Pete Dowson

The only way the malware check programs can identify threats is by comparing a string of byte values from the known threat with all those in the downloaded or unpacked file. Any program, compiled, compressed, ZIPped, whatever, can easily present a similar sequence. The more up to date scanners deal with tihs by extending the number of bytes actually checked. But this takes effort and time (for them and for you), so they often only do it when it is proved necessary. What you are getting is called a "false positive" and just needs to be reported to the anti-virus company and they will then update their check. But they tend not to do this until reported. They usually want the file concerned to see what they have to do. There's really no comparable field in terms of sheer numbers of add-on and associated packages and updates of each. Pete

If your Vsync is lower than the frame limit you set, then the Vsync limits the frame rate, exactly as it would with unlimited frame rate selected! Pete

It appears so. Achilles actually suggested something really high like 120 in one of the earlier posts here. Pete

There was the intention of doing one recently, when I had visitors (in turn Rob Ainscough, Nat Crea and Thomas Richter have visited in short order) but we have run out of time in all three cases to actually do a proper flight where I or a third party (if we could find one) could make a video. In fact Thomas only just got back home to Shannon just before the current lockdown was imposed. Now, with the lockdown here there's no chance of visitors. I suppose I could try to set the camera up on a tripod and just leave it running, editing it afterwards, but it would be much better with two pilots and myself making the video properly. (I used to have a tripod -- I wonder where it is? The anti-shake mechanism in today's video cameras are so good i've not used one for many years!) I'll get one made one of these days! 😉 Pete

It appears that the external so-called VSyync limiters see 3 x DirectX 3D windows and somehow assume each should get 10 fps to make the total 30 fps. Weird. The only ways I found round it were stretching one window over all three monitors (projectors in my case), which was no good for me as I needed at least a 180 degree FOV, or using VSync in P3D, which works fine. BTW, I changed recently from 3 x HD Projectors to 2 x UHD Projectors. The reduction of P3D scenery windows from 3 to 2 gave me a >30% boost which was more than enough to offset the increase in total pixels displayed. Pete

You appear to have missed the point. I was commenting on your rather word not allowed assertion that it couldn't be more than 30 lines of code and therefore didn't justify the price. As far as whether Dynamic FFTF should be needed at all, that is an entirely different point, and another part of your post. I agree that for many folks it isn't needed at all. In my case I am using two 4K projectors with a 200 degree FOV which needs two wide angle views (windows) from P3D. This is supported well by P3D (unlike MSFS so far), but at a cost in performance. I also want to use Orbx True Earth sceneries, lots of autogen buildings, detailed airports and a realistic level of AI -- and at London Heathrow that amounts to several hundred aircraft. This you may think is overloading the Sim, but P3D5 now, at last, does support such a load, still managing to give me 25 fps (my VSync). However, to manage this I need an FFTF of 0.01. When flying, however, this value can easily cause blurring as the relevant parts understandably can't keep up with such a small portion of frame time. FFTF fixes this by automatically raising the FFTF value as I climb. To sum up, Dynamic FFTF allows me to load up the sim far more than I otherwise could. If you are happy with P3D with no addons then that's good for you, but a lot of us do like to enhance our simming experience. Anyway, that's my final word in this thread. It is pointless saying anything further. Pete

Have you ever actually tried analysing 64-bit code in machine disassemblies to work out who is doing what to which and thus locating exactly the right thing, or things, to change? I have done it extensively in 32-bit code (FS98 through to P3D3), but I took one look at P3D4 innards and said to myself 'no way'! The only reason I felt qualified to attempt it in 32-bit code was because I started programming as an engineering test programmer back in 1963 (on the prototype Leo III), so I had a lot of low level experience. But these days the compilers are so damned good at optimising with parallel activities and making weird uses of the many complex registers and instructions now available, that it has become a nightmare. I have used FFTF extensively with P3Dv4 and it was the last add-on I needed to make a complete move over to P3D5. I don't think anyone has the right to belittle someone else's work unless they can show they can do it better. And even then it isn't a nice thing to do. Pete

It was okay here when I was using P3D's own weather themes, which I think have only one cloud layer. But having cloudy weather set with a few cloud layers, as I've just been trying, my frame rate can suffer a bit, but worse, I get multitudes of microstutters. Not big signiificant ones, but ones you tend to have to look for, most noticeable in the side views on my 200 degree FOV screen. Specs of my system below. Mind you, P3D5 has allowed me to use Orbx True Earth at last, and it was over London that I was observing these microstutters. It's just that there were none before I enabled True Sky (sorry, "Enhanced Atmospherics"). I haven't decided yet whether I can live with it. I need to fly more but I still have a lot of scenery to install or update for P3D5. Pete

Really a question better asked in the FSUIPC Support Forum on SimFlight. Using a common folder for FSUIPC6 just means all your settings and plug-ins and macros apply to both P3D4 and P3D5 equally. You may or may not want that. The FSUIPC6 installer does it all fo you. Please read the installation document. Pete

Yes, it still goes into the root folder for P3D. And don't forget to include the revised Scenery Export program included -- that was updated in a timely fashion by Oliver Binder ("Lorby-Si"). Me too. you could have chosen the modules folder of course, but I've now got a common "FSUIPC" folder for both P3Dv4 and P3Dv5. Pete

Two things need updating for P3Dv5: FSUIPC6 instead of FSUIPC5, and MakeRunways version 4.90 (or later as and when). The latter is because the BGL format is changed in P3Dv5 to allow for sloping runways. Both have been available for download since Tuesday (actually MakeRunways was released on Saturday). Pete

Actually, it isn't. It is just "Microsoft Flight Simulator".

Check the History document for FSUIPC4 or FSUIPC5, whichever you have, to see how much development was done for the price -- even a small price if upgrading from the version before -- to see how much it was developed over its life, much in direct response to user requests. You appear to be expecting a short life for FSUIPC6 / P3Dv5. Why is that?

Would you prefer a subscription? Whilst FSUIPC was under my development responsibilty it underwent continuous development for many years -- the first 6 years actually being totally free. A small upgrade price covering any continued improvements over the life of P3D5 seems ridiculously fair to me. (And it is still free to use its programming interface for free and shareware applications, not that I suppose anyone here really cares about those). Pete

Nice. So why do PMDG aircraft cause stutters when they save their data? Are they doing it deliberately? All FSUIPC does is make one call to SimConnect to request a flight is saved, and possibly one file deletion to maintain the cycle. Pete