ckyliu

Nothing wrong with Firefox, I use it fine with FlightSim.To and I run an adblocker plugin (which I disable for FlightSim.To). Edge is built on Chromium, essentially it's polished Chrome but your data goes to the Big M rather than the Big G. Firefox is a little bit more memory heavy right now than the other two at this precise moment, but it has better privacy functionality. I was with you all the way until you mentioned WoT... they sold identifiable user browsing data on to third parties and got banned from most app stores for violating their terms and conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOT_Services#Sale_of_user-related_data might be years ago but I have no trust in that organisation any more.

Majestic had this sussed long ago on their FSX Q400. They used an almost one-for-one font copy on the pop-out displays, but for the typeface in the virtual cockpit they made the stroke weight heavier and possibly enlarged it a bit too so it was readable without zooming in lots. Hans could learn from this.

That video has a 500 callout! Plus "approaching minimums" and "minimums minimums", 200, 100, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10. I suspect it's an operator option.

@blueshark747 400 XP or 800 XP? Two different aircraft types. EDIT: It's the 800 XP (BAe 125-800 derived from the HS 125) https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/hawker-800xp-by-cockspur/544106 A lovely business jet but completely different and a lot bigger than the Beechjet Hawker 400

That's bang on the money for an ATR. It's a economical but dumpy looking turboprop. You've spent too much time in jets!

It wasn't "trashed", it's a list of legitimate and verifiable discrepancies from reality for a product loudly marketed as "expert". Interviews with Hans Hartman, Asobo and Microsoft indicated the simulation would be quite deep and the accuracy quite high. Yes, DeceivedJaguar5 is obviously annoyed and some of the wording around their list indicates that, but fundamentally it remains legitimate criticism and informative to those of us who care about accuracy. Some of the items on the list are nitpicky and I may be happy to overlook (carpet in the cabin), but others are important to me as they affect regular operation of the aircraft (behaviour of the prop brake, prop feathering, automatically hydraulic axillary pump activation, red IAS tape not moving with AoA, NH and ITT behaviour during start, ACW behaviour during GI operations). I'm overjoyed you are happy with the £13 you spent, but that doesn't mean right for you is right for everyone (or even the majority of the userbase here). I am glad we have accurate information from DercievedJaguar5 to make our own assessments with.

Having read their post on the official forums, I don't see anything wrong with the bug list they posted. Yes the product is well priced but bugs, errors and omissions are still exactly that. Some things I can forgive or overlook (e.g. minor external visual items missing), others I cannot (e.g. sounds), but it's nice to have the information available for me to decide that without having to purchase it. Plus as others has said it gives the developer a list of things to work on

The problem with asking for hardware recommendations on Avsim is half the userbase thinks you poo out money 🤣 Yeah just double the budget for the CPU and triple it for the GPU, no issue! 5800x3d and RTX 4080 are just small change 🙄 The PC specs you linked are okay for MFS, the 3060 could be a tad slower than your current 2080 Super although is has more VRAM which MFS is hungry for. System RAM over 16GB is not essential now (the RAM footprint of MFS has dropped since its early days) but it's nice to have and other software may want 32GB, so check it has two RAM slots spare so you can expand it later. A 650W PSU will not give you headroom to run the latest graphics cards should you wish to later, you'll want more like 800W+. Overall I think the system you linked to versus your current specs you will only see a small performance improvement, I base this on: https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-5600-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X/m1822932vs4041 https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-3060-vs-Nvidia-RTX-2060S-Super/4105vs4049 Therefore I suggest you would be better to repair your current system since it is still relatively modern; you haven't mentioned how it crapped out?

You can use ROP and LOP techniques if there's an EGT gauge.

Bigbluss, maybe Reader and Riccardo44 had simply noted what the OP stated: Why did you take it as an attack on yourself (if anything it was directed a Ryan)? You seem to feel guilt for your position feel the need to justify it? It's very unhealthy how hardware threads sometimes becomes a dickwaving contest because it puts people off entering the hobby by making it appear you need a $3000 computer to play the simulators well when you really don't; to be told "if you can't afford... not our problem" is really very disparaging to most readers. The difference between a 3090 and 4090 is very much subject to diminishing returns in the context of flight simulators as I would expect either to be capable of pushing over 60 fps constantly at the highest of settings and I think that is very smooth in the context of a competitively slow moving flight simulator. Unless one has a gaming monitor and is using something fast paced like a first person shooter or sports game, the difference shouldn't be discernable. Or perhaps VR.

No

If we're having a "top trumps" in this thread for who had the lowliest machine to run MFS, I winning that contest thus far (or at least drawing with @jmalfatti_BR)... i5 2500K OC@4.3 GHz, 16 GB RAM and a GTX 980 4GB. And it ran just fine, not amazing, but more than playable typically maintaining 30 fps with settings generally around high. Oh and I was running 1440p resolution with no scaling and anti-aliasing enabled. You have nothing to worry about, truly. If I wasn't smart with settings and flew the most framerate heavy aircraft into the most complicated airports with loads of AI traffic and weather I could drop to 14 fps, but for most flying I stayed above 20 fps and things looked nice.

You mean to tell me you're not LAN partying Ray?! Would seem exactly your sort of thing; I bet you're always on Call of Duty in between flights. Next you'll be telling me you're not into Deep House, you think I'll believe anything! The rave scene around Cheadle is mega I hear.

