abandoned account

Alright. I guess this is it. Thank you for these years but I've had it with this attitude. I hope that you some day will start to listen to other people's opinion again. It may surprise you that some of them may actually know something about something even though they are not on some fancy beta team. Best wishes to you all.

Sorry, but It's hard not to sound offensive when you're humiliated and laughed at every time you point out something that you think is invalid. You bring up exactly those things that me and others have been so frustrated about here on Avsim, especially for the last days with the V5 debacle. The attitude where you can't question anything just because it was written by a well known Avsim profile. There is always this "he knows his stuff", and that marks the end of any discussion. No matter if he's right or wrong. I pointed out some technical issues but if I understand you correctly this must not be done as the person writing it is a former moderator? Sorry, I fail to see any logic there at all. Now let me ask you this. Did you notice that he didn't respond to the actual issue? Did you notice that he on purpose made it sound like I said that no other games have stutter issues? Did you notice that he, once again, brought up MSFS even though it wasn't even mentioned once in my post? Yes, stutters have been an issue for years in many games and still is. There have also been many solutions and innovations by the game developers and driver developers for the past years. In P3D time has stood still though, and we still have "vsync on" or "vsync off" as our only in-game option. Rob make it sound like there are no other alternatives out there for any game ("this applies to any game/sim") and I simply don't think this is right. Why can't we have a technical friendly discussion about this? I appreciate anyone trying to help others but I really don't think that this "it can't be done" attitude is helping anyone. Very often, "it can't be done in P3D" is not the same thing as "it can't be done in any game/sim". The real problem though is that as soon as someone points out any technical errors, there is always a bunch of people who shows up with the "he knows his stuff and you don't" attitude, completely avoiding the technical parts. And the old myths just lives forever. As I said, the real problem is that those issues never gets fixed because everyone actually think it can't be fixed. Here is something you can ask your experts just as an example. Please make them explain why adaptive vsync doesn't work in P3D. Then maybe we can start talking about the Window mode on a technical level instead of just mocking people who brings it up. A related bonus question that the experts always fail to answer is why the FPS is cut in half when using an external FPS limiter and you move a window to a secondary screen. Many people have asked this during the years and the highly invalid expert answer is always along the lines of "you're doing it wrong" or "check your eye candy sliders" etc. Some people have tried to explain why it behaves like this on a technical level but it always ends with the same old "he knows his stuff and you don't, shut up and go away". I've been into DirectX coding starting with V9 around 2003 so I like to think I know a thing or two, although I'm not an expert compared to many others.

Not true. There are many ways to achieve a stutter free (or almost so) experience even if you can't sustain your primary target frame rate. You're only talking about the original vsync method here, which outside of the flightsim world is considered highly obsolete because of the issues you mentioned. What we should be talking about here is why on earth LM decided to run P3D in that awful fake fullscreen mode, which is not fullscreen at all but rather a large borderless Window. From a technical standpoint this is something completely different than true fullscreen. The OS doesn't think it's running a game, the drivers and graphical framework doesn't think they're running a game. Because if we're not fullscreen, we're technically not running a game. This has huge implications which P3D attempts to mitigate and we've seen lots of bugs/artifacts because of this over the years. What P3D can't mitigate is the fact that we're left here with only the classical vsync which is an on or off option with huge drawbacks. Most of us can sustain much higher than 60 FPS in most situations but as soon as we come in to a complex scenery like an airport we tend to go below 60. If vsync is on, the stuttering and FPS becomes all messed up. This has fooled P3D users for years now, thinking that it's a bad scenery when it's really because of the broken vsync. The real problem is that as long as this "it can't be done" myth is repeated, noone will put pressure on LM to fix it. Because why ask them to fix something that can't be fixed? Game developers have found various solutions to this problem for years now. So yes, it absolutely can be fixed.

Because they do some really good stuff that is much better than default. However, there are also many bugs and issues in there. This would be perfectly fine if they actually fixed it, but they don't. And LM don't. The problem is we've had these issues for so long now that we've come to accept that that's just how it is. Noone cares about things like disappearing cars or floating buildings. Anyone mentioning these FS9 type bugs will get several offensive responses like "that's just the way it is" or "it can't be fixed". I'm not just talking Orbx here but P3D in general. I don't think that attitude will bring us forward. I think these issues should be fixed once and for all instead of accepting and defending them, that's why i made the comment. I also think that it's unfair that when other developers finally step up and redesign things from scratch, the very same people who defend the FS9 bugs will criticize every single part of the new engine. Like the street lights being slightly too red.

