Jump to content

tfm

Members
  • Content Count

    837
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

154 Excellent

About tfm

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3,852 profile views
  1. I fired up the PMDG 737 which I haven’t used for ages to see for myself. In my case, it performed a bit worse than the Fenix.
  2. Combo of B2 and SU15 beta = plentiful CTDs and weird and wonderful behaviours (spontaneous move from gate to 3000ft was a winner) … … BUT resolved for me by forcing the motherboard to respect all Intel’s limits (actually less easy to achieve than it should be on my Asus MB). Lost some performance but regained stability. … suggests that B2 and/or SU15 demands more than before and what previously APPEARED to be a stable overclock is no longer stable ENOUGH for the new loads … which tells me (yet again) that when things don’t work as expected but the problem isn’t universal, then it’s usually the hardware. Even when you thought your PC was “stable.”
  3. Thanks - that was my assumption:) But v nice to have the option in MSFS.
  4. Two cores “maxing out” is, surely, expected in some of the conditions which are now normal with an intel cpu, where their confusingly-labelled various “Turbo” etc modes can sometimes boost the clock speed of up to 2 cores. One would expect - and certainly hope - that Windows and MSFS co-operate well enough to schedule the most demanding tasks to whichever two cores are, for the time being, boosted in this way. That might also explain why some people see different patterns: different CPUs, or different settings in the UEFI as to whether the CPU should operate in a mode capable of boosting up to two cores (even if this mode is available, it can be turned off - maybe inadvertently, bearing in mind the hopelessly opaque text / labels on any overclocking page in any UEFI).
  5. Erm, guys …. The DIR page gives you the option to intercept and track a radial to and from ANY waypoint including VORs. Use the LSK to select the waypoint (or LSK1 to enter a new one) then choose RSK4 or RSK5 to choose the inbound or outbound radial you want to intercept. Autopilot can do all the work. Works on the Fenix - maybe not implemented in the FBW. (Edit as a bonus) AND: if you need to do it using raw data rather than the FMS/ autopilot, here’s how:
  6. Clear as mud lol. FS has had multi-threading for years/ decades - but originally the only “threaded” function was loading textures as I recall. I’d love to know what other functions they’ve now off-loaded from the main thread/ split between available cores? And what further functions they plan to off-load/ split between available cores for MSFS2024?
  7. 4k, 12900ks, 4090: seeing better performance but turning on realtime online traffic (unsurprisingly) still hammers the thing nastily: down from typical 50fps to high 20s/ low 30s at EGLL (before frame generation). Often thought that traffic might be a candidate for its own thread(s). Any word on whether this is one of the multi-threading improvements promised for MSFS 2024?
  8. Despite deep scepticism I thought I might as well try this and … under same conditions at EGLL I have seen ~32fps instead of ~27fps before being doubled by frame generation with a 4090. Worthwhile imo.
  9. The flight sim world has two distinctive types of people: those who are convinced PMDG is the greatest thing for flight sim ever. And those who used to be ;)
  10. This is a total long shot but back in the day there was an association between (wait for it) the sound quality you choose in Windows settings for your soundcard, and the stability of FSX under high-load conditions. The relevant setting is hard to find in Windows these days but with Win11 I found it again like this: in settings search for Sound settings > More sound settings > Sound > Speakers > Properties > Advanced > [select lower quality sound from drop down menu]
  11. To my way of thinking, this demonstrates conclusively that the problem is somewhere in your kit. Even modern solid state components can come with defects, or develop them with time. I’ve been lucky recently but in the past I’ve experienced issues with RAM and a GPU. They took ages to track down, but with hindsight it seems obvious: if it were a bug, then it would affect large numbers of users. The core reason it took ages to track down turns out to have been that I just didn’t want to accept that there might be something fundamentally broken with my kit.
  12. Back in the day, the sudden emergence of random CTDs could be a sign that a once-stable overclock had become unstable, perhaps through deterioration over time of the components under higher heat / voltage. Or, sometimes, that a piece of kit failed even though not overclocked (I’ve had this with RAM and graphics card). So … do you have the option to run your PC at more conservative hardware settings and see if that makes a difference? And/or swap out components?
  13. I was interested to learn about the influence of “frame time variance” and spent some time fiddling around with the various suggestions about Riva tuner and so on. I would agree that lower FTV is associated with an appreciably smoother / more immersive experience in the 30-40 fps range. However, I always come back to a definite feeling that it’s more immersive and fluid when I take the kit off its leash by turning off all kinds of vsync . 12900ks with 4090 here and using frame-gen on 4k, mainly ultra settings, I get 60-90fps (depends mainly on the weather) at the inibuilds EGLL in the Fenix A320, even with real time traffic on and LOD at 210. So I agree with the assessment that FTV stops being a significant predictor of immersiveness / smoothness if your kit can consistently sustain higher frame rates.
  14. It’s speculation of course, but that doesn’t make it a conspiracy theory: I’m merely calling out Microsoft for what I consider to be their likely agenda. I might, of course, be wrong - but if so, it’s not for reasons you have identified. As to your first point: MS has preferentially targeted one of the most sophisticated, mature, labour intensive add-ons (the FBW A320, I mean): I have not seen any credible explanation for devoting development resources to targeting this (rather than giving people something they want, like a free 737) except the one I have suggested. As for your second point: It suits Microsoft to normalise payment for add-ons and to disincentivise non-profit providers. It is true that MS allows profit transactions outside its “marketplace” without taking a cut, but the key point here is that this is in MS’s control: it can change the rules at any time, when it judges the time is right to make yet more money.
×
×
  • Create New...