Jump to content

Mike T

Members
  • Content Count

    1,635
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Good

About Mike T

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No
  1. Hi Simbol: Not to call you out, but there is a lot wrong with your post and I wanted to clarify a few things: 1. MSFS will be using a streaming protocol to send data to our PCs in real time. Real time streaming protocols use UDP/IP and not TCP/IP. UDP is a connectionless protocol which removes the overhead for connection oriented protocol like TCP. Why? TCP wants the dataflow to be reliable so it verifies that each packet in a flow is received and sequenced which adds latency. TCP is used for common protocols like HTTP(S) (web) and SMTP (email) because it doesn't matter if your website loads in 50ms or 100ms. On the other hand real time protocols (RTP) like VoIP, Video Over IP, and streaming applications like MSFS would lag badly if TCP were used because unlike your web browser which sends a few large packets and then it's done, RTP uses lots of small packets which makes TCP impractical. With UDP, packets are sent and not checked by the protocol. Rather, the magic is done in the application layer to verify packets are received properly. There are other techniques that will also help conceal latency and jitter and can make use of your much faster CPU on the PC and not be limited by the capabilities of the NIC. This is why you can have YouTube and Hulu stream all day and despite variable latency on the internet the quality is great even at 4k or 1080p, and 5.1 sound. MSFS will be able to do the same. Also, MS will use packet deduplication to minimize the stream as much as possible, in addition to minimizing what must actually be sent to you vs what's already loaded from local gigs of data on your HD. 2. You refer to WIFI as its a homogeneous entity and it is not. Wifi performance will depend on the type of Wi-Fi being used - 802.11g (gasp), 802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax - AND it will also depend on how many spatial streams the WIFI access point supports as well as the chipset in the client, interference, how far you are from the AP, etc. Most new consumer APs running 802.11ac have a max theoretical connection speed of 1.3Gbps or 1.8Gbps at 5Ghz. But that is under the best conditions with 2 or 3 spatial streams respectively. Most clients will likely get between 300 and 800Mbps - which is fine. But remember, an AP acts like a hub. The more devices connected to it, the higher the latency since each device gets a time slice to transmit. BUT, to be clear Wi-Fi is ABSOLUTELY not as reliable as a wired connection. Why? As I said, an AP is a hub. The more devices connected, the lower the bandwidth available per each device, and the higher the latency. ALSO, the further you move away the lower your bandwidth. With 5Ghz, you have much shorter range than 2.4Ghz, and you have less ability to penetrate obstacles like walls. Finally, while not so much of an issue at 5Ghz due to the wider range of channels, Wi-Fi is subject to interference especially at 2.4ghz. In highly dense Wi-Fi environments such as large apartment buildings and complexes, getting optimal bandwidth is nearly impossible unless you have enterprise grade equipment. 3. SONET is a protocol but it is very 2001 and not really used :-). Modern networks are built using fiber but use IP not SONET (or ATM :-). Also, WAN protocols are layer 2 so your TCP/IP analogy doesn't apply since you're mixing layers. TCP is layer 4 and IP is layer 3. That's why TCP/IP has to be encapsulated over a layer 2 network, but its okay, modern MPLS networks (also layer 2) handle this stuff at very low latencies. The underlying network is not concerned with your TCP/IP or UDP/IP traffic. So you've badly mixed up TCP and SONET since they are totally separate protocols. 4. Finally, MPLS has absolutely nothing to do with Windows scaling - that's something that's restricted to the LAN. If you're referring to being able to support jumbo frames which are above any packets above 1500 MTU (Jumbo Frames), you don't do that over your WAN and neither do you have a reason to. Why? If you increase your frame size above the standard, the egress router will simply break it down into 1500 byte fragments. And since jumbo frames have to be implicitly turned on - and the Internet does not have them turned on, you'd actually make your network slower. MPLS actually acts like a VPN. MPLS packets are encapsulated and encrypted but again, it doesn't care what the payload is: TCP, UDP, RTP, or something else. 5. You're greatly overestimating the impact of layer 4 protocols like TCP on latency and WiFi doesn't add anywhere near 50ms to the network. I can ping a resource across the country or across the Atlantic in less than 100ms. Azure is built so that sessions connect to the closest datacenter. Azure has 54 regions and they're in 140 countries. I can promise you that unless you're in Antartica, Greenland, certain parts of Africa or Central Russia you can get to an Azure DC in well under 100ms. Depending on the quality of your connection of course. Anyhoo, TCP/IP is the global standard on which the Internet runs. It's not problematic at all. Modern networks are now a simple IP handoff whether it's your cable modem, DSL, Ethernet. In other words, if you want to best, and most reliable connection for MSFS 2020 do this: 1. The more bandwidth you give IP the more bandwidth it will take - get the most bandwidth available - or that you can afford 2. Wired is more reliable than wireless. If don't have wireless capable of 5Ghz and multiple spatial streams, simply plug directly into your router. Unless you have a bad cable, you'll always connect at the highest speed and don't have to worry about interference. 3. Upgrade your wireless router to 802.11ac or 802.11ax. If your router say 802.11b,g, or n...that means you!!! 4. Don't take that job in Greenland 🙂 Hope this helps, and sorry for calling you out, and the long post but this applies directly to MSFS performance and should be correct. Regards Mike T.
