RGS

Could someone please let me know the directory structure when installing FS to a drive other than C:, via the MS Store? With Steam, I assume it'd be something along the lines of: F:\steamapps\common\microsoft flight simulator and then you'd choose another directory for the content during the actual installation, thus you could have: Flight Simulator (F:) > Installation (F:\Installation\steamapps\common\microsoft flight simulator) Flight Simulator (F:) > Content (F:\Content) Which seems relatively neat and tidy to me as I can have the installation and content in the same place and have control over the folder names etc. I tend not to like the way MS does things, case in point not being about to rename the user folder in Windows 10... Thanks!

Wow, that's a pretty substantial OC. I think the 9900K can run 2 cores at 5 GHz, with all 8 at 4.7. Is the sim (P3D) making use of those extra cores on your 7920X? How do you find the processor outside of flight sim/gaming? Thanks.

Thanks for the reply, Westman. Do you happen to know if that's the case at 4K as well? The 9920X is a slight step up from the 7920X, but I imagine not enough to make a significant difference. If I was just considering a machine for flight sim/gaming with a thought to changing it every 2-4 years I'd just go with the 9900K + 32 GB RAM and be done with it, but as I have to take into account the other uses for the system, namely Max and Photoshop and the fact that I'll be sticking with it far beyond that time frame (graphics card upgrades aside) things become less obvious. Totally get that right now the 9900K is the best gaming processor available; my dilemma however is, is it significantly faster than the 9920X in flight sims/games, and in particular at 4K (plus will that continue to be the case in the years ahead); also how much of an advantage would the additional 4 cores and quad channel memory give me regarding the work side of things? In some ways I suspect that the higher clock speeds of the 9900K may actually make it the faster of the two in Max and Photoshop (barring rendering), but not 100% on that front. As generally speaking I'm not rendering video from Max (only stills, lighting + normal map bakes), rendering time isn't as important a consideration as it might otherwise be. The 9900K is tempting, as the far cheaper option; my concern is whether it will it last as well as the 12 core part in the long run? I don't want to overclock as 1: I don't know what I'm doing 😉, 2: I need stability and don't want to spend a lot of time troubleshooting etc. and 3: component longevity is important to me. Sorry for the long-ish posts. Thanks for the feedback.

Hi all, Looking for some advice on a new system and wondering which of the two above processors to build it around. My primary uses: Flight sim (P3D), obviously... Games 3ds Max (primarily model creation, but also rendering) Photoshop 4K All of the above are of roughly equal importance and are kind of linked, as I'm a developer. In addition, I'd like to add video editing, though that's of less importance right now. I do work with very large files and often have multiple apps open (Max and Photoshop for e.g.). My intention is to pair the system with an RTX 2080 Ti. Whilst expensive, it does deliver the goods at 4K. A few further points to bear in mind: This is my primary work machine and will see heavy usage for years to come I do not want to have to upgrade the processor/motherboard, but am OK with mid-life GPU + RAM upgrades (but ideally would not want to for at least 3 years) I will not be overclocking I will only ever be running a single graphics card System must be Intel/nVidia and be as future-proof as possible (I tend to stick with a machine for much longer than most, rather than frequent upgrades, beyond the graphics card) Price differential between the two systems is currently around £700-800, which is considerable (roughly £2,500 vs £3,200 for the entire rig, minus display) As I understand it the 9900K is faster at 5 GHz vs 4.5, but the 9920X has half as many cores again (12 vs 8) + supports quad channel memory, though not sure how important that is in terms of real world usage however. Benchmarks seem to show the 9900K producing higher framerates for games at lower resolutions (due to the higher clocks), but things flatten out at 4K. With that in mind, I'm tempted towards the 12 core part which ought to help with work (rendering if little else) and potentially be more future-proof as apps eventually embrace higher core counts (though a very slow process, if the past few years are anything to go by). On the other hand, 5 vs 4.5 GHz is a considerable margin in terms of raw speed,and those 4K figures may shift in the direction of the 9900K as games become more demanding. The 32 vs 64 GB RAM question is more to do with future-proofing. 32 is ample for now, work-wise, but in the past I've been burnt with RAM becoming discontinued and/or insanely expensive, so am considering just going the whole hog now. Would be interested to hear from others, particularly with regards to large files in Photoshop, heavy Max usage and video editing. I don't imagine flight sims/games will be taking advantage of over 32 GB for some time, though maybe 4+ years from now, who knows? Thanks in advance for the help. Cheers!

