FalconAF

I agree it looks green to me too. But there was also one other poster who already said it looked fine (not green) to them. That is the problem with trying to decipher someone else's computer display "problem" from a screencap posted in a forum post. Any kind of "change these settings on your computer" from just looking at the posted screencap is just a guess.

He posted a picture of what HE sees while sitting in front of HIS monitor. What anybody HERE sees is dependent on THEIR monitor settings while sitting in front of THEIR monitor while browsing the forum. That concept is lost on way too many people in "graphics posting" forums who end up saying things like, "Your image needs more\less contrast, brightness, red, green, blue, (insert whatever OTHER monitor or Nvidia graphics adjustment you could make). The concept is also unknown by anybody who posts something like, "Hey! I just found the PERFECT graphics settings for the flight sim. Use these!", because those settings will most likely produce a DIFFERENT image on someone else's computer\monitor. Just sayin' 😉

I'm late to this thread (been out of town away from computer yesterday and most of today), but I have to chuckle at the YouTube "Official Trailer" video in the first post. Having lived here in Las Vegas since 2003, I'm gonna risk the ire of some folks by pointed out a couple "Huh?" things about it. For instance: 1. There is no such thing as the "Hoover Bridge". Many people also refer to it as the "Hoover Dam Bridge", which is also incorrect. What it did was replace the need to drive over the top of Hoover Dam, which was a pain in the *ss and total bottleneck, as passing over the 2-lane dam was the only route from Las Vegas to Kingman, AZ before the new bridge spanning the canyon was finished. The official name of it is the "Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge" Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge - Wikipedia . If you call it the "Hoover Bridge" to a local here, they're just gonna laugh their *ss off at you. There's a Hoover Dam, but no Hoover Bridge. 2. "Las Vegas Lake". No, no, no! There is no such thing. The video shows "Lake Las Vegas" (also called "Lake Las Vegas Resort"), which is the name of the COMMUNITY that the "water" there is a part of. But the "water" is actually a RESERVOIR. Lake Las Vegas - Wikipedia . The overall community is considered a RESORT area, but there are individual homes, condos, etc that are privately owned. But if you have to ask how much it costs to buy one, you can't afford it to begin with. 😉 Anyhow...no such thing as a "Las Vegas Lake". Yeah, I'm nit-picking. But the above info is for anybody who may not know the things "listed" in the video are incorrect names of them. But if you want to use those names, that's OK. I'll still "They're tourists, aren't they?!" laugh at you (but in a nice way). (Yes, I'm laughing at you, Asobo, for not doing your own homework about what is in an "Official Trailer"...GASP!) 😁 Other than the above, the scenery looks OK. But I'm also deleting the Asobo Strip part of the download and keeping my Fly Tampa Las Vegas strip buildings active. They just look a whole lot better (and accurate to the real buildings) to me.

Well, I'm a bit confused now too. The screencaps show the new settings being used with the VFR mode selected. Are these new options ONLY for the VFR mode? Or are they for IFR mode too? Do they only benefit the VFR mode? Would I possibly want to use them in IFR mode? Neither the above posts nor the readme explain that.

But this is one of the "variables" issues that @Restore simply won't be able to make a "one size fits all" app for to make everybody happy. I could (and do on several occasions just for fun) hop in the F18 Hornet (or the F22 Raptor freeware from Top Mach Studio) and go "VFR Ground Hugging" at Mach 1 with my hair on fire. Through places like the Grand Canyon, the Swiss Alps (it's fun buzzing LOWI at 100 AGL and 700kts), or even the Mt Everest areas (the Lukla airport canyon area, etc). Obviously these would be VFR flights and could (would) have a constantly changing AGL value for the airplane. Which would send the AutoFPS app into spasms if I used unrealistic TLOD values for the hardware I was using. Heck, even over a flat desert terrain with no OLOD objects to display, at Mach 1 at 100 ft AGL the "terrain" being displayed can get "blurry" simply because the sim may not be able to keep up loading it in front of you fast enough anymore, regardless of the TLOD setting. So what does "really pushing the limits" mean in our cases? Would you be pushing them more than me? Or vice-versa? All I'm saying is that anybody could find a way to "break the app" if they tried hard enough. But that would not be a "negative" against what the app can really do for most people's flying experiences when used the way it was intended by @Reset. I honestly don't think @Reset intended his VFR mode to be "very low altitudes" at 365 knots (or Mach 1 either). If I'm wrong about that, I'll stand corrected. (PS - Testing positive for COVID sucks. And I can't tase my hot wings anymore for now 🥺)

Now THAT'S just BEYOND tyrannical. Somebody should spank you.

