Sartanius

Well said!

Check out these new stills from the Insider Site:

This is honestly the most excited I've ever been for a flight sim release... and I'm 64 yeas old. As a heavy iron enthusiast, I'm stunned!

I agree with Dominique's comment... don't use shaders and am very happy with my visuals. Nothing against shaders at all, just a lot more trouble than they are worth for me personally. It is great we all have so many choices in this hobby.

I have all but two of their products bought over several years without a single transaction problem.

With all due respect, Bill... name me a single, high-end software product of this magnitude and complexity released by any company ever that was bug-free. I'll wait...

Yep, have latest NVIDIA driver and 1909... updates were smooth. Performing flight UAL284 from KAUS to KSFO in FSLabs A319 and all is going great.

Beautiful shots, Darryl!

It seems MS is trying to organize the YT hub to include all the released videos in each of their respective categories. Certainly not new content right now, but I appreciate the desire to organize and make it easier for curious visitors to see how this new product is being developed.

+1 for both suggestions above. In my opinion, I'd also increase the power supply wattage to give you additional headroom, especially in light of possibly upgrading to a 2080Ti at a later date.

I'll hop aboard with another vote to start fresh. You'll be glad you did.

I'm with those who think the existing FSX/P3D ATC is adequate for launch (since they already have the code base), but would love to see additional core development to add the more advanced capabilities discussed here. Time will tell. Most certainly the developers are well aware of the demand for ATC from the community.

With regard to the military training realm, training outcomes are determined through a rigorous training needs analysis, which then determines the optimal medium for the training to occur. I agree students may "want" more visual immersion, but if the needs analysis doesn't determine the training device must provide that capability, then it will not be implemented. There are always collections of training outcomes considered as "wants", but never implemented due to cost. As for fidelity, today's Level-D simulators are modeled in as near a one-to-one equivalency as is possible. Thousands of man hours and millions of dollars are spent instrumenting test aircraft to capture moment/acceleration forces all around the airframe as part of replicating an accurate flight model. The need for accurate flight modeling for a Level-D simulator is of far greater importance than flight modeling for computer-based training situations. Of course having as accurate a flight model as possible when sitting at a PC is beneficial, it is far more important and critical it be accurate for the Level-D simulator.

For the most part, this is spot-on. Totally different target population and training objective. However, I do see full Level-D flight sims incorporating visuals like we're seeing in MSFS, especially focused around mission rehearsal.

This matters to me as well since my tube liner sim sessions are mostly within the last 24 hours. Historical weather is just data, so even if the capability isn't there at release, I don't see this being a huge issue down the road.

Glad I misunderstood... and you do have some interesting points. Appreciate your insight, my friend.

Michael - I worked in the Aeronautics Sector of LM for 36 years (retired 2016) with the last 15 or so in leadership and was never aware of any animus between LM and MS. We used many MS tools and high-end IT expertise across many programs with never a hint of relational or commercial problems. I'm honestly curious... please enlighten me. If you'd prefer, just message me so we don't take this thread down a rabbit trail.

I resisted doing this for years, then jumped in... and I'm so glad I did. I remain in awe of how well FSLabs simulated this aircraft. It performs with an accuracy and fluidity I have not seen in other study-level products. I don't believe you'll be disappointed.

Hi Ray. I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I don't believe a license is invalid if the vendor removes their product from the market. Unless the license specifically states it only applies if the product is still for sale, I expect it is still legally binding. However, this is just an opinion.

For FSX/P3D I have been using LogEdit3 (v3.0.2.2). It is available as a free download here in the Avsim Library. Nice little utility written by Dan Downs, who works with the PMDG crowd. Check it out.

If you go back and watch the Q&A videos from the Global Preview Event, the lead engine developer, Lionel, answers that question and describes generally how they achieve RTX-looking effects without DX12. He does mention that they will incorporate true RTX capability when they release a future version compatible with DX12.

One of the things I did notice in one of the recent videos was traffic traveling at different speeds on the same highway. Was neat seeing a car passing a truck and another slower car coming up an entrance ramp. Although not essential for a flight simulator, I appreciate the attention to detail. It really is the little things ...

This +1. I just don't understand the freeware crowd. It is great when individuals want to spend their own time developing a complex aircraft and then give it away. They are absolutely free to do so, and many appreciate their efforts. But it is also just as valid when companies want to create payware since there is a robust consumer market that wants to buy their products, which are typically very high quality and are likely to be supported for the long term. Freeware and payware exist together quite nicely, and I hope they both continue to thrive in MSFS.

Yep, happy customer here as well. Have really enjoyed my Define R6 Blackout. Best case I've used so far. I'm likely to stay with FD.

Yes, went back and listened again. They said "most" real-world flights disappear on the runway, but some (if they have the data from the real world flight) do taxi to the gate. So, that's a step in the right direction. Thanks for the tip!