LAN parties. When you gotta haul your rig about, bulkiness is important. But sometimes it's for the challenge or simple bragging rights.Why did some chap put a Spitfire engine into a car; it's in no way practical, but it's cool and sometimes that's enough. I find mATX builds perfectly logical for me simply because they're cheaper and neater but perform the same. The extras offered by a full size ATX board I don't use. And generally tower cases end up on my desks because of all the drawers I have underneath limits floor space, so I value the compactness. My case doesn't have any optical drive bays to make it smaller and quieter. Try putting an E-ATX motherboard into an mATX case and see how far you get; yes it describes the size (form factor) of the motherboard, but cases are also described by the largest of those they can accommodate. My case is mATX although it has compatibility for a full ATX power supply (most mATX towers are like this).

That being the case, OP Ray should be able to use a microATX form factor if they want, because that card will fit my Fractal Design Mini C with the front fans in (max length is 315mm). Unfortunately although the case can accomodate, the wallet can't, I'll be on an RTX 4070 or 4060 or maybe a 3070Ti. Having said all that, the link Ray posted shows most 4090s as being 340-355mm long, which definitely wouldn't fit an mATX build.

Experience tells me the reason is how much of your field of view it occupies; I used a 37" FullHD LCD TV as a monitor for a couple of years and when you're sat at a desk, it fills most of your field of view (like an IMAX screen). Therefore beyond 32" at 16:9 one doesn't really gain any screen real estate, you just end up sitting further away or having to move your head and eyes to see different bits of the screen! Given most PC users are sat at a desk against a wall, there is little demand for monitors that require you sit further away than this, and those people can buy a TV.

I wouldn't say optimum, I'd say 32" is minimum size for 4K to be of benefit in a desktop monitor. I can't tell the difference between 1440p and 2160p at 27", I start to perceive it at 32" at typical seating distance but it isn't a night and day comparison at that size. For a television from my sofa, it needs to be at least 50" for 4K to show up, really 55"+. Marketing sometimes drives the specification of products rather than actual benefits; you'll struggle to get a quality 40-50" TV that isn't 4K because because unknowledgeable consumers will prefer a low quality 4K panel over a top quality 1080p panel just because of the spec sheet. Anyway the OP's monitor is an ultrawide, so equivalent to 27" at 16:9, which I've found to be the sweet spot for 1440p.

@rolly One thing no one seems to have touched on thus far is the monitor you mention is an ultrawide, so you effectively have one and a half monitors of 2560x1440 pixels at 16:9, 3.7 megapixel each (albeit in one contiguous panel) for a total resolution of 3440x1440 pixels at 43:18, 5 megapixels. I think a GTX1080 will struggle driving that at much beyond 30 Hz with MFS at higher settings (it's 30% more pixels than standard 1440p), so my suggestion would be to get a lower refresh rate monitor the same size (say circa 100 Hz, if one exists) and use the money saved towards a graphics card upgrade later. As many others have already said, 144 Hz is never going to be needed for a flight simulator, it's only worth paying for that high refresh rate if you plan on having a very powerful PC sometime in the future or you play fast paced racing and first person shooter games.

@1Wolf My experience with all ATC addons has been their abysmal simulation of VFR, at least here in Europe, only VATSIM is realistic but then you are limited on when you can fly. As you're based in the USA have you looked into PilotEdge?

@jt233 Your RAM won't be reuseable in an new motherboard since it's DDR3; DDR4 has been the norm for a long time and the very latest Intel 13th gen are now mostly DDR5. Therefore I advise against a RAM upgrade to you existing system.

I would advise against throwing much money at that machine in upgrades, and saving for a replacement; I say this as someone who started MFS with i5-2500K 16 GB and GTX980 4GB and kinda managed medium settings. I think you may get away with retaining just 12 GB RAM but the GTX 750Ti definitely needs replacing... but then you'll probably need a PSU - so maybe buy two items with a view to moving them to a new system in the next year or so? I am still using the GTX980 on my current i5-12400F and it does okay, I have settings quite high generally but also only 30 fps. The GTX1060 is a fair bit slower than a GTX980, at the same price I would go for a 980. But I think really you should be looking at 2070 or 3060/3070 if you're moving to a new system otherwise you're dealing with hardware that's already 7 years old (in the case of the 1060) that will be going into a new system! MFS is rather VRAM hungry, you'll want 4GB of it at an absolute minimum but more would be better.

I am thinking 4060 or 4070 for myself and it's possible they'll be announced next month. Rekon they'll be a good pairing with my existing i5-12400F? I run 1440p.

Hang on were discussing 4070Ti and 4080, the original spec says 3060! That's a BIG increase in cost of the build. A 3060 will run MFS okay so long as you're not in VR or 4K, obviously something faster and with more video memory will be better but you will pay quite a bit of the privilege

Not worth powering off mains electricity supply imo, I can't imagine the standby current/wattage draw on a modern PSU is significant. You would spend more replacing the CMOS battery (I've only ever changed them on systems which are routinely disconnected from mains power, typically after about 6/7 years). The clock on your microwave probably draws more current, or the standby mode on a television, and your router certainly will pull more power so do you turn that off when you're asleep? I expect most will not disconnect their systems from mains power when not in use, simply because the UK is one of a very few countries to have switched outlets/sockets as the norm. Most countries truly switching off means having to physically unplug the thing, or gaining access to the rear of the case to get the power switch on the PSU.

@pommy80 Good point. Notice how they didn't do a 700 & 800 in a single bundle though as that's all anyone would've bought 🤣