Jump to content

thetford569

Members
  • Content Count

    183
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Neutral

About thetford569

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My first impression is I need a new PC. I’m running an i7-7700k at 4.8, 32GB DDR4 RAM, and a GTX 1080 (which is minimum spec for VR). I’m also running an HP Reverb G2. It was smooth with some jitters but outside the airplane looks like garbage. Blurry with defaulted settings mostly on low or medium and render scaling set to 80. I don’t like it. But that’s probably my hardware more than MSFS I suppose. I knew I would have to turn down settings but I’m disappointed. I didn’t think it would be this “low”
  2. I'll play devils advocate and I will say that I have no idea what's going on. BUT, I find it really hard to believe that they would come on the Q&A and say that they would be pushing a bunch of watermasks with an update soon and then not do that and make them all go away instead. That just doesn't make sense. What would make sense is that possibly they decided to change something either in the way these masks are delivered, stored, or created or all of the above. And maybe this file has been getting rid of the old method that they were using (like an exclusion) in preparation for a major water mask update to come out soon just like they said in the Q&A. The comments though about them not communicating about it and explaining why they're going away instead of being added is spot on. It seems deceptive if you don't offer an explanation and people are going to take it to be a conspiracy or an outright lie because they have nothing else to go on. My hope is that this is just a change that will be fixed soon because there is no way they could get away with lying about this...
  3. This is going to be a problem because when you look at many of the guides out there for airport and scenery development they are telling people to use these exact paths and filenames. I'm glad I stumbled upon this because I am working on a project right now that has a scenery.bgl and modellib.bgl in the exact same paths because those of us that are having to figure this all out now and didn't have months of participation in the 3rd party forums are being told to do it this way. It would be nice if the documentation in the SDK was clearer in what to do because I have a feeling this problem is going to continue and get worse. I will link to this post in the fsdeveloper forums so that hopefully others can see it.
  4. rstough, Reading through this thread I've seen you mention that you are still using MeteoBlue's model data in places. Specifically you mentioned over the oceans and around the coastlines. I understand what it is you are doing with Weather Force and I have shared the same concerns about the lack of METAR data in the Alpha/Beta and now release version of the sim. Most of the time I've tried the weather is not correct at the airports. My question is are you still using MeteoBlue's model data or any model data in places other than the ocean's and coastlines? I'm wondering is the METAR data just used around the airports and then interpolated with model data in other places over land where there are gaps in METAR data? If it's all blended together well then I see how this could be a great thing. If the model data is only used over the oceans and you are limited to METAR data everywhere else (over land) then it seems that we are limiting ourselves. But maybe this is not possible which is why ASOBO hasn't done it yet either? Brandon
  5. I am not an aircraft designer at all so I don't know anything specific to aircraft. I was able to use the in-sim tools for airports but there is also some text editing to do outside the sim for things like custom 3d models and getting them into the sim. I don't know if that's the "correct way" as ASOBO designed it but it's what works for now and was found out by other people. I would suggest you keep tabs on fsdeveloper.com and also the SDK category of the official MSFS Forums. People are slowly figuring things out in there. I am just doing alot of reading right now and trial and error.
  6. I don't know enough for a step by step guide....like I said I'm still figuring this out. The only thing I know is that it's fundamentally different than FSX or P3D. It's not going to be learned in a day or a week....
  7. I've been messing with the SDK the last 2 days. I am getting ready to start working on airports. However..... currently there is no way to go in and just make adjustments to a default airport. Asobo does not want adjustments to be made to the default files or airports. In order to work on an airport you have to exclude what is there and re-create the airport from scratch. There is also alot of new techniques and new tools in the sim to learn. Basically other than 3d modeling outside of the sim the airport and scenery design is completely different in this sim than what we were doing before. The documentation right now is also very basic and does not answer alot of questions. The SDK version that is available now is like 0.5.0 so I'd say it's pretty early. I will say that I am liking the scenery editing tools in the sim because you can work in real time and see what you are doing. Bottom line is everyone is going to have to have some patience... I am by no means an expert and I am just scratching the surface of the SDK. I have alot to continue to learn and figure out. I also think that the elite 3rd party developers are probably way ahead in the process because they have been communicating and using the SDK for awhile now. I hope they throw us a bone down here and can help us figure things out a little quicker... Brandon
  8. I found a solution to my FltPlan GO GPS app not starting. In the folder for this program there is an SDK folder that comes when you download it from FltPlan Go. If you run the SimConnect.exe file inside that folder you can get the app to run and connect to FS2020. It's working fine for me again now. It uses a specific simconnect version. Brandon
  9. Fltplan Go was working with the FSX SimConnect in the Alpha and Beta of FS2020. I uninstalled the FSX Simconnect being worried about legacy simconnect and conflicts. As a result after downloading the release version of FS2020 I can't get the FltPlan Go application to even start anymore. I am about to re-install the FSX SDK and see if it works again. I will post the results here. I don't think there will be any conflict issues. I was just trying to rid myself completely of any legacy stuff. My expectation is that it will work again after I install the FSX SimConnect.
  10. Yes ASOBO did say in the Q&A that the watermasking was in there however then they said that it's not just a simple mask but that they also include the depth of the water and make adjustments to that by hand in the areas that should show shallow reefs. Everyone needs to have some patience. I believe these things will improve over time. I personally don't think when ASOBO said this would be a 10 year or more commitment that they meant on Day 1 everything will be perfect and then we will just add features for 10 years. I think they meant that it will take 10 years to improve this thing to be the ultimate sim ever made. I have somewhat a level of disappointment myself. I do think this is an "early access" release and should probably have been fleshed out some more but I am not a high level decision maker at Microsoft. I hope that we will look back in about a year and this sim will be at the point where we can just be excited about what develops in the next several years beyond. For now I believe we just have to be patient. If they don't fix alot of these things in the upcoming updates then we can break out the pitchforks...
  11. There are not many in the release version. They are having to do these by hand so the expectation is that they will be added in the world updates but probably not all at once.
  12. I cared....but I was under NDA and couldn't answer your question.
  13. Your point brings up the same thing that I thought about but forgot to add above: Support for a pen device that you could write notes on your VR kneeboard. Seems like something that would be easy to implement. Obviously it would require the purchase of a pen device but having the ability to write notes in VR would solve that problem. Brandon
  14. Good performance and good graphics without shimmering or jaggies. All cockpit items and instruments clearly readable. A virtual kneeboard to hold charts/checklists/other documents that is easily customizeable - support of pdf, doc, etc - can be turned on/off with a single keypress Ability to bring other windows in and pin them anywhere in your VR view. I'm mainly talking about a web browser view in order to view charts from skyvector and approach charts/airport diagrams from AirNav.com - I use this every flight and it would be a paint to have to take the headset off to read my charts so much. - also can be turned on/off with a single keypress In my view these are the main things that a good VR implementation would need in the simulator. Everything else would just be gravy. These things are important for VR to be successful. The walk around feature would be nice but it's not a necessity at least right now. - Brandon
  15. Don't know if this was in the previous thread but I thought about it the other day....Airfield Lighting... Pilot controlled lighting via unicom/multicom frequency at uncontrolled airports Ability to request light intensity to go up or down from the tower just as in real life. Also ability to request airfield/runway lights to go off for military black-out operations with night vision goggles. And in that vein support for a "Night Vision" green view to simulate NVG ops
×
×
  • Create New...