would mean obtaining and interpreting field condition reports for all available airfields. WIshful thinking I am sure, but maybe there could be options to either: a) download and use the current field condition report (if available) or b) designate whether snow covers the runways/taxiways/apron, and if so, provide a means to clear it (e.g., snowplows).
  8. The icing pic is great. I wonder how realistic icing will be from a standpoint of the type that forms based on the atmospheric conditions, where it forms, and what effects it has on airplane performance and systems/equipment.
  9. Well, they fixed it good for me. When trying to update FSX-SE, I got an error message that MSVCR80.DLL, MSCVP80.DLL, and MFC80.DLL could not be found, so it was unable to run the installer. These files do exist on my computer, last installed with Windows Update on 7/26/2019. Now I get a "Access is denied" error when trying to start FSX-SE. Not really interested in going through the whole installation process again with all my 3rd party scenery, airplanes, etc. Guess I'm done with flight simulation until the new Microsoft Flight Simulator. Update: Weil, I fixed it. I copied the specified files from where the were into the FSX-SE main directory. It opens fine now. I will probably have to go back and reinstall some stuff, though, because I first followed their process for recovering from installation/updating errors. One of the steps was to verify the integrity of game files. It found over 5000 files that needed to be replaced. I have a feeling that some or all of these files have to do with add-ons that will now be affected.
  10. Yeah, form the community that isn't going to buy their product. Big deal...
  11. I would have thought, as a Forums Administrator, that you would have been aware of the many posts about FSX-SE's improved VAS handling (well, not exactly accurate, but I'll get to that in a minute) over the boxed FSX version. You are right that there is a very severe VAS restriction for any 32 bit piece of software when faced with the demands of complex aircraft/scenery/weather in the midst of high def textures. The boxed version of FSX made that restriction even worse by holding on to every bit of scenery you fly near, making flight time a very good predictor of OOMs. What FSX-SE does that is different, in my understanding, is that it releases scenery details from the cache when it is a certain distance away. If you watch a VAS log in FSX, free VAS just keeps shrinking throughout the flight. In FSX-SE, however, free VAS will shrink, but will then recover as scenery details are released. No more sure OOMs after X hours of flight! As I've said in each post and in the beginning of this one, this does not fully resolve the OOM issue as FSX-SE is still a 32-bit piece of software and hence VAS is limited. But it really does help, and for me at least, makes it much easier to complete a long flight in a complex aircraft (FSLabs A320/PMDG 737NGX) with complex airport and general sceneries (Orbyx, Blueprint, FlightBeam, FlyTampa, etc) with AS2016/ASA2106, on VATSIM. I don't dread hearing that FSUIPC ping..ping nearly as much. I've never been one to care much about frame rates. I limit mine at 32 and am happy above 20-25 for takeoff and landing at complex airports.
  12. Sure, they are "essentially" the same sim -- FSX. But the improvements are not to be taken too lightly. I saw some performance improvement, which was nice, but not the main reason I switched. me. For me, flushing the terrain cache was significant as it allows me to operate the FSLabs A320 (and PMDG 737NGX) into all the complex airport/scenery/weather add-ons I have without the dreaded OOM crash. Not that it is a 100% solution for OOMs (I can still experience them if I'm not careful), but it greatly alleviated them for me. The performance improvements and some of the other fixes were nice adds to that. FSX-SE and FSX boxed may be essentially the same sim, but they are very different in terms of playability for me.
  13. Yep, that's what FXS-SE is. And the changes reading from top to bottom are relative to FSX boxed.
  14. Sad to see how much misinformation is still being given out regarding the differences between FSX and FSX-SE. See the full list of changes here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/314160/discussions/0/496881136926977562/ While the fix that flushes the terrain cache helps a great deal with the dreaded OOM issue, you can still have them with complex aircraft combined with complex scenery and weather, especially when using large texture sizes. The performance optimizations, terrain cache flux, and other fixes are enough to keep me using FSX-SE while waiting for one of the newer sims to prove itself better!
  15. Well. it doesn't put me off, but it won't be replacing FSX-SE for me until it has the capabilities for (i.e., not necessarily in the core sim, but capability for third party developers to add) real world weather, jet airliners to PMDG/FSLabs standard, connection to VATSIM, detailed airports/other scenery/mesh/textures/etc at least on par with FSX-SE and runs at least as well as FSX-SE. I fully realize that it is in early access and may be there for some time. It would be nice, though, if at least a general roadmap of what they have planned as far as the capabilities I've mentioned as well as any others would be made public instead of being so closely held. I purchased FSW during a previous sale partly based loosely on a Steven Hood interview and partly just to invest in what I personally consider the best chance at being the simulator that would replace FSX-SE for me. It ain't anywhere near that yet in this early access form, and without a roadmap I don't know if it will ever get there, but I'm hoping! In the meantime, you GA flyers, beta testers, and tweakers, have fun with it!
×
×
  • Create New...