I'd imagine LM need to write the rain effect shader first (and 3ds Max tools to go with it) - that's their job. Once the system is in place, devs then have the tools/control required to correctly implement the effects of a per a/c basis, flagging the appropriate polygons, setting wiper masks, parameters etc. Disappointed not to see the base effect added by LM at this stage, seems like a very odd thing to leave out when going to the trouble of re-doing the rain and snow, particularly when FSW now has the feature (and it can't be that hard to implement).

Good topic. I'm particularly interested in the impact that going to a bigger screen might have on one's vision. I've always used large monitors, from 21 inch 4:3 CRTs (back in the day!) to 2x 24 inch 16:10 LCDs and for the past 8 or so years a 30 inch Apple Cinema Display (I'm not a fan of multiple monitors; the 2x setup was prior to working for myself). The 30 inch ACD is by far the best monitor I've owned to date and has given me less eye strain than any used previously (with the CRTs being the worst, particularly as they aged). I would have thought that a larger screen could actually be a lot better for your eyes than a smaller one as: 1. You tend to sit further away from it. 2. Your eyes actually have to move *a lot* more, darting from corner to corner (compare this to reading on a phone/tablet at close range). Ideally I'd like to switch to a 55 inch 4K 60Hz Sony TV, for both full-time work (3D/2D graphics/design primarily) and simming/gaming (I remember the upgrade to the 30 inch being a real eye opener; it felt as though I was no longer looking through a window, but now it feels a little limited and 4K offers the chance to go bigger without compromising the details). I view my current monitor at arm's length; the TV would be about double that distance. Due to the large size I'd be moving my eyes even more than the 30 inch, which I'd have thought would be a good thing, but am slightly concerned about sitting in front of such a beast for such extended time periods, particularly as it's a TV and not a monitor (not sure how much of a difference there is these days, but obviously one was designed for extended use at close-ish range, the other not). Luckily I sit next to a window with a great view, so giving my eyes a rest every now and then is easy . Thanks for your thoughts, Robert

Is it possible to still download + run MS Flight? I'm interested to look at full SpeedTree integration + also see what they did with some other effects such as sun glare etc. I did give it a test at time of release, but due to its arcade/casual nature quickly dismissed it. Cheers, Robert

Yeah - I really hope so. That'd be excellent .

LODs should take care of the worst of the performance worries (obviously there'd still be a hit) and instancing help address the memory issues. It's very important to have an consistent world IMO; a mix of high quality and low quality visuals is a real enemy of immersion. These trees, applied globally, would make such a massive difference to helo flight.

@Brandon Thanks for the info. I reported the shadow bug on the LM forums a while ago; I understand it's a little difficult as you're effectively having to render the shadow of a hidden object (exterior model) but don't want the performance hit of having to calculate it (and it's handled differently to FSX). Still there must be a solution, it's clearly broken and shouldn't just be left as is IMO. Shame about the lack of a sun glare; unlike the shadow issue I really can't understand how this has escaped them. It's such an easy effect to get in (you could probably even buy it off the shelf!) and aside from adding greatly to the immersion is also rather important for realism and accurate training I'd have thought. I really don't understand the absence of things like this. Rain on the wind shield (not the ancient FS9 rendition...) is another one. The effect would have to be setup by third party devs for their a/c, but requires the coding, tools and shaders to be set up by LM (as they are now doing with the SpeedTree tech). Though more difficult than the sun glare, this effect (Train Sim version embedded for ref. at end of post) should be pretty easy to get working from a graphics programmer standpoint I imagine. I'm sure it must be present in a number of modern racing games too and thus shouldn't require a lot of R&D (rain running down the a/c skin would be another nice touch, though far less important). I don't mind LM leaving certain things to third party devs, in particular aircraft and high detailed sceneries (which makes total sense to me), but I really think they should strive to increase the fidelity of the base sim across the board. We've seen some great stuff with the cockpit shadows, HDR, volumetric fog and 3D waves (and I'm really looking forward to the avatar mode) but there are some simple things, which would not be difficult to introduce and provide an instant 'win' that just seem to get ignored. Rain on wind shield effect:

I really hope we'll see these as an official LM replacement for all autogen trees. They're clearly a big step up from the old 3 plane ones and have a good track record in the games industry. Couldn't the models simply overwrite the old ones (on a like for like basis) without even having to touch the autogen tree placement? Whilst I totally understand that there will be an FPS hit; one of the good things about SpeedTree is the LODing system. All of the distant trees will just be quads anyway, it's only those you're close to that are high detail. Not only that, but the existing models and textures can't take up a lot of space - I imagine it'd be easy to just add a tick-box under performance settings for low detail/legacy trees. I think it'd not only be a great shame to limit these to third party airports and sceneries, but it also creates an inconsistent world filled with massive quality gulfs. As a helicopter pilot, you'd desperately want to see these new trees wherever you fly and not just specific locations. In fact, due to the inconsistency, I'd almost rather just the old quad-based models than an awkward mix of the two which impacts on immersion and the sense of a believable world. Here's hoping...

@Brandon Thanks a lot for the info, much appreciated. So A and D are used for turn rather than strafe? That might feel a little on the odd-side... I'd have thought a middle mouse click or similar to toggle mouse look on/off would have done the trick, but I guess I haven't tried it yet so maybe best not to comment . Does it feel natural and smooth as a standard FPS would, or is it a little on the clunky side? Also, I added a cheeky extra Q about the sun glare (or lack thereof) above if you have time to answer. Thanks again. (if there are any extra graphical tweaks they've made that have impressed you I'd love to hear them!)

One more quick Q for you beta guys: Does the aircraft's shadow cast on the terrain now correctly reflect that of the exterior model or is it still the VC? EDIT: Actually, make that two Qs Is there a new sun glare effect? I notice that 'removed old sun glare' was listed in the log, but in Rob's most recent video there doesn't seem to be any glare at all. Cheers. Am pretty sure it's been confirmed (via Orbx) there are no new trees actually included in the sim as such, only the separate models and the tools with which they can now be added by third party devs. Bit of a shame really; upon reading the change-log I'd hoped they'd updated the base autogen. Still, it's a nice feature for further down the line.

@Brandon How does the avatar mode work? Is it simply another viewpoint you select (and then first of third person) or is there more to it than that? I assume controls are via keyboard and mouse as with a standard FPS? Also, do you happen to know whether if the a/c is developed with the avatar in mind you can use the same model as the pilot? Thanks for the info.

ATC window looks great. Really nice; clean and minimal just how I like a UI .