ROFL! Actually, a good beta tester WILL have a tyrannical approach to beta testing sometimes. It can be the things the developer never considered a user might try to do with the app that might be discovered then. So once in a while the beta tester may..."I'll bet ya the developer never thought anybody would try THIS! Let's see if it breaks the program!!!" 😆 Note: It's better to have a good relationship with the developer before you try that, though. 😀

ESET is most likely blocking it and downloading a "protected" copy of it. There should be a way in ESET settings or notifications to tell ESET to ignore its concerns and download it "as is". If not, just turn off ESET then use EDGE to download it (like Bob said). Then Edge will offer you to "download anyway" after EDGE warns you about the file. After you download the good copy then you can turn ESET back on again (but you'll probably STILL have to tell ESET to ignore it when you try to run it...set an Exclusion in ESET for it).

I thought it was Leo looking at you saying, "He set his TLOD to WHAT???" (No offense intended Cpt_Piett 😉 ) PS - The new full release version works like a charm. I'm sold on it and would buy you a cup of coffee if able. 👍

OK, my bad on the interpretation of it. A "Hazard of Written Communications".

You're welcome. I wouldn't be doing it unless I thought the app was worth it to begin with.

C'mon, G. Your first 2 items above are great feedback. The third one implies that anybody "reviewing and submitting" inputs about software documentation are just nit-pickers. We are "beta testers" just as much as somebody who tests and submits inputs about how the actual software "runs". I'm testing the documentation and submitting suggestions on how to improve it and make the overall product experience for the end user easier. It's no different and no less important than what anybody else has contributed about the app.

NOTE: The below is intended to be a respectful response, as was stated in the quoted post above. And as I previously mentioned, I have 2 teaching degrees. One of them is in Instructional Systems Development (Google it if you don't know what it entails). Basically, I WRITE instruction manuals, entire lesson plans for courses of instruction (which is another way of saying "How to teach someone using methods and terminology that will not confuse the student", and do Quality Control reviews of said products produced by others. Granted, I'm not a lawyer (but I have interacted with many of them during my 7 years as a First Sergeant in the Air Force), but I'm also not in a courtroom trying to nit-pick the instructions on the side of a medicine bottle because my client didn't follow them correctly and now I want to sue the manufacturer for almost killing my client. In any case, somebody could ALWAYS say what @Reset says in the app will STILL leave some people in a confused state. For instance, if he did use his ideas of "VFR (GA aircraft)" and "IFR (airliners)", I'd guarantee you there would be some users who would end up asking, "Wait. I'm flying my GA Citation jet on an IFR flight at FL410 in weather with no clouds! I'll be a GA aircraft conducting an IFR flight in VFR weather conditions though! What setting should I use then?" The bottom line is that in order for anybody to use the app, they have to be able to "figure out" HOW to use it. They have to be TAUGHT how to use it the way the developer of it INTENDED for it to be used. And in order to do that (especially in a case like this where there can NEVER be enough room on the GUI itself for a detailed explanation of the GUI buttons themselves), there needs to be a "reference pointer" for what the GUI button's name is actually saying. That's what the pop-up box should do...say something like "See item ## in the User's Manual). In the case of THIS app the pop-up shouldn't try to explain anything about what the button will CAUSE to happen if chosen. There simply isn't enough room there in this app's case to do that. We can agree to disagree. But this isn't a court case. Nobody is going to try to sue anybody else if someone chooses the "wrong button" here. And if the "product" does contain a User's Manual that does explain the purpose of the buttons, it's up to the user to READ that included documentation. There's nothing a developer can do if the user refuses or is too lazy to "RTFM". @Reset: The "dot-list" is a good choice (the real name for them is Bullet Statements). It's less intimidating to someone than encountering a large multi-sentence paragraph with multiple "explanations" in different sentences. Having said that, whatever you choose there will STILL be some people who will get confused by it. It's the nature of the beast when "teaching", so there will always be some users who will still ask questions. When that happens is when you have to try explaining it in a different way than you explained it to the person or people who did understand it the first time. Press on. You have created an outstanding app that I'm sure the flight sim community will also see the benefits of (probably 😉) in the next version of MSFS. Asobo isn't stupid (although I do have to chuckle when they included the ability in the X-Box version, but then said, "Well, we never thought of doing it in the PC version." 🤪

@fppilot (said): "I reversed each and every step of the FG hack except the DLSSG flag in UserCFG.Opt. I just missed reversing that to 0. It currently sits at 1." I'm thinking there may be a mis-communication going on with the above. So......just to make sure.... @fppilot: Your last post (copied and pasted above) SAYS your UserCFG.Opt DLSSG flag is STILL set at 1. It NEEDS to be set to 0 (zero) to solve your issue. You must do that MANUALLY by opening the UserCFG.Opt file and making the change yourself. Have you done that yet?

Just finished a flight EHAM to EGLC with the latest 14Mar241000Z. The included "Added automatic cloud recovery TLOD increase to non-expert mode" fix by @Reset solved the "constantly toggling between cloud quality decrease and recovery" I experienced with the previous version. Everything else seemed to work flawlessly also (but I'm not using super high settings...just the "default" ones shown in @Reset's GUI pics).