Jump to content

soaring_penguin

Members
  • Content Count

    736
  • Donations

    $10.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

208 Excellent

1 Follower

About soaring_penguin

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    aviation, pc, engineering, nature, outdoor

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3,530 profile views
  1. or the files got corrupted, this happened to me one time. Delete the offending files, and run the installer again (I am not sure how that works with the steam version).
  2. My recommendation for people poking at Linux would be the opposite monsieur mSparks, go for Ubuntu. Because it comes with most stuff ready out of the box, proper Nvidia drivers included. Fedora is probably better if you already know what you are doing. But that is why we have choices, right Greaser 😉 ?
  3. https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/contact/ go to the bottom, other inquiries. as they do operate in Europe, they have to abide by European GDPR law. good luck...
  4. When I said discussion closed please, I meant the senseless comparision between MSFS, X-Plane and the demise of X-Plane. Back on topic: For me, flying is done up there, in a living atmosphere. To me, air mass should be everything but stable. -> thermals need to be realistic, with a downward border, and strong center and slope with the wind. Icing on the cake would be if they originate realistic, fields, mountain slopes, topped with a nice cloud ... . -> clouds: these are the product of atmospheric conditions: pressure, dew, temperature. We shouldn't rely on the weather stations for the coverage, but on these parameters. If they are correct, the cloud coverage will also be. -> wind: wind is the product of high and low pressure, and turns around them If above can be implemented, and it has already been in Flight Unlimited 2 and 3, there will not be sudden weather changes anymore. Another failure for many. And last: depiction of the weather: please overhaul these cotton blobs we see now. This might be realistic in some conditions, but everybody remembers the nice summer evenings with well lined cumulus, or those majestic CBs. I think if most people are attracted to MSFS visually, is because they deliver on this front.
  5. All that I can see in the Steam charts is that there was a lot of interest in flight simming during the March - April lock down. After the release of MSFS there is a drop, but that is because people are curious and will check out the new kid in town. No one can tell what the future brings, some will be disapointed by MSFS, some will stay there. X-Plane might attract new followers with v12, but with v11.50 it will be difficult to atract new sales. So both camps are right. Discussion closed please?
  6. Microsoft is known for putting out MSFS version (fill in your number of preference), add maybe one or two patches, then abandon it completely until the next version number. So I have to disagree with you on this. FSX was a DX 11 showcase (and honestly did not deliver on the marketing). MSFS 2020 will be Azure showcase (petabytes of world detail and AI enhanced weather system). I have no idea if MFS 2020 will be any different, I can not look into the future, but I doubt they have the same enthusiasm as the Laminar team.
  7. The weather implementation I have most fond memories off is still the Unlimited Flight series, you could draw fronts and high and low pressure areas on the map, and see how that developed into realistic weather. CBs were implemented (but ugly as hell 😉 ). (FU III, be it outdated today in the graphics department, is still one of my best simulators in my drawer, RIP).
  8. First you run the beta, then do not complain about instabilities. second I don’t think this is x-planes fault, but on OS level.
  9. for good measures, I just checked and on my system, with 3 layers, real weather, I have between 1 and 2 frames penalty (one of the good things in the beta 😉 ). I don't think the problem is with UWXP or default weather, but with the number of layers you depict.
  10. UWXP and SkymaxPro are 2 different products, the first improves the visuals (only), the second simulates the weather. Agreed, with several layers you have an impact on framerate, but you have this also with default clouds.
  11. I disagree. The overall impact is only a few FPS in general. In some cases I have seen an impact, in other cases an improvement of FPS, but I am running on 11.50 Vulkan beta. Possibly the situation is different with OpenGL.
  12. Actually UWXP is also working with shaders to simulate 3D clouds. many if the bugs in 2.6 are solved in the next release 2.6.1. I recommend to check it if you haven’t yet. i think the 3D freeware cloud project deserves its own thread, it is very impressive indeed. the OP asked about opinions for UWXP 2.6, it is the first weather addon I considered buying , clouds stretch to the horizon, they simulate 3D clouds through shaders with only a few FPS ( 1 to 3) penalty, sun and sky are much better (less dull).
  13. I agree with mSparks here, I have been a hang glider pilot much of my life, and in such tiny craft you really feel the air. And yes, the wind near ground level can fall away very abruptly, especially on a gusty or hot day with many thermals. Many have wacked in coming in too slow on a sunny afternoon.
×
×
  • Create New...