Jump to content

MorsAbAlto

Members
  • Content Count

    831
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Neutral

1 Follower

About MorsAbAlto

  • Rank
    Your friendly neighbourhood Lufty
  • Birthday 12/29/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Near EDDH
  • Interests
    Simming, Gaming, Photography, History, Arts, Workout, Skydiving, girlfriend

Flight Sim Profile

  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    VATSIM
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

6,258 profile views
  1. To add to that, maybe also check up your storage devices. Random data corruption can also be caused by a failing hard drive.
  2. ASUS PRIME Z270K and i7 7700K running on the most current BIOS without problems.
  3. Either way, the installer is always extracted, no matter if you run it from the ZIP file or not (will be extracted to the Windows temp folder if run from inside the ZIP). Three possible scenarios: 1. ZIP file is corrupt, either by incomplete download or disruptive anti virus software. Re-Download and install with AV turned off. 2. It's a non-standard ZIP file, which is not compatible with the in-built Windows ZIP functionality. In that case use an alternate ZIP packer like 7zip (not sure why this would be the case, though) 3. Some other unknown influence, Windows Update maybe.
  4. Are you running as Administrator and are you sure there are no connectivity problems on your side?
  5. The latest update did it for me. Works like a charm now and also the repair of orphaned liveries. Now if anyone ever finds a solution for OOMs under FSX:SE, feel free to post about it here
  6. My vote goes to the 737 NGX. Especially because it is less automated. You will have more to do and the flights are shorter. The mix of analogue and digital gauges makes the flight deck somewhat interesting and you need to pay attention to a few items, that no computer will do for you, i. e. you get away less for not paying attention or omitting check list items. If you want a deep system study, the larger aircraft are interesting, because behind all the automation on the 777 there is still a complex array of simulated systems with correct interdependencies and all.
  7. It's still about virtual cabins, their supposed realism and added value over what we have today and how this could be feasible, mixed with the "x64 makes everything easier and better" debate. The only connection to PMDG being that it also pertains to your products as the de facto benchmark in airliner simulations. Dan is not wrong with his suggestion.
  8. Suit yourself. In the end customer satisfaction is paramount. Like I wrote before, there are a lot of opinions. Some people like virtual cabins to further immerse themselves into the virtual pilot role play, despite lacking visual fidelity, others just see an uncanny valley at current feasibility levels. My opinion is, that the rendering of human physiology in FSX/P3D is not convincing enough at present and a cabin without passengers detracts from the realism, instead of adding to it. While, e. g. virtual flight attendants like A2As Betty are nice to have, they look really uncanny and lifeless to me and thus are more of a gimmick to smile at (which gives this feature a lot of merit). And then there is still the question of feasibility. For instance, there is a certain developer of GA aircraft, starting with C and ending on O, who makes really nice virtual cabins for its business jets, but those small jets eat more or at least equally as much frametime as an airliner, so you end up with the same or (more often) worse performance in comparison to said airliners, i. e. the NGX or 777X. Those nifty cabins are the way they are, because the aircraft in question are small and, allegedly, not as complex, giving developers more headroom to crank up the visual detail, until they reach a certain performance cap, which is defined, at this point, by the simulator and not computing power or memory. And this is something that will not go away just by using 64-bit. It is a code issue, a question of what the current simulator engine can do and how fast. The analogy of having a bottleneck comes to mind. Just because the bottle has magically grown larger, the glass still will not fill any faster. That said, a few developers like PMDG have proven themselves very resourceful at circumventing limits and restrictions. So we'll see what the future holds.
  9. Yes, except that I don't "really" have a cabin behind me to feel responsible for, it's only virtual and probably empty, too. Fair enough, there are different opinions and all are equally valid. The main worries of the "no cabin" faction seem to be the additional effort required, possibly higher prices, performance cost and longer production cycles as a result, not having a cabin per se. In the end the devs decide what is in their best interest.
  10. PMDG are using Amazon S3 for their product downloads. Seems unlikely a few simmers would be able to overwhelm the servers. Something else must be afoot here. Patience. Thanks for these updates. Fingers crossed, this is the last round of reinstalling for some time, indeed. :o)
  11. It's really up to you. If you are happy and everything is stable, no need to touch anything. The re-install is not that much of a hassle, but there are no new major features yet, so you could forego it for a while. In the end you will probably end up reinstalling anyway further down the road, though and for customer support having the most current version running is always helpful, if not mandatory at some point.
