Jump to content

Tom Wright

Members
  • Content Count

    886
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tom Wright

  1. It took me a while to find it as it's quite well hidden! If you have an Asus motherboard it is in Advanced > System Agent and then there's an option for IGPU Multi Monitor which you need to enable. When Windows starts up just give it a few minutes to detect the new device and install the driver. The ones it installed automatically seemed to work fine for me.
  2. So I managed to enable the IGPU setting in my BIOS, which I was surprised it had given the age of my chipset, and switched it over in the Fenix app so that the displays are using the Intel HD graphics rather than my discrete GPU. I'm meant to be working so only had time for a high speed ground run with some sharp turns to test the response of the displays and it does seem to have made a difference. In Task Manager I can see that the loading of CPU, GPU and the Intel GPU are a bit more balanced than they were before. Hopefully later I'll have time for another flight and be able to put it to the test a bit more. That's quite a nice feature from Fenix if that does prove to be a fix. Although why the displays take that much rendering load in the first place seems a bit weird to me, especially when this doesn't seem to be a problem in other similar aircraft. It's not like they look any higher in detail than the PMDG for example.
  3. It's interesting that the frame rate of the displays is obviously independent of the frame rate of the sim. I'm actually up to an acceptable frame rate in the sim now - I don't know what it is but to my eyes it feels fluid enough most of the time - but my displays are definitely choppy. Not to the extent they're unusable but you can certainly notice how stuttery the direction indicator moves during a turn or the speed tape during the takeoff run.
  4. Yes I have this too. Not as extreme as you are experiencing by the sounds of it but they're definitely laggy. I noticed it's slightly better with the rendering set to GPU, but you can still see they're choppy. Performance makes them so blurry I can hardly read them so that's useless.
  5. Noticed something weird with the MCDU display today: If you look at the right hand side of the screen it's showing what looks like the edge of a previous page. Minor thing but a bit odd none the less! Other than that and the slightly laggy fps on the PFD and ND, had some good flights in it today!
  6. I've just done an RNAV approach myself. I think under VNAV it will only descend by itself to Minimums. You then have to select FPA mode on the glareshield and set a 3.0 degree (or 3.5 degree in your case) descent to the runway, or take the autopilot and flight directors out and fly it down manually.
  7. I saw loads of live traffic over Europe when I flew from EGSS to LPFR earlier. They are about 10 minutes behind what you see on FlightRadar though. Conversely for the return leg I've turned it off and using Live Mode instead, but there's not a soul around..
  8. Mine sits comfortably on a dedicated 500GB SSD, it's currently using 280GB. That's with all the world updates, 5-6 add on airports and about the same number of add on aircraft (including the PMDG 737 and the Fenix A320). You don't really need 1TB of space for MSFS, as gone are the days of huge ortho sceneries. As all the world scenery is streamed, the only add on scenery you need (IMO) is airports, but even there the default ones in many places are leaps ahead of previous generation sims. Regards to Steam or Windows store - up to your preference really. I have the Windows store version and have never had any problems with updates or anything. What's nice is that since I own an Xbox I can also download it to that for no extra cost - which you couldn't if you have the Steam version. Other than that there's not really any difference between the two.
  9. I was a big follower of FSLabs since the FSX Concorde days, and also enjoyed their A320 in FSX and P3D. But their refusal to even acknowledge the existence of MSFS and continue plugging new releases for P3D for the past year or so was a huge mistake in my opinion. My guess is they won't sell very many A320s for MSFS, they are far too late to the party, and after the month we've just had of incredible MSFS releases, sales of P3D aircraft is going to tank too - especially since they're also priced at such a premium. Why would you pay more for an aircraft for a last generation sim?
  10. Well I bought it. It's certainly very impressive. The EFB is awesome, best I've seen in any aircraft so far, and I love how easy it is to use the performance calculators. Performance isn't great, as predicted. Wasn't expecting much from my 9 year old system though to be fair. Initially it was a stutter fest, I changed the display rendering to GPU and reduced to Balanced which did improve things a little bit. Performance mode makes the displays look absolutely terrible and almost unreadable so that was a no-go. Using the 4K liveries instead of 8K seems to make a bit of a difference as well unless I was just getting used to it. This was all with traffic off completely and with fairly basic weather, I imagine it will go downhill once I start adding that in. It's flyable, but I'll be honest and say at this stage the 737 for me will probably see more use as it is a lot smoother, at least until I can upgrade my system.
  11. Not seen this (although haven't done a lot of flying with it yet) but it sounds like a WASM crash. Had this a few time with the AS CRJ when inputting certain procedures would invoke a bug in the FMS and cause the module to crash - rather than a full CTD it just crashes the module and results in a freeze of all of the instruments and some of the switch animations.
  12. None of those aircraft are programmed in WASM. It's a sim limitation with WASM aircraft.
  13. Watching this with interest. I like many am very excited about the Fenix A320 however have been slightly put off by the large number of performance related comments. My PC is on the older side, although I was extremely pleasantly surprised with how well the PMDG 737 performs. I'm really loathed to go back to how I was in the days of P3D with the endless tweaking of settings and parameters to try and eek an extra frame out of it, like some people are reporting with this. I'll probably still make the purchase over the weekend, but I'm tempted to wait a little while.
  14. I think in all variants of the 737 the standard procedure regarding autothrottle use is that it is disengaged whenever the autopilot is disengaged, unlike the 777 or the Airbus where it is the norm to fly with autothrottle on even when hand flying.
  15. MSFS finally feels like it's in its prime now. I've been a day 1 user and loved it but it's awesome now that the heavies are arriving and airliner ops is feeling just as good as GA has. I honestly can't think of a single reason to use P3D any more. That sim had its day and kept the FSX/ESP platform alive for a long, long time. But we finally have something far better now in this.
  16. I've changed my mindset to frame rates with different sims. P3D I always used to chase fps. If you looked at my logbook over half the flights I did were only takeoffs, usually while I watched the frame counter and cried, turned a few things off and tried again. With MSFS, as long as it looks smooth I don't care. And I'm having a lot more fun that's for sure.
  17. There actually are quite significant differences besides just the engines. Maybe not visually, but I know that they have very different fly by wire logic in certain circumstances. Rotate law for instance was just one feature unique to the Neo which makes handling on takeoff quite different. That said, it is still a common type rating - but so is the 757/767 and there you're talking wide body vs narrow body!
  18. Yes and no. It is very detailed, but in my opinion the 737 is a pretty easy aircraft to get to grips with to be honest. Once you've done the tutorial and a couple of flights you'll know all the switches to flip without needing to reference anything. Most things about it are quite logical and make sense. There are far quirkier aircraft out there (like the MD-80 and to some extent the BAe146).
  19. WASM isn't for the graphics. As I understand it it is used to program the aircraft systems and more complex instruments such as the FMC etc. Presumably as the ProSim is simulated external to the MSFS environment they don't use WASM.
  20. That's weird, not seeing that here. Has to be the smoothest aircraft I own so far. Maybe it's the airport you're at?
  21. Also I'm astounded at the performance with this thing. My PC is ancient but it feels super fluid.
  22. I've obviously never flown a 737 for real, but this has to be one of the most convincing feeling flight models I've ever flown on a PC sim! Coming over the threshold in a slight crosswind at Gatwick and I was actually sweating a little bit.. very satisfying!
  23. Just flown it from Southend to a perfect touchdown at Gatwick. Oh my word. It flies beautifully. This is going to be a lot of fun!
  24. They aren't joking when the say it takes a while to load. Nearly 15 minutes at the loading screen!
×
×
  • Create New...