Anyone else get the impression that v.4 may well not be too far behind v.3 (in terms of release)? Firstly, a few testers commented that they were aware of both versions 3 and 4. Then earlier today someone was asking about increasing the LOD distance on the P3D forum. The first response was from a tester who remarked that the feature wasn't in v3, but would/should be in v4 and the second comment, from a moderator, was to read the previous reply and "Watch this space!" These posts have subsequently been removed by Beau who stated fairly enough that "I deleted the posts referencing v4 to avoid confusion and edited my post for clarity. We aren't currently commenting on the timing or content of future major/minor releases." "Watch this space" doesn't sound like the sort of thing you'd say for a wait of a year or two (I'd have thought anyway), making me wonder if v.4 could effectively be v.3 in terms of features/content, but 64-bit and potentially Dx 12... Or maybe LM have simply decided to release a new version each year and cut down on the point releases . Elsewhere you can read comments such as "Add-on content with paths configured for v3 will update much more seamlessly with future releases of Prepar3d" which also suggest to me that LM are thinking about v.4 and not just 3.x which strikes me as a little unusual given the previous versions' two year life cycles. As to the cost of the upgrade/new version: I suppose it depends how serious you are about flight sim. £120 is a lot if you view it in 'game' terms and the content you get is IMO less than you would have between previous versions of Microsoft FS (for e.g. there has been no new terrain textures, autogen or clouds in any of the releases and very little in the way of 'designed for the new version' or even first party aircraft). In contrast, I would expect Dovetail's 2016 offering (or FS 11 had it been made) to have all new graphics, whereas LM are still using much of what was there with FSX. I'd expect a new MFS/more mainstream title release to have fully implemented the SpeedTree tech as autogen for e.g. and not just 'unlocked' it (together with all new autogen buildings, 3D grass and normal map support for terrain textures - Yes, there'd be a performance hit, but the low detail SpeedTree LODs would just be planes in the distance anyway and I imagine it wouldn't have been all that difficult to maintain the legacy models as a low-end/tick-box option). I've not yet seen v.3 in the flesh myself, so it's hard to comment, but certain graphical elements such as a decent sun glare and rain effect (particularly on the wind shield) are oddly MIA for a 'full title' along with other bits and pieces such as built-in real world weather (as we had with FSX). I get the impression that P3D's budget is nowhere near that of previous MFS releases though, and rightly or wrongly LM leave a lot of base sim graphics to third party developers (REX + Orbx for e.g.). Of course I might be completely out on that one; clearly the product's got an entirely different focus and primary target audience. The actual release itself is also incredibly low-key; no previews or high quality screenshots even, just a few links to some previously released YouTube vids made by testers, which many had just assumed were 2.5, and aside from the avatar one (yes!) showed nothing new at all - Let's face it, if you have to ask "Is this the new version?" it doesn't exactly point towards monumental changes. It's probably not the case, but to me this seemingly casual launch gives the impression of a small development team working with limited resources. Again though, this is just the impression I get if ignoring the different target audience etc, etc... That said, given the state of the simulation industry I for one am very glad LM are there to take care of the serious side of things, even if releases are a little light in the way of content at times. DCS is a great sim, though purely combat oriented and somewhat limited outside of that scope and who knows what DTG will bring to the table in 2016 with their new sim (other than a lot of DLC of course ). By it's very nature and license P3D is in no danger whatsoever of being 'dumbed down' and if it wasn't for LM we'd still all be using the ageing and no longer supported FSX (which, good as it is, is looking a bit dated these days). P3D gives us all the familiarity of FSX, but with a host of bonuses and is under constant development. For the serious simmer, £120 across 2 years for an updated core sim (which only LM themselves can deliver) is absolutely worth it IMO. The VC shadows and HDR alone breathed a huge amount of life into the platform and made it feel current again and the 3D waves were also a great addition. I really hope we see some new graphical features in 3.0 and more to come in subsequent 3.x releases. There are certainly a few new things for designers to play with at launch (SpeedTree and real-time reflections to name a couple) which is excellent news, even if LM haven't given any examples of what's achievable through their own content. I'm also personally pretty pumped about the avatar system (first person will be my pref.) as aside from a/c inspection, I think it'll help to ground the world around you and should make the experience much more tangible and immersive. So... Very much looking forward to v.3 myself and seeing what's possible with the platform over the coming months. I do wish that LM would be a bit more communicative about their plans though and that v.4 won't arrive in 4-6 months time for £120 without an upgrade path .

No probs Rob, totally understand - Thanks for the reply. Cheers, Robert

Hi Rob, Just posting my message again below in case you missed it previously. Would you mind telling me if the following issues have been addressed?

Hi Rob, If you have a spare moment would you mind checking if the following bugs have been addressed next time you load up the sim? 1. Camera clipping through the ground from the virtual cockpit view (load up the R22 and move the camera/viewpoint around whilst landed, you can 'see through' the ground at the corners of the screen where it's closest to the eye-point camera). 2. The shadow cast onto the terrain from the VC uses the VC model rather than that of the exterior (so as you can imagine often most of the aircraft is missing!). Incidentally the shadow also seems to mip-map way too early making it overly blurry from most ranges other than very close. 3. Helicopter rotor wash effects do not seem to be working/visible (kicking up dirt from the ground etc.). All these topics have been brought up on the P3D forums, but not seen an official response. Generally P3D seems like a really good program to me, but I do find it annoying when simple things get broken and are then left unfixed. Thanks in advance. Robert