  2. Nelson - uninstall P3D completely. Reinstall 4.3 but during the reinstall rename the install directory something slightly different than the default and let the installation complete. Boot up P3D - it should work now. HTH, Mike T.
  3. I'm going to assume that its just me having this issue since I don't see anyone else having this problem. P3D v4.1 with Windows 10 (all patches). I re-installed all PMDG products recently and this is the first time I was going to use them. The registration screen popped up as usual when trying to load the 737-700, I put in the code and then P3D gets locked up at a black screen. No error, just P3D at at black screen. I checked the event viewer and don't see an error. However, I have to go manually close P3D because it is locked up at black screen. I reloaded P3D but same error. I can select the PMDG aircraft - they are there in the menu but they don't load. Rebooted, and uninstalled, and reinstalled. Same issue except that there is not even a registration screen that pops up when trying to load the 737-800 for the first time. I have FSL A320 and Q400 and both load - as well as all default aircraft, but no PMDG products load. Is this part of the Creator's update issue? Anything else I can try? Any logs I can pull? Thanks, Michael P. Toussaint
  4. I've got a strange problem I was hoping someone else has seen. I'm using WoIA and other freeware traffic and schedules along with Flightbeam KSFO and Imaginesim KSJC. All of a sudden I have absolutely no AI traffic at either KSFO or KSJC. I've verified the AFCADS and even reinstalled the airports but still no AI traffic. The only thing I can think of is that I uninstalled ORBX Northern Cal, but that shouldn't affect the AFCADS right? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Mike T.
  5. EXactly! EXtreme eXaserbation of X is eXtraordinarily eXhausting and taXing! X products eXude paradoXical eXamples of teXtures for any subteXt. Hopefully they will all become eXtinct when FSX eXpires or my head will eXplode from the eXploitation of the letter X. The letter X has become eXceedingly toXic and requires no further eXamination. Let's simply have no more products with an X affiXed because I wish that FSX never eXisted!Today I purchased a new Xylophone, a seXtant, a tuXedo and a new pet foX named ReX.Regards,Malcolm X.
  6. How many times do we like to fly that hairy approach with nasty crosswinds and driving rain? Well, the question is can YOU do it in real life? http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/03...lane/index.htmlHe couldn't! :-lolEDIT: Late breaking news: Lufthansa maintenance teams report that both pilot's seat cushions were mysteriously missing. Later, both pilots complained of pain in their lower bodies and both seat cushions were found and removed from the pilot's lower intestine via emergency surgery. Both pilots are recovering and resting comfortably (on their stomachs) :-lolRegards,Mike T.