  12. Can't resist to chip in here as well. :) The original PMDG 747 also had the upper cabin modelled, iirc, after the Lufthansa 1st Class. All the same it was a rather fugly cabin in both cases. I mean, it was reasonably well done within the confines of the simulator but still way less detailed than the flight deck for performance reasons. The folks rooting for a virtual cabin as being "more realistic" are not really making sense to me, because no cabin we had was ever close to realistic, hence most videos looked out of the cabin and not vice versa (and only with a thick layer of filters applied: blur, smudge, desaturation etc to make it look real). Just think about it. A detailed cabin would require a deep level of research and either taking measurements or getting the data from the cabin manufacturer, which probably incurs a host of licensing fees on its own, since you can not just walk into a cabin, make some fotos and be done with it. As soon as you want to make money off someone elses work, you need to compensate them. If you don't you are asking for lawsuits. And that is before the 3D modelling even begins. So I feel like the "passenger simulator" crowd is fighting a lost battle, because the simulator we have is not even suited to model a somewhat realistic seat cushion, let alone a human face mesh, which you would have 300+ of in a 747 at MGW. In every aircraft I own or saw, the seat is just a block of concrete with a photo texture slapped on top. It's there, but it is not convincing. I have no inside knowledge of the P3D engine, but it seems not even simple techniques like face culling are fully supported. If that is true, imagine what kind of ressource hog a virtual cabin would be. But then I might be wrong.
  13. Point partially taken. I admit to going by what I see in peoples signatures on AVSIM. Not exactly scientific, but still a viable indicator. Since we all know how much more of an expense anything (properly licensed) P3D is, making financial stamina a prerequisite to use P3Dv4 seemed like a sensible deduction to me at the time of my post. After all it's priced towards a professional market and not Johnny armchair pilot. My logic was: If you have the budget to run P3D with 3rd party products, you also have the budget to get a decent machine to run it on. Both is somewhat interdependent, don't you think? If you don't have the money for a desktop PC, you probably don't have the funds to pay for the needed licenses anyway. As always, who wants to run a stock simulator? That said, I am one of the people with a tight budget myself when it comes to flight simming and apart from the stupid OOMs and ancient visuals, I am content to finally run FSX with 30+ frames in most situations, after some 10 years since it was released. For what it is worth, there will be some increment innovation going forward. Just do not expect x64 to be the equivalent to quantum computing when it comes to this hobby. Visual fidelity at reasonable performance cost requires a lot of R&D and thus funding, the latter of which is hard to come by in this niche market. Aviation is a complex subject that will never appeal to the broad masses at an in-depth level, which for me is part of the attraction of doing this at all. Have a look at something like Star Citzen, by Chris Roberts. How awesome would it be to see similar audio-visual fidelity and technical innovation in a hardcore flight simulator. That is damn near impossible. The reason? Money. Star Citizen has a budget of 155+ million USD at this point and the development team is several hundred strong. They took an OTS game-engine, bought most of the licenses, re-wrote most of the code to suit their needs to get where they are now. I am not making a direct comparison for obvious reasons mind you, but still: what some people want/expect/hope to see, by solely going to 64-bit, is a bit much. The financial metrics of this hobby did not change over night. If you want more fidelity, be ready to fork out even more money, rather than expecting more for less. If it did not dawn on you until now. Much of the purchase price is going into licensing and procurement of actual data to feed into a simulator add-on. --- TL;DR: smh
  14. Considering the simmers I see around here are usually well off financially and spend heaps on very capable PCs and also having rebuild their entire simulation experience around P3D, which easily costs hundreds to thousands of any given currency, I think more eye candy is not a problem of computing power available. Let's be honest in saying that FSX and P3D as well are ages behind on the visual fidelity scale. While the CPU is still choking on limited multi-threading support even as we approach the 5 GHz mark, GPUs are for the most part still not anywhere near their maximum capacity, even with DX11 support. There are nearly no advanced rendering techniques being used. Everything is more or less basic. The real limiting factors are: a) simulation engine and b) developer work hours. PMDG aircraft take long enough from inception to release as it is. With a fleshed out cabin and a host of Vanity Fair-level flight attendents in the back, it would take even longer. I would rather not have to endure the additional waiting time and added complexity for very little real gain. This is an area where I see 3rd party devs stepping in. If the simulator and the aircraft modelling are modular enough, maybe someone else could develop a "passenger simulator" for those who want it. What I would support is more crew/passenger interaction on the flight deck. Something along the lines of FS2Crew, but less static and a real crew moving around the cockpit. Something that actually happens while sitting in the left seat in an airliner.
×
×
  • Create New...