Hi Steve, Thanks a lot for responding. I read your blog link, very helpful. Also I think this article does a good job of explaining the issues associated with shadow mapping and their potential solutions: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ee416324%28v=vs.85%29.aspx So, as I understand it we have a few issues: Resolution (high perspective aliasing?) - By far the smallest problem right now. This already looks decent overall IMO and isn't really a big issue but I think it could probably look better still. This can be increased by upping the dimensions of the shadow map, correct? Are you using 4096 maps for this and If not could it be an option? Also ensuring that the cockpit is filling the entirety of the depth map's dimensions (unlike the jets which have a lot of wasted space). now on to the awkward stuff... Acne - Needs to be overcome by offsetting the geometry so that the code doesn't get confused and cause a texel to self shadow. OK, so I think I get this; it's an accuracy thing. Basically you need to bring the offset/bias down to as small as possible a number without seeing any artifacts. The offset is what's causing the 'peter panning' but it's a necessary evil to overcome the built in inaccuracy of the system, which would otherwise lead to texel self-shadowing if not set? I *really* hope you can improve this as it's killing the effect for me at the moment. I wish I could suggest something but not being a programmer I really have no idea what's possible within FSX (especially when you don't have access to the C++ code!). Is there anyway the depth map or calculations can be made more accurate? Would adjusting the near and far clip planes help? Can the bias be reduced much further without causing 'acne?' If any of the above need to be set specifically on a per aircraft basis for best results could the code look up this info via a text file placed in the same directory as the aircraft config? This 'peter panning' is the biggest issue for me. High-projective aliasing - This (I think!) is what you mean by the issue caused when you have polygons that are parallel to the light source. I understand why it's causing problems now and I hope that you can crack it along with the one above. Anyway - Thanks a lot for explaining the issues. The shadows have taken a big step forward with your work, I really hope you're able to go one step further and find a way around these other obstacles. As I say I'm not a programmer - but I am an artist. If there are any test scenes (VC replacement .MDL files) you'd like made which would be useful in testing various shadowing techniques please drop me a line and I'll put some together for you. All the best and good luck! Robert (I take it my pipe dream of being able to set coloured glass 'tinted shadows' might be difficult without the support of a pre-export material flag, not to mention some existing code support. However would it be possible to add some code via a material naming convention such as say 'Glass_SDW_Green' where the code then tints this shaded area to a set RGBA value? Obviously this isn't at all important to the immediate success of your product [no... really ], but as a developer it's something I'd be very interested in if you do manage to crack the problems mentioned above)

@Mark I'm not talking about the camera effect 'lens flare.' That does work, but I have it turned off. What I am missing is any kind of realistic glare.

Hi guys, Just a quick one: When I look at the sun in DX10 (both with and without Steve's Fixer) it appears pretty small and has no/very little glow or glare to it. If I turn off bloom it does seem to get more of a glowing edge and looks better but it feels as though something is missing with bloom enabled. Any thoughts much appreciated. Robert

EDIT: More findings RE: Issues 2 & 3 (in brief; it looks like ISSUE 3 is in fact ISSUE 2). As I said I would I have now tested ISSUE 3 further. I moved the stick and boot up so that the object now floats in the cockpit as opposed to being attached to the floor. It appears that there was not a problem with the boot mesh casting a shadow - But that in fact it was ISSUE 2, i.e. either the shadows refuse to cast until a certain distance or there is some strange offset going on. It looks like it's a distance problem though and this is what causes all the odd shadows, shadows not appearing and artifacts where you have very jagged edges. What I now see in the case of the stick and boot is the stick shadow is cast as before across the floor (which is fine), plus I can now see the top half of the boot shadow. As you follow the boot shadow down towards the base of the boot it just abruptly cuts off with a jagged edge, seemingly as though it can no longer render the shadow here as the boot is too close to the floor where it's trying to cast the shadow. THIS CAUSES ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS! I'm almost certain that this issue is to blame for all the jagged lines and odd shadows which do not match up with the objects casting them. It's the reason why there is light at the bottom of all the doors, light coming through the tops of cabin walls and it's why the panel shroud doesn't act as a shroud - The panel is *too close* to the shroud to receive the shadow! It's also why you won't see any shadows cast from switches on the panels they are attached to, but you can see them casting shadows on distant parts of the a/c. I *really* hope this can be fixed or at least improved. At times the shadows can look fantastic, but this bug just brings the whole thing right down IMO. Please let me know your thoughts, Robert (For some reason I didn't see an option to EDIT my original post. Any ideas?)

Hi there - Yeah, I'm not saying Steve hasn't done a great job with all his fixes. DX10 is now an option for me. As I said though, I really wanted to use the VC shadows. Whilst DX10 has some other nice advantages, DX9 has ENB and higher 3rd part compatibility so they kind of even out a bit if you remove VC shadows from the equation. I'm not using any add-on airports but for me the flickering taxiways prior to the Fixer would have been a deal breaker, despite the better water and improved FPS. It's a similar deal with the VC shadows now - they can look great, but they can also look pretty broken. I personally would rather have consistency, even if that means I lose some of the 'wows.' I'm glad your VC shadows are looking good, I think it depends a lot on the a/c in question as to how apparent the issues are as I'm running similar settings to you. Anyway, I've started another post to specifically discuss the shadows. I really hope Steve can find some workarounds to my issues as I'd love to enable this feature but to me in it's current state the cons outweigh the pros. Cheers, Robert