  7. Absolutely not sir! FS9 is totally incapable of simulating the yearly migration of the Himalayan Long Haired Yak...you must upgrade to FSX for that type of realism! :-lolBest regards,Mike T.EDIT: Where is Ferd Berful when you need him??? :-xxrotflmao
  8. Well, I've stepped off the carosel this time and methinks that so has half (or more) of the community. I mean, let's be real here with indisputable FACTS: - FSX DX10: A total and unadulterated faceplant into the mud of gaming history - FSX Shared cockpit: Never materialized in any of the panel and aircraft releases I can think of. - FSX 3D Cockpit navigation: ActiveCamera does a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better job of doing it in FS9. - FSX real weather: Status quo, now buy ASX if you want real weather - FSX roads: How come Flight1 can get this right but Microsoft gets inaccurate information and is missing most roads still? - FSX Landclass: Again, does MS not have the resources to get accurate data but FSGENESIS has no problems here? - FSX Generic Textures: Representative of a future globally warmed planned where plantlife has largely died and a post apocalyptic global desert has taken its place - FSX Higher Resolution: Arguably the best enhancement in FSX is its 1m scenery...unfortunately if you choose this option, other options must be reduced. - FSX Water: Much better than FS9, but again, either you have spectacular water or other options, you can't have both. - FSX Bloom: Very photogenic, but totally unrealistic unless you generally go through life with dirty glasses or 3 year old contact lenses. - FSX Adventures: Very entertaining and a great diversion, but does not appeal to a wide audience. Still, flour bombing lemmings in southern Timbucktu gets old real quick. - FSX animals: So, somewhere someone thought that there is no reason to place moving humans on the ramps of airports but having pods of whales off of the coast of Antartica would enhance the flight experience. Undoubtedly this may be one reason that there are job openings at ACES.- FSX ATC: Can you say FS9 ATC?- FSX AI Traffic: Sounds much better than FS9 traffic so at least you can hear them as they smash into your 747 as you approach KSEA at 2 FPS. -FSX Performance: Will be excellent once CRAY releases their consumer version or their server clusters.Yes, I am being tounge-in-cheek here because FSX is what FSX is, but as I sit here waiting for FS11, I can only gawk at what a missed opportunity FSX is. FS9 will continue its popularity and its addons will command a market price until the specifics of FS11 are released and the firt beta testers have commented on it. Ah yes, old rehashed news to be sure, nothing new here at all. But 1 1/2 years after initial release FSX has reached maturity and is out in the world on its own with no further support by MS. EDIT: Interestingly that reminds me of a mother who recently forgot to pick her 2 year old kid up from day care and happly went on to her second job...apparently she assumed that the 2 year old would take care of herself (or simply call a taxi?). Unfortuantely the mom forgot to take into account that the 2 year old needs support for quite some time longer. The moral of the story? Sometimes you can lead a horse to water but sometimes he doesn't like beer so you have to give him soda.Regards,Mike T.
  9. FSX is just like any othe version of MSFS, a base and mostly generic world. MSFS has NEVER come with a massively customized environment, aircraft or weather. Granted Aces attempted to inject new more accurate landclass, roads and updated textures but the jury is still out on that one since products like Genesis, FEX, GEX and ASX (if I see one more product with a derivitive "X" in its name I'm going to SCREAM!!!!) vastly improve the default "enhancements". Not to mention that the roads, landclass, mesh et al in the default FSX are STILL totally inaccurate. And that's okay! The ACES team can't and should not be asked to provide neighborhood level detail for the entire world. It is simply cost and time prohibitive.With that said, my biggest problem with FSX is that the generic base canvas runs totally unacceptably. If I can only run the generic FSX at half sliders full at 20 FPS then what's going to happen when I fill it up full of stuff? The good news here is that ASX, FEX and GEX textures replace the default and offer the opportunity for the end user to utilize lower resolution textures that will offer more performance.At the end of the day, you cannot ever expect any release of FS to include all of the addons you have already.Regards,Mike T.
