Jump to content

pracines

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,487

  • Donations

    $0.00 

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pracines

  1. Posted

    19 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

    @pracines, your criticism of Simbol is unwarranted. I suggest you reconsider your message and withdraw your accusations.

    My response (not accusation!) to simbol has been taken way out of context by several who don't read the full post/dialog in context (this happens way too often), and this very thread along with many others is evidence of that. The context that this hotfix fixed a CTD and in turn the fix has been a mixed bag, but simbol said the fix to the fix was to reduce sliders - so I responded. The dialog continued with him essentially defending CTD's as either not existing at all or LM let them go, could be nothing else, so I responded with questions as to how this could happen. 

    It seems that the word IF is totally ignored by so many and then I get accused of accusations???  What does a person have to do to get others to READ the word IF in a sentence?? 

    If you go back and read what I wrote fully - Don't simply read what simbol wrote in response to me, carefully cutting out a small part of my post and responding craftily to me to make it look as though I was attacking him (he did this twice!- plain as day). I was simply uncovering the truth....and the word if is there. 

    For anybody, whether LM or customers or testers to justify reproduceable CTD's is not excusable at this level. Also, denying they exist(ed) when they do/did exist (there was a hotfix right?- this very topic) is just as bad.

    I was just keeping the topic honest. There are many video reviews out there that claim P3Dv5 is awesome but when one clicks "read more" one can read the reality that its not that awesome...which is it? Honesty (complete truth) is the only way to truly find out this most important question.

  2. Posted

    11 minutes ago, simbol said:

    It is the sliders settings + the new dynamic texture streaming. If you settings are too high and you have dynamic texture streaming, P3D will try to use some RAM and also remove + add textures from VRAM in order to avoid a CTD..

    This has a TAX on performance.. reducing the settings and removing dynamic texture streaming will bring the performance back but at the cost of more VRAM use..

    We need to come to a realization.. with DX12 VRAM is key.. if you want to have all sliders to the right and incredible performance you will need to get new generations of GPU cards with LOTS of VRAM.. and the results will be incredible..

    S.

    As I read through this thread I can't help but realize that this "new" order of things seems so (too!!) familiar.

    Just wait until new add-ons are brought to the table; it wont matter if you have an all new 10th gen processor, a 3080ti, and 64 GB of ram, there will always be the curse of lowering the sliders after all the raving about great performance. Now the curse includes: if you don't lower the sliders a CTD occurs; that may be "fixed" for now, but who knows what's to come.🤒

    Amazing the range of reviews of this HF, no matter the level of experience, add-ons, or PC system. Some say its awesome, some say meh, some having lots of problems, some leaving P3D forever....very strange....everybody is correct AND everybody is wrong.😵

    I have to conclude that the P3D alpha/beta/rtm test teams need to be MUCH more diversified at the very least. If not, I must conclude that the test teams are being greatly ignored.🤷‍♂️ 

     

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1

  3. Posted

    I agree with your concept, and these are excellent ideas for when money no longer matters to humans...definitely not in this age. 

    Leave it to algorithms to do the work - they require no royalties at all. Fine details can still be achieved, we have seen it for ourselves already.

    Getting too many "partners" for ultra fine details would make the price of a flight sim, eventually released on Xbox, to be laughed off the planet. 

    • Upvote 1

  7. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Mace said:

    Hmm...interesting.  Do you think the i9-10900KF would clock any higher than the i9-10900KF?    The KF seems to lack the onboard gfx, and I didn't know if that made any difference or not in heat/clocking with previous gens?

    No apparent difference in speed - but the KF is lower in price, which in our case works well because on-board graphics is not something a flight simmer would need or want. 

  8. Posted

    16 minutes ago, aleex said:

    Yes. But is strange that in all screenshots and videos, the aircraft wings look the same. We will have to wait I suppose. Or maybe today they can show us something. 

    Perhaps there is an outstanding bug regarding fuel in the wing tanks not implemented yet, or maybe a bug having to do with the new aerodynamics features.

