neil0311

What “reported issues” would those be? Kind of reminds me of the people who wouldn’t update Windows XP to SP1 and later to Windows 7, because despite all the security patches and countless other updates and optimizations, they were scared of some “performance issue” someone reported that had been solved years ago. The dev team tests on the latest version of Windows. It’s what they build against.

It’s cool. Interestingly enough, back when FS8/2002 was the current version, I used to fly cross country flights to build hours and sometimes under the hood with a safety pilot, and I would use the sim to practice the approach and familiarize myself with the area.

I’ve had a PP-ASEL certificate for almost 30 years. Learned on a C-152 and logged about 3000 hours in C-172s, PA-28s, even a few C-182s and other assorted fixed wing aircraft. I was merely responding to the “it’s boring” comment. I do occasionally fly other aircraft in the simulator, but much of the time I fly the same aircraft I would fly in RL and do it as close to reality as I can. Maybe I’m just boring. 🤷🏻‍♂️

It’s the plane most RL pilots learn in and fly for $100 hamburgers. Like an ATP in a 737 simulator, I fly in the C-172 in MSFS because that’s what I actually fly. I guess it depends on why you use the sim. Is it a game so you can pretend to fly planes you’d never fly in RL, or is it a training tool.

So much speculation and pontificating. Seems pretty simple: - MSFS 2024 is a new product and will not be a free “add on pack” - MSFS 2024 will be an evolution of the current software with some enhancements and new features that will probably never be back ported to 2020. - MSFS 2020 will continue to be supported and will assumedly have bug fixes and other critical updates, but probably won’t get the same level of scenery and other updates. - MSFS 2024 will use the same add ons if purchased in the marketplace. So backwards compatibility isn’t an issue.

Keep in mind that most people who use MSFS are casual “pilots” and the learning curve can be steep for non-pilots even with the current sim aircraft. The folks playing MSFS on Xbox probably don’t care much about “study level” aircraft. I’m a real world pilot and even I don’t care about it frankly.

Nice. I took my primary training and got my certificate flying out of KFIT when I lived in New England. I really, really miss it.

MyTraffic 6 was $20 and the install was simple and took about 15 min. Much simpler for me and no issues. I fly GA aircraft, so I just want traffic that is plausible and varied. I don't care about various repaints, schedules, gate assignment, etc. MyTraffic can be installed with FSX boxed, FSX-SE, or P3D, all from the same install. Well worth the $20.

After scanning my system, it looks like I have hundreds of duplicate AFCAD files, resulting from a mix of Ultimate Terrain (most current version of every region installed), MyTraffic 6, and various add on airports from FSDT, Imaginesim, FlyTampa, and others. While I have these files layered correctly in the scenery.cfg, with MyTraffic at the lowest priority, then Ultimate Terrain, then add on airports, does having these files cause a conflict? I've read that even with proper priority, it's necessary to disable all but the file in use at the highest priority. Is that the case?

They overclock the CPU, run diagnostics and stress tests, and pre-load the application. They don't have any "secret sauce" or do much (if anything) that any high end gaming PC builder doesn't also do.

It's interesting to read the various ways people flightsim, and what can be a showstopper for some isn't even important to others. For me, I'm a real world GA pilot and I've been simming for about 30 years, since the days of DOS and SubLogic. I've also been using MyTraffic since the first versions with FS2002 and FS9. I want airports that aren't empty and skies with traffic that ATC can warn me about and that I can hear as chatter. I could not care less about what airline or livery is at a gate or what time a flight leaves or arrives. I just want plausible traffic in the correct geographies as background, just like in real life I have no idea what flight numbers or schedules are for air traffic near me.

N60JBravo...you are going way over my head. I am dev challenged. What I'm experiencing is when I am selecting LGA from the free flight menu, I go to New York and La Guardia is in the list and when I select it with the default "active runway" it shows Edo. This is with all 3rd party LGA add ons disabled (or AFAIK disabled).

Hmmm...after posting on their forum, I found out that he adds bgls in scenery\world\scenery that are labeled with the airport identifier with ALT. Rename or remove those and your runway issues may be fixed. I'm not educated enough on where the info for the location picker comes from, but something is messed up. It's unfortunate but the scenery is unusable to me with single digit fps, despite a cutting edge overclocked system. I also get OOM errors in about 30 sec, which do not happen with the Imaginesim KLGA and FSDT KJFK both enabled. I should have done the trial first, but saw the package on sale and read good reviews.

Reviving this old thread.... I purchased Drzewiecki's NY Airports X which includes KLGA - La Guardia. As far as I know, everything was working fine previous to the installation. If I disable the add on and go back to default, when I select "active runway" at La Guardia, what comes up is "Edo" and KLGA is not properly rendered in the sim. If I choose a specific runway or gate, then all is well. Anyone know what's up here? Did the add on package step on or remove some default bgl or info?