  10. The whole movement of sliders as the years goes by serves absolutely no one and is totally misguided IMHO. There are two target audiences for MSFS and MSFS has a release every 2 - 3 years. Not to mention that the true enhancement of the software is in the addition of 3rd party software NOT movement of sliders.1) It takes up to 2 years (probably more with FSX) for the hardware to catch up to MSFS. By then it is almost time for the next version of the software. So just when you can run the sim at full sliders and begin to fully enjoy and explore the full poetential of the sim the next version becomes available. 2) The casual software buyer who picks up the title on the store shelf because it looks interesting will not be utilizing the software in 3 years. They will buy it, load it, assume that they are running the lastest and greatest hardware therefore move all sliders to the left looking to get their socks blown off and be greeted by a slideshow. Move the sliders back and be disappointed as the traffic, terrain, autogen and everything get's dumbed down. Does Microsoft seriously believe that this person will then axiously wait for 3 years until the day he can move all sliders right? This person has moved on.3) The medium to hardcore simmer adds to the simulation with 3rd party addons. Moving the sliders to the right does not magically equip the default 747 with an FMC, bump up the flight dynamics, enhace your local airport into a photorealistic version of the real thing, add new ATC, provide new aircraft or anything else. All it does is sharpen the textures, provide more autogen and allow you to have more detail. I have never seen a headline proclaiming that "On Friday August 15th we expect the newest Intel CPU to allow you to move your AI Traffic slider to 3/4 full!". 4) Great! You wait patiently for 3 years, you spend thousands of dollars on new equipment and then, wait for it, YES! All sliders to the right! YAY! Oh wait, POW! Next version of FS arrives a week later and it brings your brand new shiny PC to its knees and you repeat the same silly process all over again. And this makes sense in some small way how again?While this may be the way things have always been, doesn't mean it makes the slighest bit of sense at all. Who is benefiting from that paradigm? Not the causual user, not the hardcore user and not the medium level user. Microsoft needs to build the base sim so it takes advantage of what's available NOW. Then they need to make sure that all of their customers know about the 3rd party community so that THEY can decide how many extras to pile on their PCs. At the end of the day, I'd rather have a PMDG 747, 100% sliders, Aerosoft scenery, Flight1 enhancement bringing my out of the box 50 FPS to 20 FPS TODAY, than a default microlight with sliders at half at 15 FPS for 3 years. And if my current version won't allow me to add the lastest addon, so be it, I'll buy it when I upgrade. But, somehow the thrill of seeing more trees appear in 3 years when I can finally move my sliders just ain't making my heart pump faster.After all, when you buy a new car, you don't want to wait to enjoy it for 3 years when there is new gas available to power it. You don't demand that your new job pay you less money over the next 3 years so that in 3 years you can appreciate your new raise even more. You don't build a house without windows and doors so that in 3 years you can appreciate your windows and doors more. If there were no 3rd party software to enhance MSFS to new levels then maybe this slider fetish would make sense, but there is and it doesn't.Oh well.Mike T.
  11. Hi Adam:One more for you from Continental.Widebody aircraft are "slow turns" so generally pilots are on board 1:15 before departure and boarding starts :45 before departure. Unless its the first flight of the day the aircraft is almost always on ground power and air. So much so that it does get uncomfortable in the summer but unless it get's unbearable the APU stays off. In the winter the ground air is good enough to keep the aircraft warm enough.APU on about 15 - 20 minutes prior to departure.When taxiing back to the gate we would always shut down one engine as soon as we clear the runway and taxi on one engine to save fuel. Also, APU is powered up on the way to the gate. We the shut down the engine as soon as the parking brakes are set and cut to APU power prior to gate power and air. Once gate power and air is established then the APU is shut off.This is also true when possible for taxiing to the runway. One engine until we are about number 3 or 4 for take off or within 1000 feet of the departure end and then fire up the second engine using crossbleed air from the running engine (APU off).Now, if the aircraft is running late and the goal is to kick the passengers off and throw the new ones on as quickly as possible the APU will stay on, no ground power and no ground air. It's easier and cheaper to keep it on and there's one less thing to worry about when its time to leave.Overnight all power is disconnected from the aircraft and the battery power is disconnected. This makes for one COLD *SS airplane in the winter when you are taking it out on the first flight and the temp on the aircraft is the same as the temp on the jetway which is more or less the temp outdoors. Narrowbody aircraft are quite different whereas they are pretty quick turns during the day so the APU will stay on for most of the day unless there is sit-time inbetween turns. Here the crew must be onboard 1:00 before departure and boarding starts at :30 before departure. However, the flights never seem to get in on time and the crews are rushing on and off the aircraft so there really is no reason to shut down the APU at all.Finally on the regional jets (ERJ-135, 145 and CRJ) the APU is ALWAYS shut down as a rule at the gate the moment ground power is established (when time allows of course). You may notice that Continental has wingless on just about every aircraft now a-days and besides looking very cool, they save about 3% in fuel costs. Now a days every single gallon of fuel saves money and the pilots also get a bonus based on fuel saved (believe it or not). So right now, the APU will get shut off as much as possible and passenger comfort will have to suffer just a tad in return for higher profits which is why Continental can afford to put pillows and blankets on their airplanes while other airlines don't have them anymore. Besides its cheaper to give a passenger a blankie when he is cold than to run the apu for 30 - 45 minutes of boarding :-lolSo, just another perspective for ya. HTH,Mike T.