    I sure am glad you emphasize this, incase it is a bug that MS/Asobo needs to be aware of...good job Aleex.👍

     

    • Like 1

  9. Posted · Edited by pracines

    11 hours ago, aleex said:

    Maybe is just me, but from all screenshot we have seen, I'm starting to think that the A320 doesn't have any wingflex. Wings are always like curved to to sky

    The amount of fuel in the wings will play a factor. Also I should add if the aircraft is moving at t/o speed the wings will lift as well. We can't be sure at this point if wind is passing over the wings causing them to curve to the sky. 

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    15 minutes ago, A38083 said:

    It was quite irritating to had to install separate mods for each of those things

    Pretty much the same thing in FSX-SE.

    Many of us are hoping that the new MSFS will remedy the huge need for separate mods for basic realism. 

    Better to suffer through XP11 as you already have it, than to have to suffer through XP11 AND FSX-SE. 

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

    LM improves the elements of P3D that they think their primary customers will like. We, the flight sim community, are not their primary customers. That's why ATC remains untouched in every version of P3Dand will continue to remain untouched for the forseeable future.

    Yes, I remember ProFlight2000. I also dabbled with Radar Contact when you fed it an adventure. Remember those?

    What's your trigonometry like? John Decker had to rely on a British mathematician to provide him with the formulae to determine where your aircraft was in relation to:-

    • the holding point for the runway
    • the distance, altitude and heading to other aircraft
    • the distance and heading to the FAF for your landing runway.

    Given you can have a table of  50+ Ai provided to you by FSUIPC and every aircraft within a certain distance has to be checked for possible conflicts then perhaps you will appreciate that it is probably the most difficult job going to develop a program that can do all that. And it's not an excuse, it's a reason. Big difference.

    Excellent points Ray!

    I did not try the adventure route with RC, I stuck with PF2000 until FS2002 had ATC, but I went to RC3, and eventually to 4 when it was released.

    Yes ATC remains untouched, but LM forums have several topics concerning ATC and the need for improvements, but at the minimum, fixes. The P3D normal client forums are MUCH busier than pro plus forums, so that should count for something concerning who is a primary customer... 62,000+ vs 1300+ posts. And the pro-plus customers are not more versed in ESP than we are. We have been living ESP much longer.

    How JD had to do this back in the day may be one way, but today, algorithms are developed to automate many things. MSFS feature discovery vids explain the basics of this.

    Well I suppose if LM made a statement saying 'ATC is not important to them' I think more (than already have) simmers would abandon P3D for MSFS pretty quick...that would be a statement.🚮  

  16. Posted

    2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

    Yes, I also get directed to the wrong end sometimes. Generally when the winds are light. I've just learned to accept P3D/FSX limitations and work around them.

    It's exceptionally difficult to write a good ATC program which is why there are so few. RC4 is not perfect but I have workarounds for the things that don't quite work as they should.

    Like I say earlier in this thread; If only the likes of PBR, VR, and even Direct X would have that "it is what it is" position from the community we would have FS5 graphics still. 

    The thing is we went from no ATC to pretty good ATC with Proflight 2000 (remember that, with Ultimate Airlines?), and FS2002 started a possibility, for default ATC. Since then 3pp have tried but none have been complete. We all should have the RESOUNDING question "why"!!?, rather than accept the limitation. 

    Yes its not easy, but what was easy about developing the ATC and AI in FS2002? PMDG did not have an easy time developing any of their aircraft, RC was not easy, right? "its not easy" is not a good enough excuse.

    Well we all know ATC is on the Top Wishlist for MSFS - I pray, and can only trust, there is a "eureka" moment of sorts at Asobo.

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

    In all the time I’ve been buying 3rd party airports I can only remember one having zero faults when checking the AFD in ADE. Not all related to taxiways of course but fault-free AFDs seems to be one area that developers don’t excel on.

    So a logical step would be for ATC to somehow be able to either understand the AFD limitations and work around them, or develop its own method of reading scenery and whether a taxi or runway designator is correct or not it will still prevent illogical/incorrect paths.

    As it is, in ProATC/x for example, say we are at Flightbeam KMSP Gate H3 The active runways is are 35 30L 30R. The logical take off runway is 35 or if need be 30L from H3. But (if you have a current airport chart for KMSP) many times I have been taxied to 30R via taxiways D S K Y W C Q F1, when C Q F1 would suffice. Even when 30L is assigned I would get C A (unnecessarily crossing the active runway) instead of C W. Makes no sense because ProATC/x is totally aware of taxiway W. In a perfect world, 35 would just be used, like in real life, but not with ProATC/x. Yes AI traffic plays a role, and ProATC/x does read and control AI, but this is first thing at 5 am with little traffic or during rush hour, its like it has its own presumption of possible traffic confliction...this is not just at KMSP. But there are times when it does a good job. Hit and miss, simply unacceptable after all this time. 

