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).

That won't work for a few reasons. Mainly: 1. This is a worldwide user forum and the app will be used by numerous people of different linguistic backgrounds. Short and snappy words don't mean the same thing to people from different backgrounds and cultures. On the other hand, for a pilot from just about anywhere in the world, they will ALL understand the difference between what VFR and IFR means. So... 2. Because there is very limited space on the app's GUI to begin with, there isn't enough room to "actually describe" what each button will do. They both change multiple ways the app will work in a given VFR or IFR environment. So what is really needed is just a good Instruction Manual that lists all the buttons on the GUI with the EXACT name of the button (in this case either VFR or IFR) and an associated section of the Instruction Manual (indexed, hopefully) that WILL have room to go into a more in-depth description of what the 2 choices are designed to do. @Reset has already done an in-depth explanation of the 2 buttons several posts ago. That just needs to be what is included in the Instruction Manual (or a variation of it if/as things change again). Note: The above in another "teaching principle" learned from having Air Force classrooms with over 100+ students in them at the same time from all over different parts of the U.S. Heck, explaining something to someone from New York may not work the same way to someone from California. Start teaching people from multiple COUNTRIES at the same time (like a Red Flag Fighter Pilot training session at Nellis AFB) and you may have to explain the same concept in several different ways to make sure everyone in the class understands it (which is a really good idea before they all start buzzing around the training area at Mach speeds with loaded weapons). The same principle applies to "teaching" users from all over the world who will be using MSFS and associated apps with it.

☕ You beat me to reporting it. That's exactly what was happening to me on a flight I was doing and I was wracking my brain trying to figure out what setting I may have messed up. I'll download and try the new version shortly. And it's 3:45 AM. I'm fully retired. Sleep? What's sleep? ☕ 🍩

I travelled all over the world in my 26 years in the Air Force. But I still have to Google the locations for that flight plan. 😄

It makes perfect sense. And I've always thought something similar to it should be included as "The Disclaimer" statement at the top of EVERY kind of graphics intensive software simulation product (it applies to things like iRacing auto racing simulations too, and even the First Person "Shoot 'Em Ups!" fantasy and war fighting sims).

That is exactly what I was trying to say (imply) with my recommendation to start a new thread. In retrospect now I do agree with vgbaron (and others) idea of still keeping this thread open for further "beta testing" type conversations (or for archival information). There is no need to "kill" the thread. But a consolidation of all the current information concerning the app will eventually be needed or some (many?) new users will just walk away from the app after experiencing frustration trying to understand how to use it. Or using it incorrectly resulting in causing new "problems" (unexplained new stuttering, fluctuating FPS, etc) in there FS2020. So a new thread for that when the final release happens (like @Reset says will happen) will be beneficial also. In any case, I was doing a flight yesterday with the latest test version using live weather and the Working Title CJ4. Total overcast until the last 20-ish miles to the destination airport. The app worked great. It worked so well that when I broke out of the overcast the TLOD ground scenery was SOOOOO good that I was amazed at what I was seeing (and able to maintain using the app). I was so caught up in the "WOW!" factor of it all while flying the ILS to the runway that when I flared to land I realized "Hmmm....something doesn't feel right.....". Moments later...just before it happened...I realized, "(insert BAD word here)...I forgot to lower the landing gear!!!". Which was immediately followed by that sickening sound of your multi-million dollar private jet scraping along the concrete runway on its belly. THAT'S one of the ways I know an addon or app is great...when it gets my attention so well I'll forget to "Fly the airplane first!". I have to go to my Virtual Appointment with the Virtual FAA Examiner now.... 🥺

Let me reverse your question from the point-of-view of someone who just discovered the app is available..."Where would YOU go in this thread to learn the most current version of the app and how to use it?". What page and post would you recommend someone START at? Asobo had many, many Beta Testers and communications with them during the development of FS2020 and I agree all of those communications helped MS create a better application. But once it was presented to the public at large MS didn't recommend (nor provide) all the communications from the beta testers to the entire user base. MS (or any other developer) would never say "If you want to learn how to use our program, go back and read all the beta testing communications that took place about it." Once the app is released to the general public there needs to be a much shorter "learning curve" for the end users. This thread has reached the point where the app is almost ready for it's "final release". No more "beta testing" needed if what the developer is indicating. And that's fine. So creating a "new start" thread for the app makes sense, And that would NOT cause ANYTHING to "suffer", whether it be a previous thread or any of the "beta testers" or the developer. Just sayin'. You can make it a whole lot easier for new users of the app now or you can make them keep going "Huh?" searching through 50+ pages of.....

