Speedbird193

I previously ran x3 FG in sim and had General set to Manual / Target: FG / FPS: 120. I now want to test the new dynamic FG in SU6, but when I follow the screenshot settings it doesn't seem to recognise the native FPS pre-dynamic FG. My screen outputs 165hz and dynamic FG within MSFS SU6 achieves that no problem as the post-FG FPS. However, the native FPS displayed in AutoFPS with the above settings always show ~30, and with a 40 FPS target that keeps TLOD at lowest setting. I haven't found a way yet to see the pre-FG FPS in SU6, but when I turn off FG completely I get around 55-60 FPS native in the exact same situation. So I'm not sure why AutoFPS reads it as ~30 FPS with the above settings. Am I missing something? Thanks!

I couldn’t agree more! It’s desperately needed. I use a tool from Flightsim.to (JP Jump Ahead) nowadays. It has controls to easily set simrate to 8x and then provides a “sync to simbrief” function to correct the fuel burn via button click. It’s clunky, but it’s the best we got and it means I can fly the 350 with 8x. Ironically, it flies absolutely perfectly at 8x. I really don’t get why ini won’t implement this natively.

Do NOT install if you're still on SU5.1. It broke my cockpit views (camera jumps outside the cockpit, camera controls freeze and can't move. Spot/Drone views still working). Tried reinstalling a few times before reverting back to the last Experimental build and all is working again.

Thanks for the summary. I'm interested to see if the v2 is going to be substantial or just a big marketing stunt. I'm glad they're redoing airports that haven't been updated by other devs in a while - these days there are quite a few of those. I hope the France hint means LFPG and I'd love to see a high quality LEMD as well, but in my book Madrid isn't just a summer destination, so not sure.

I'm trying to use it with BATC, but I get no logo lights on any of the models. Such a shame, I really like the models and prefer them over FSLTL/AIG.

Make sure it’s not duplicating any waypoints - sometimes changing departures/arrivals can leave artifacts from the previously selected SID/STAR in the box. With that said - my DTG on the PMDG 777 has been quite off lately, often by about 50-100nm. At first I thought it’s adding the missed approach sectors to DTG but yesterday I flew into EGKK and it showed 40nm remaining when I was 10nm out when the missed approach didn’t have any distance values attached to it. Not sure if it’s a bug…

So true - I don't know why they're all allergic to higher sim rates or jump ahead features. I only fly PMDG long haul because I want to simulate real flights, but I don't have the time to fly 12 hours at 4x. If you build a long haul airliner, at least give us 8x/16x support. I hope Vector are taking note for their 787...

Great news on ORD, about time. I hope someone does a quality IAH, CLT and MAD soon. And I can’t wait to finally get HND (feels like that’s been in development for half a decade now) and CDG, although Aerosoft have just dropped out of that one.

So true. The amount of Vibe/AI coded stuff people push out these days is crazy. Use at your own risk.

This is actually quite entertaining to follow. What’s next - top security clearance and background checks before I’m allowed to make a purchase? They have well and truly lost the plot (and presumably a substantial chunk of potential sales…).

Hard pass from me. I'm not running DRM for sceneries - there's already enough background stuff running in the sim that actually has a purpose. I have no problem with DRM on aircraft like the Fenix or for other things that I use on every flight. Not for a scenery...and where does it end? If I have 50 addon airports installed from 25 different developers - do they want me to run 25 different DRMs in the background?? Their qualifications are also laughable. I hope the community reject this to the point that it sets a precedent for others to steer clear of. I don't know what they're even trying to achieve. People who weren't going to buy the scenery won't be buying it just because they put a DRM in. The only thing I can see this achieving is upsetting actual paying customers who were going to buy this but now won't because they don't want some AI coded DRM running for a scenery they legitimately bought. Really makes you scratch your head as to who comes up with this stuff...

Looks far better and more in depth than Qualitywings. They were good but also quite basic in what was simulated.

Great addition, though I usually fly in the evening and pick a real flight to simulate. That means I might fly at 8pm real time and 10am sim time. So unfortunately it won’t be much use for me. If they could somehow include a 24-hour history from FR24 that would change things completely and be amazing!

I just got my new PC with the 9950X3D. Core parking wasn’t working when I first ran the sim but it’s been flawless since then and no issues at all. Correctly parks the cores as intended each time - must be something their end.

Tomshardware posted a benchmark of the 9950X3D2 in MSFS24. It puts it on par with the 9850X3D. Personally, I don’t trust their benchmarks as the 9950X3D performs 20% below the 9800X3D and they cite core assignment issues as the main reason for the poor performance of the 9950X3D in their benchmarks: “Although the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 doesn’t claim any lead over the Ryzen 9 9950X3D in most games, it leads by 23.8% in Flight Simulator 2024, keeping up with the Ryzen 7 models. The base Ryzen 9 9950X3D experienced core parking issues in this game, even after we triple-checked that the correct packages were installed. It was utilizing the non-X3D CCD, even on a fresh Windows image, which helps explain the big uplift we’re seeing here.” I’ve spent a lot of time reading through user reviews in the last couple of weeks and just ordered a new system with the 9950X3D as a result (coming from the 13900KF). Virtually nobody else seems to have those core assignment issues with it and general consensus seems to be that the 9950X3D should achieve very similar FPS to the 9800X3D/9850X3D and offer a slight edge in smoothness in demanding situations. So in reality, I would expect the 9950X3D to sit right alongside the Top 3, meaning the 9950X3D2 should perform the same, thus not offering any tangible upside over the X3D in MSFS24. For a minute there I was worried I should have gone with the X3D2 instead, but reading why they show such a big gap in performance put my mind at ease somewhat. Will be interesting to see some hands on experiences with the X3D2 in MSFS24 over the coming weeks though.