Because you find my insights really interesting, although it's sometimes hard to hear other people's opinions. Isn't it strange that people find the videos so terrible that they actually assume they've been made bad on purpose?

Got any link to a source that confirms that the P3D videos where made to show the sim at its worst?

It's always funny when people look at aerial/satellite images and say that they look unrealistic. Just because they don't look like the repeating Orbx textures and landclass that we're used to I guess. Everyone knows that in real life, there are lots of bridges that leads to nowhere and cars that just disappear when reaching a certain point and that every single street light looks exactly the same, lots of light bulbs just floating around randomly and houses that are built partly on ground and partly floats in the air. Anything else is totally unrealistic. It's supposed to be like this, it's up to the 3rd party developers to fix it, some may say. But what happens if it's the best of breed 3rd party developers that actually cause these kind of problems? It's like a paradox.

The red street lighting could be, well, street lights that are red. Either that, or someone edited the aerial images to look red because they really like red.

Like many others I'm still picking up the dust from the latest Orbx Central upgrade meltdown. (Or was it FTX central. Or FTX. Or Fullterrain. Or Orbxsystems. Or Orbxdirect. Not sure what today's name is). Another reason why I'm not convinced that leaving everything up to 3rd parties is always a good idea. Many of them are struggling just to manage their own stuff. Now take that times 20 and you're in for a bumpy ride.

New leaks of another sim. The next version will be even more awesome, leaving even bigger opportunities for the 3rd party devs. It requires four Nvidia RTX 70080 and DirectX 15. By default you can't turn left, but there is an elite team of beta testers that are currently developing a payware addon for that. It will be 10% off for owners of the "Turn Right X" addon. Limited time offer. There are rumors regarding a "Turn left X, Turn right X, Pitch down X" addon bundle.

The streaming in MSFS has been beaten to death over and over and over and over and over again. It's pretty clear that the streaming is totally optional. There is absolutely nothing that prevents the base OFFLINE scenery from being good, just as good as the best 3rd party scenery, and then OPTIONALLY use streaming on top of that for that extra eye candy. The internet dependancy level is 0. Zero. You can also cache as much or as little as you like. I can't see how this could be a bad thing. Should the devs not implement any new features just because there are some people who will continue to use only the old features? That's not the way to move forward.

There are many real world pilots in here, including me, flying a variety of a/c. Although I don't think you need thousands of real world flying just to realize that a lot of areas in P3D need improvements.

I'm just trying to be open minded not be too protective of any platform just because of some emotional comittment. It's interesting that you say "regarding MSFS we know absolutely nothing", after having made the statement that it's just a simple game. Besides, did you miss all the devel Q&A sessions, demos, presentations, interviews, sample videos and so on? This is a work in progress so it's impossible for anyone to know what the final product will look like. To say "we know absolutely nothing" is simply not true though. I've heard the MSFS developers speak more about the inner workings of the sim that I've ever heard from the FS/FSX/P3D developers in 20 years. That's what I really like, instead of blindly accepting the "P3D is perfect, go away now and don't express your opinion" attitude that we see from the experts here. I don't agree with "as real as it gets", no. And that's exactly why I think it's a good thing that there are developers out there who actually want to move forward and try new ideas. Did you ever try some spin recovery procedures in a C172 in FSX/P3D and then compare it to real life? Did you try the same in X-plane and notice any difference? From what we've heard about the aerodynamics design of MSFS, do you think there will be any difference? It seems that you agree that the "as real as it gets" aerodynamics from FS2000 wasn't really as real as it gets after all, so I'm not sure why you go so far to protect a platform that is pretty much still using it.

If what they are showing is actually V5, how could this possibly be FSElite's fault? Aren't they just showing videos of V5? According to the expert gurus, what the videos show is exactly how V5 is designed to be and the rest will be up to the 3rd party developers.

Is this based on the fact that the aerodynamics, avionics, weather etc in MSFS is completely overhauled and designed by experts, while in P3D it is still identical as it was when it was designed for a game where we could fly around and drop cute little flour bombs?