ryanbatc

Mine's a lot more stuttery. But I want to try the new drivers that came out today

Wow these are great! Love that red skymaster as well!

Most likely. The way SI says it is just really wordy. But the words aren't really an issue for me - I try to be balanced when it comes to quirky things in the software. I don't do really any simming outside the USA and I don't pretend to know anything about ATC over there either. Sometimes I think SI and BATC sort of mix phraseology between continents. Most wouldn't really notice.

I mean in the musketeer we've done 2000 which was way over the top and my ears hurt after. I think 500-1000 is reasonable in a GA. Of course it kinda depends on your ground speed.. I try to do 3 degrees myself... It's just that the app could have descended me to 3000 (or probably lower) before clearing me for the approach. Most controllers will get you as low as possible before clearing you for an approach. Sometimes it's not possible due to obstacles or terrain. Like I said the flight was probably the best yet but that 2100 ft descent at the last moment was really odd.

That is really odd. It makes sense (to me at least) to have anyone be able to see what is posted. Kinda reminds me of the days over at Flight1 where only paying customers could access the forums I flew a flight today that went pretty well. It was a short GA hop from KGHG (decent little freeware) to KPVD (dreamflight) in the FSW Legacy. SB filed me for 12k but it was so short, plus there were higher clouds and I wanted to see the sights.. so I requested 6000 as a final. Which it assigned. It was an IFR clearance from the ground (GHG is uncontrolled) and it did quite well. I picked up the ATIS etc etc, they vectored me towards the ILS 34, descended me to 4000. And then just left me there all the way until the PTAC... then all in one down to 1,900 lol. I see some antennas out there on skyvector, but nothing that would stop them from at least dropping me to 3000. That's sometimes common you'll get a lower altitude with the PTAC... but not 2100 ft hehe. 2700 is the MSA out there (so the MVA may be close to that but I highly doubt its 4000). Again it just kinda left me high until the last moment. I descended right away at 1200 fpm and intercepted fine but that's a steep descent in a light GA. Overall the flight went well -probably my best experience with SI so far.

That's interesting as I've never heard that in the USA for guys using GPS or FMS - I wonder why they do that? It's extra verbiage. I would just say "N12345 turn right direct ABC" This stuff is pretty minor though compared to the approach clearance issues. The phraseology used in SI is pretty on point - but the IAP stuff is the biggest complaints I have with BATC and SI.

Of course they do.... they have a lot of viewers and are directly related to Microsoft.

I totally understand the money part. Supporting dual sims does get expensive trust me lol. For those who don't like the UI in xp12 - I like some aspects such as the ability to select Favorite aircraft (something I wish MSFS had!!) I thought most people hated the 2024 UI so I'm surprised so many also don't like XP. Frankly I think it's just very different from MSFS and people don't like change hehe.

We have a similar system. I've got the weaker 4080 though. IF you have fast internet, something I just have been trying is to run without a rolling cache. Just google how to run 2024 with a dummy cache or something. IMO I've had corrupt cloud data a few times now and I think things are stuck in the rolling cache.

This is just an honest question, I'm not trying to be a d*ck. Have you considered trying XP12? It takes some time to get used to if you've only ever used FSX, P3D, MSFS etc. But XP12 focuses on core aviation experiences. For free you can get it looking quite amazing with little effort. If you add payware it can exceed the clarity of MSFS visuals. The biggest downsides at the moment, is (still) lack of quality anti aliasing (though they do make subtle improvements here and there), and lack of multiple quality addons. For any type of simming you might do, there is at least 1 really nice addon in each "category". But it's not like MSFS where there might be 3 or 4 super nice addons. I'm saying this from someone who primarily used Microsoft sims since FS4.0, dabbled with XP9 and 10, mostly went back to FSX/P3D v4 (64bit etc), used XP11 for a good while, then went basically all in with Microsoft since MSFS 2020 (and now 2024). There are some great things about both sims, and there are some major issues with both sims. About 4 months ago I started using XP12 again because I perceived that console support for the MSFS franchise is their priority. (It makes MUCH more money than the PC version of the sim, so it makes sense). It doesn't mean I'm stopping buying addons for 2024 (plenty of incredible aircraft coming, BB757, A2A Legacy, Black Square Twin Commanders, Asobo/WT Embraer Praetor, PMDG 747 etc). It just means that for me, it's viable to run both sims if I have a certain itch I'd like to scratch.

It's not necessarily that the imagery is blurry when directly below the camera, it's that the radius at which it becomes blurry has shortened (over various SU's). This is why I say TLOD 400 feels like 200 (or even less now). This is near Buochs Airport, I think it's LSZC. There's two aerial image sets and you'll see the stark difference because one is TIN and one is regular satellite/aerial. I think my pics are close to the town of Ennetmoos (just west of Buochs) When I used to run AutoFPS, I cranked the TLOD to like 800 and even the point at which trees loaded was nearly at the horizon... even if I force 800 now with AF, it's much shorter and I can see trees fading in as I fly. Most likely I notice this because I very rarely fly airliners, and usually fly something sporty and fast (and low!) and just look out the window. Most of my simming is very local - only a few states radius from my home state, places I've seen or been to irl. I basically repeat similar flights quite often. So I've watched the degradation in the terrain tiles. Another reason is because I do a lot of repaints, and I use the Drone camera. I need to take screenshots to "sell" my liveries. Most users probably don't use that. In drone view one can really zoom in, and see how blurry things are. It's much harder to notice from wide angle pics like the PC12 pic in low lighting above.

I think its corrupt cloud data somewhere. I've got a few other guys I chat with on discord that have similar issues. All in the USA. It's definitely not as nice as 2020's 512x512. No one has that anymore. I think that cost them too much bandwidth. But clearly this is an issue somewhere between the server and my PC. edit: For reference that guy with the PC12 pic - that's actually TIN aerials mixed with default buildings. TIN is always a bit sharper. I did a few tests in that area (LSZC) and there's an ugly boundary between TIN and standard aerial imagery. When you move the camera away it does become very blurry very quickly. This is what has changed since the release of the sim. Since when we fly we are mostly viewing to the sides this difference is more noticeable. When you take a super wide angle pic like the PC12 it's hard to notice how burry things become. This is why the default camera is also so wide angle... so people won't notice the melted TIN buildings vs zooming in. Anyway, people will see what they want to see - youll have to click on the pic to enlarge to get a real comparison. On the top we can see hay bales and probably sheep next to that smaller road on the right. And then its a blurry mess when I moved the drone back just a little. However, note that the TIN aerials are still about the same sharpness.

This is 2024 SU7 beta? What are your exact settings? Texture resolution? TLOD? What CPU and GPU? And I agree with you then... that is night and day from what I've been seeing. Maybe it's something to do with the beta. I'm going to clear my rolling cache, make a dummy folder and run without for now. Maybe there's bad cloud data somewhere.

Thanks for your wise words of wisdom

I'm not. I'd have to set 400 to get it looking reasonable. 200 is a blurry mess