bonchie

It seems like this developer's experience is 100% US based, and they are mimicking how calls in the US typically go, technically incorrect and all. They should be able to make European-centric calls as well. We'll see what the ICAO video brings. As a broad pursuit, I like that they are making the calls more real-world and less just what's in the book. It'll take some work, but if they can vary it and do it right, it'll really be immersive (at least for real world pilots that know what real ATC sounds like). For example, one thing they could add that's very common is reporting ride conditions as part of a check-in with a new controller. Once you get above FL300, your typical check-in is "Houston Center 838HU 330 smooth" or something of that nature. Even cooler would be if an ATC program could do what real-world controllers do, taking those ride reports and building a bigger picture to advice on cruising altitudes. That's probably impossible with current technology, though.

Europe is more strict on phraseology so I can't comment on that part of this, but in the US, "looking for" is very common when speaking to clearance delivery to pick up a clearance. That's exactly what I say every flight in the real world as a corporate pilot. I think their goal is to make it sound more real-world by adding the slang you typically hear. I'm sure they'll vary it.

With all due respect, so what? MSFS survives because it makes money. They can't just never release a new version unless you want development to stop eventually. FSX was not a completely new product. XP12 was not a completely new product. The Asobo engine is the base, and they are going to keep building on that with new versions. They've already said addons will transfer and that the MSFS roadmap will be completed. With simming, people forget that there's more to a good product than just scenery and airplanes. If MSFS 2024 includes a ton of new career/game elements and some engine improvements, that's a big investment by them and they should be rewarded for that.

Are we supposed to be mad they were going to release a new version four years after MSFS? And they've already said the MSFS roadmap will be completed AND that addons will transfer (for free) to MSFS24. So what's not to like? I also agree with those who say the career stuff is not just Xbox fodder. I fly Citations for a living. We do not fly just to fly. Real-world aviation is mission based.

You have to wonder how in a hurry developers are to devote time to long haul planes when most simmers just want to do 1-2 hour hops domestically from pretty airport to pretty airport. Not saying there's anything wrong with long haul in a sim, but it's a niche within a niche.

Because FSX and P3D did not play well with AMD. I want to make sure there aren't similar issues with AMD in MSFS. I already know what my budget is and what resolution I want to play at. That's why I narrowed it down to the 3070 or 6800.

Probably gonna go AMD 6800. I just don't want to get into a GC that only has 8GB. That doesn't seem smart for future proofing. I keep my graphics cars a long time (970 for like 8 years at this point), and I want to take the biggest step forward possible. Plus the 6800 is more powerful overall anyway for less money. I just want to make sure AMD plays well with MSFS. Any first hand experiences? Not just FPS, but stutters and stuff.

Haven't simmed really since the MSFS beta. Busy with real-life flying. Kind of have the itch again. My system is definitely derelict on the GPU side with a GTX 970. And my CPU is a now getting old with a 8600K at 4.8Ghz. Obviously, the GPU has to be upgraded. Is the CPU decent enough to put off for a while? As to the GPU, don't want to break the bank, so the highest I can get with Nvidia is a 3070. Highest with AMD is an RX 6800. Kind of worried about the Nvidia only having 8GB of memory, but do AMD cards work well with MSFS?

Haven't simmed really since the MSFS beta. Busy with real-life flying. Kind of have the itch again. My system is definitely derelict on the GPU side with a GTX 970. And my CPU is a now getting old with a 8600K at 4.8Ghz. Obviously, the GPU has to be upgraded. Is the CPU decent enough to put off for a while? As to the GPU, don't want to break the bank, so the highest I can get with Nvidia is a 3070. Highest with AMD is an RX 6800. Kind of worried about the Nvidia only having 8GB of memory, but do AMD cards work well with MSFS?

Thanks for all the tips. Honestly, the freeware improvement mods have been enough to get me going. The rest of the sim is already there except for AI traffic issues. It's nice to not have to run 50 add-ons at start up to get a decent experience. Just used the TBM 930 w/ improvement mod to go from KHKS to KDTS (Destin, FL) just to see how the sim would render the outer bands of the now tropical storm passing through. It did it perfectly. Flew the RNAV, broke out about 1200ft. Plane felt great on the approach and in the landing phase. My ancient GTX 970 had zero issues despite the heavy IMC and the FPS were smooth except a couple of time when I tried to pan too fast. It was shocking at times. Maybe I'm just honeymooning right now, and the flaws will slap me in the face soon, but there seems to be a lot done right compared to my experience in the Alpha and with the early release over a year ago. I can't imagine going back to P3D after this.

I was originally an Alpha tester but just didn't play much at release due to frustrations and performance issues. Have read horror stories about SU5 but I figured I'd jump back in given the performance increase should help with my ancient GTX970 (if video cards ever go back to MSRP, I'll upgrade). I'm going to Taos, NM in a few weeks so I figured a flight there would be nice. Loaded up in the 172 for something simple and set the GPS for Angel Fire about 20 miles away. The plane started up as expected, it's no longer pulling left on taxi, and the takeoff roll feels good, if a little twitchy as speed builds (haven't adjusted sensitivities yet). Into the air, the effects of density altitude seem to be superbly modeled (I leaned before takeoff) and it climbed like an absolute dog. As I got over the mountains, the sim was clearly simulating wind gusts off the ridges in ways I'd never seen another game do. The plane was all over the place. Approached Angel Fire from an extended right base after coming over a ridge. Flaps out and everything did what I expected. Held it over the runway and let it settle. The ASOS matched the windsock as I rolled out and the weather seemed correct. Performance seemed good the entire flight, the trees look so much better and the density feels right, and aside from the comically high hangers at airports, the graphics met the mark. So my question for you is what now? I'm about to finish my CFI in real life and enjoy GA opts in small planes so I'd like to stay in that lane for a while. Are there free realism mods for the Cessnas and Bonanza? How have you toned down the overblown lighting in SU5? Any other must have freeware addons I should install immediately? Performance tweets I should know about?

I hadn't played in 5 months. My performance is way worse.

And even then, sometimes they won't bother. I've never had a tower give me the altimeter unless I've asked for it. But those little things are less important to me in a sim than having a system that just works and runs smoothly for a congruent flight. P3D's ATC isn't right either, but it's usable. I haven't booted up any flight simulator in five months so I'm curious to update MSFS2020 and see what's changed.

I heard AMD will have two different VRAM options for their new cards. So you may be able to get 3070 performance with 16GB of VRAM from AMD's relative product (I think it'll be the regular 6700, not XT? that rivals the 3070).

I don't need to check with "youtube pilots." I'm a commercial pilot. I've flown twin engine planes. Whether the default A320 is spot on is not my concern. But the idea that MSFS is more arcade that simulation is nonsense.