  12. Wow Peter! Good to see that you are alive an well and enjoying some adventures (ex-wife not withstanding...I know first hand how much of an adventure that can be).BTW, nothing can be done with the sand. Jets are not too bad since you only have to fly in the muck on take off and landing and most times they won't take off in a driving sandstorm. Just have to grin and bear it and get the maintenance folks to keep an eye on the jets.As an aside, in GW1 the crew chiefs came up with the idea of putting pantyhose material across the intakes on the helicopters, for the sand. Good idea in theory except the sand stuck to the panyhose and caused a loss in performance, so that didn't last too long. At the end of the day, the real big problem was with the blades which were sandblasted clean on every sortie. The poor crew chiefs spent more time jumping from bird to bird because after every few sorties they were replacing blades and taking the engines apart and soaking them in oil!As far as FSX, well, it is what it is...either your love it and are willing to make the commensurate compromises or you hate it and have gone back to FS9. The debate still rages and there seems to very few still sitting on the fence who have actually tried FSX. One thing for sure, if the ex left you any cash, spend it on the fastest hardware you can afford.Warmest regards,Mike T.
  13. Bingo!Okay so lets assume that a computer will exist that will run FSX fill tilt in a year, fine, we'll all migrate to FSX. BUT, 6 months after that, FS11 will be on final approach.So that begs the question: Why in God's green earth would I spend any money adding to FSX with FS11 arriving by the time I can finally run FSX? Let's be realistic, and this has nothing to do with LDS since they did not cause this debacle, but the fastest (read most expensive) computer components available today are totally incapable of running FSX without compromises and performace issues. If I spend $6000 right now I STILL cannot run FSX with the same visual details and smoothness that I get in FS9. So great, maybe 6-12 from months one will arrive, but there is no way that I will spend another $1000 on that hardware to get FSX running in all its glory with FS11 following closely behind, and THEN spend hundreds of dollars in add-ons on FSX additionally with no gurantees that I won't have to spend it all again if FS11 is not backward compatible?Look, FS2000 was an absolute mess and the fix for that was FS2002. FS2004 improved on FS2002 and about a year after release there was plenty of hardware that could run FS2004 with full sliders at a respectable rate giving a 2 year buffer before FSX. 1.5 years after the release (half way through its life) of FSX 2/3 of the community are not even using it. And then FS11 is 1.5 years away? The fix and savior for FSX will probably be FS11 mimicing FS2000.Of course Microsoft could choose to put FS11 off for 2.5 years and keep FSX in play at which point FSX will probably be the sim of choice by the end of 2009 and FSX developers can finally start making some serious money...but I really don't think that will happen.Regards,Mike T.
  14. Daryl:I hope you take this in the context in which it was meant:There could be 2 757's or there could be 100 757's but there is only ONE LDS 757. That is the reason that there is passion behind your decision not to release a FS9 version. As an owner of the PSS 757, comparing that to even a sight unseen LDS 757 release would be like comparing the Sistine Chapel to Neandertal Cave Paintings. Oh and the second 757? Captain Sim? Well, suffice it to say, I don't believe in ghosts.Regards,Mike T.
  15. "But Morally, I disagree with you using Daryl's signature statement on here without his permission"The only reason I said anything was because you start off your statement with "morally" which seems to indicate that it is somehow arguably immoral to quote someone without his/her permission reflective of a statement made in an open forum...that's all.I am not obfuscating your right to state your opinion or have your opinion respected, only, words like "morally" tend to lend themselves to subjective absolutes of right and wrong and in this case I was only stating that the OP was well within his right to reprint a public statement made in respond to common knowledge.Regards,Mike T.
×
×
  • Create New...