Hi guys, I got the fixer today primarily for the VC shadows, but am having a few issues with them which I thought were worth posting here. Hopefully Steve can clarify why things are the way they are and whether or not any of these issues can be resolved. Here are the problems I'm facing: ISSUE 1: Resolution. Though the edges of the shadows are now softened (and much better than FSX default) they are still a bit low resolution. This not only shows the 'jaggies' but also the constant jiggling movement effect even when the a/c and eye point are stationary. (It's not that I feel they need to be sharper as such, I don't have an issue with the amount of blur, but rather the resolution of the source that's being blurred) QUESTION 1: Would there be any way way to increase the resolution here? I know you have found a workaround for the jets, but not without the loss of shadows on the external fixed cameras. ISSUE 2: Inaccuracy. Shadows tend to display oddly at times, meaning that sometimes you will still get a very harsh, jagged shadow where it appears to 'cut through' the geometry. You will also see strange effects such as a shadow disappearing or only part rendering. I believe this issue is caused by the fact that the shadow creation/placement is simply too inaccurate - For e.g. Looking back into the cabin I see a lot of light bleeding through from the exterior at the top edges of the cabin walls, this also happens at the bottom of doors (and yes there is a shadow casting mesh shell beyond the walls and doors). Upon further inspection it appears that the shadows are offset from the actual mesh! If I have a seat post going to the floor the shadow from it will not start at the base of the post as you'd expect, but some distance away from it. This inaccuracy causes *a lot* of issues: Let's say you're looking at the main panel, you'd expect a nice shadow cast from the shroud. It starts out as a nice shadow, but then as the a/c moves round it stops rendering the shadow where the panel meets the shroud with a nice jagged line, giving you a light panel at the point where it should be in deepest shadow and a shadow 'strip' across the panel. The bottom of the shadow strip is the correct shadow edge and the top is where it's just 'cut off'... I'm not sure if the shroud's shadow is offset from the mesh or if there's a minimum distance at which shadows will not be cast - Either way it looks really broken sometimes and these issues out do all the 'wow' factor for me. (Additionally if you move your eye point around the cockpit you will see that the positioning of shadows actually alters quite a lot which is pretty strange when the aircraft is totally stationary, though possibly this rendering technique is a compromise for FPS/performance?) QUESTION 2: Is there anyway way to resolve this inaccuracy problem via the shader? QUESTION 3: What is going on here technically: Are the shadows offset? Is there a minimum distance for casting (and if so is that on a polygon, element or object basis)? QUESTION 4: Is there anyway this effect can be lessened with the construction of the a/c model/materials prior to export? ISSUE 3: Refusal of certain elements to cast shadows. Some elements simply don't want to cast shadows - For e.g. the joystick and shaft shadow cast fine (I can even make out the hat switch and buttons!) but the material boot at the base of the stick just doesn't cast a shadow at all, judging from the shadow cast it would appear as though the joystick is floating in the air! There seem to be quite a few inconsistencies like this. It may well be related to issue 2; i.e. the boot would 'like' to cast a shadow, but either it's too close to the floor to render it or it's shadow is offset and thus it's wants to render below the floor... FYI in this case the boot and the stick are the same object and share the same texture. I will try moving the entire object up (floating above the floor) and see if the boot renders. QUESTION 5: Same as Q's 2,3 and 4 but relating to issue 3. What's going on here? and finally... QUESTION 6: I don't suppose this is at all possible but I'll ask any way! As a developer, is there any way to colour part of the shadow map to represent light coming through coloured plexi-glass? I know it's a long shot - Just thought I'd ask! Thanks very much in advance, sorry the post's a bit long. Hope all the questions make sense. Anyone else please chip in with your findings/suggestions/issues. Also, I don't mean to sound negative about things, I think Steve's done a really great job with all the DX10 fixes and I'm sure there are a lot of limitations and frustrations in trying to fix bits and pieces of other people's code (not to mention some of which is probably inaccessible in the first place!). I'm posting as I think he's made a good improvement to the default VC shadows, but for me, in their current state it's not enough. The effect still looks like a WIP IMO and for me personally, if it's not improved I won't be using it. I'd really, *really* love to though - That's my point! I also understand that the issues are more or less apparent from one aircraft to the next. There are times when I really go 'wow,' problem is they're often shortly followed by an 'uggghh' brought on by the bugs listed above. (FYI - All the other fixed parts of the package seem to be working very well for me and make DX10 a realistic option finally - Good job!)