I agree 100% with @Reset on this. The real problem with creating ANY app for something like a graphics intensive simulation program is there are tons and tons of different hardware-capable computers and different end-user knowledge levels about how to get the "best results" from the simulation settings combined with the user's hardware capabilities. And sometimes contributing to the problem is their unrealistic expectations ("But I WANT to be able to see crystal clear tree leaves on trees all the way to the horizon 200 miles away at FL410 with no haze or whatever...even if that's not the way it looks in a REAL airplane when you are flying one"). The best @Reset is ever going to be able to do is provide options for the different users...basically an "Easy Mode" (Auto Target FPS) or an "I wanna do it MY way so give me as many options as possible and I'll mess around with them regardless of how unrealistic the outcomes might be to the real world." The above is not a slam against anybody or any user. But here's the thing about the whole issue... In teaching somebody how to understand OR do something, there is a primary rule that MUST be followed. It's called "Teach from the KNOWN to the UNKNOWN." You MUST assume (until the "student" proves otherwise) that the "student" is a total beginner concerning the subject. So if you present them with an app screen that contains a whole bunch of acronyms without them being able to understand those acronyms to begin with, the "student" is screwed right from the start. It will simply create more questions from the student. Now, THAT isn't a bad thing...as long as there is a relatively SIMPLE way for them to find the answers. But having to scroll through 50+ pages of a forum post (that will undoubtably have old no-longer-accurate information in it) or go to another website where there is the equivalent of a pages long list of "updates" info will just be overwhelming to a new user of the app. So, I'm going to make a suggestion as someone who WAS a teacher for 7 of my years 26+ in the Air Force (and have 2 teaching degrees from it). CLOSE THIS THREAD and start a NEW UP-TO-DATE one. Make the last post in this thread a "link" to the more current one. Then anyone finding this app can be directed to the MOST CURRENT version of it with the most ACCURATE information about it (particularly...the meaning of the different settings and how or why you would (might?) want to use them in different situations). Create a thread that will "Teach from the Known to the Unknown" without overwhelming the user with 50+ pages of the equivalent of Beta Testing results that will make someone go "Huh? or multiple pages of "Readme Updates" that will also make them go "HUH?" trying to find an answer about the app in its CURRENT state. Respectfully submitted (I still love what the app can and does do...don't shoot me). 😉

Just a thought... If the "idea" is that FPS Priority is "best" (ie- "recommended") for VFR, and TLOD Priority is "best" (or "recommended") for IFR, make the GUI entries say that instead of making the end user guess at what the differences would be. Yes, I know there is a readme file that might explain it (that like this thread is already incredibly long and time consuming to find a simple answer for an inquisitive mind using the app), but with all the other apps flight simmers use and all the other "things they need to remember to set properly for each flight" in each app, explain it up front in your app's GUI. Make them read "FPS (VFR)" and "TLOD (IFR)" for instance. Unless of course there will be mouse-over pop-up windows explaining it.

LMAO! I can get "enthusiastic" when I'm tired with only one eye open and posting. My Quality Control can suffer at that time. 🤪 Just to be sure, I wasn't complaining about the quality of the app. Just reporting what I was experiencing with the new auto-FPS ability in obviously what would be only one of many possible flight environment scenarios. It just surprised me that it was doing what I saw it doing at the time. I was like you. I made my post then went to sleep. When I woke up and logged back on my first thought was, "Darn! I may have implied something I never intended to imply!" Your app still improves my flight simming experience greatly. I was just surprised at what the auto-FPS did when I used it. In the scenario I was in at the time, it didn't improve it for the reasons I stated. I didn't mean to imply the entire app was "useless" or "not needed". I'm gonna go make some coffee and eat a few chocolate muffins with it to get my caffeine and sugar levels back to their normal states. You keep up the great work with the app. It's an overall great improvement for the flight sim experience. 😄

Not if the frame rate is being automatically increased beyond what frame rate the user is happy with...an "acceptable" FPS rate. And that is the issue I am experiencing when using the "auto FPS" option. For instance, I made a flight at FL410 with a full overcast below me. Could not see any ground anywhere all the way to the horizon even if I wanted to. With the "auto FPS" activated the app chose to increase my FPS rate to a rate I would never choose (or NEED) myself. And in order to maintain that artificially inflated frame rate, it automatically DECREASES the cloud setting, in my case from High to Medium, just to have that unneeded higher FPS. It made the overcast cloud layer below me look lousy at the expense of giving an increased FPS that served absolutely no purpose whatsoever. The above is similar to what Cap-Piett is reporting in his posts above. The "auto-FPS" seems to be "Priority" increasing the frame rate to a higher number that really isn't needed to begin with, at the expense of reducing a higher cloud setting (High to Medium or similar) AND reducing the TLOD also when neither one needs to be reduced to maintain an "acceptable" FPS rate that is already fine with the user. The app shouldn't force higher-than-necessary FPS rates at the expense of reducing higher cloud settings or TLOD just to have higher THAN NECESSARY ("user acceptable") frame rates. In this regard, even though the "auto FPS" setting is designed for a "non-computer savvy" (ie - "I don't know what settings to select to begin with") user, when it does what is described above it really isn't helping the simulator run at it's "best graphics settings".