    I/we really could write a whole book on this matter... 

    I guess the most problematic issue we all still have is the "opposite" or wrong runway in use. Yes this can be blamed on a number of things, but its this kind of thing that ruins everything. Surely its a "top of the list" kind of problem/issue/blunder that needs attention immediately if not sooner. Decades later and nothing done at all.

  18. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Boomer said:

    Pfft, M$ lost my goodwill when they abandoned FSX.

    I totally understand. I truly believe if FSX would have been made 64bit and fully DX10 (no preview), along with some more optimizing, all could have been MUCH better. But its water under the bridge; good to remember, but only remember to prevent such blunders/mistakes from happening again. 

    A good thing would be if your goodwill toward MS can be restored. If nothing else, because of the possibility that MSFS will plainly show goodwill toward you by exceeding FSX leaps and bounds at a very fair price and wonderful (within reasonable) performance on your hardware. 

    This is what I wait for.:smile: 

  19. Posted

    3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

    Isn't the quality of taxi guidance down to how well the AFD is built? If there are gaps in taxiway names that would confuse anything.

    No doubt quality/completeness of the scenery plays a role, but whether a default airport or Flightbeam or anything in-between its the same uncertainty, sometimes good/sometimes bad.  

  20. Posted

    On 4/16/2020 at 8:45 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

    I doubt any of the ATC programs can actually control Ground traffic.

    ProATC/x does do an ok job of ground control, but its way far from good/reliable. It does not always know logical paths and sometimes it does not know taxiway names. Its not as good/consistent as default GND ctrl but that pretty much says...ugh...something's gotta be done.😩

  21. Posted

    On 4/16/2020 at 9:32 AM, mtr75 said:

    Not to mention the fact that the answer is yes. I've noticed some changes. For example not having to switch from ground to tower to request a takeoff clearance. After ground gives you the go ahead to switch to tower, requesting takeoff from the tower is one of the choices. And that's a change I've noticed in 20 minutes' total of flying in v5. I'm sure there's more. 

    If I understand you correctly, this would happen if the GND and TWR shared the same frequency. However if they did not share, then this would not be correct/realistic behavior.

    If you are taking about a co-pilot of sorts switching for you, then this would have nothing to do with "ATC".

  22. Posted

    On 4/19/2020 at 6:43 PM, PurdueKev said:

    I would love to you the ATC is improved, but right now many users (including myself) can't even complete a flight with the ATC window open due to a bug acknowledged by LM.

    This gives more probable evidence that ATC is on a proverbial back burner. If this is not true, then its simple for LM to make a statement - 'we are working on ATC and there will be "road work ahead"' - anything to give some hope.

    Until ATC finally gets put on priority, I think this community should continue to keep this topic not just alive, but roaring with activity.

  23. Posted

    On 4/19/2020 at 7:44 PM, Chock said:

    In point of fact there actually has been a change to the ATC, although probably not the one most people were wishing for. Namely, V5 adds support for 8.33 Khz radio channel separation. This is important if you want realistic comms, especially in Europe where it has been a requirement for a few years.

    I would classify this as an aircraft avionics/radio/panel capability more than ATC, you think? ATC is separate from the aircraft themselves. 

  24. Posted

    On 4/20/2020 at 12:05 AM, Ricardo41 said:

    And, has anything happened since? Seems pretty dead to me. "The future is looking good" - is there a new release pending? (And before someone takes me to task for not understanding the real world issues - I do, but if would be fairer to make a clean cut and simply say: for personal reasons, development can not continue at this time. 

    I agree.

    The next message may be something like COVID-19 has not hindered our efforts and we are working hard. Then the one after that 2 years from the last message, we're still working and a new version announcement will be coming. Then P3D version 13 gets released and ATC is still like FS2002 but P3D can be run on a holodeck.😧

×
×
  • Create New...