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?

High level of activity is not the same thing as high level of enthusiasm. I think the activity may be because of the hype that's been building up lately, with MSFS bashing like never before, a lot of "LOL, you will see soon" and "I know something you don't know". People got excited. And then the FS9 style videos came along. And they were all defended with the "it's supposed to be like that" argument from the very same MSFS bashers. That will naturally cause a lot of activity.

Here is a quote from the MSFS development update from 2 days ago: We are excited to have over 150 third party companies using our SDK and working on many amazing updates for the new simulator. All the big sims have an SDK and all of them are welcoming 3rd party developers. No difference there. Actually, it's extremely important for any sim to have the 3rd party developers onboard. The difference is that the P3D way, which the beta testers seem to confirm, is that P3D is just some base engine and it's totally up to the the 3rd party developers to make it usable. Even for the most basic functionality. The FS9/FSX/P3D community has a strong history of having to pay for every single tiny improvement. But should we really have to pay additional money just to replace the tree textures so they become acceptable? Just an example. Personally I don't think so. Maybe if the sim was free of charge but that's not really the case. I have wasted so much money on similar payware addons over the years. For the other sims on the other hand, they try to create a great sim and encourage the 3rd party developers to make it even greater. I can't believe why people get so offensive about this. Look at the enormous amount of X-plane addons. Many of them are completely free and also much better than their P3D's payware alternatives. This is what happens when you involve the community instead of working against them trying to get as much money from them as possible. Finally, a lot of old time P3D simmers look at MSFS and go "LOL, it looks cool so it must be a toy game that is completely useless". They totally miss everything that has been completely overhauled, which is long overdue. The eye candy is just on top of the real changes in the core and the developers have been very open with what has been done when it comes to flight dynamics, weather, flight controls and avionics etc. Too bad that there is too much prestige to see that.

I see at least two flightsim communities that are alive, positive, forward thinking, working together and where the developers are actively and seriously listening to constructive criticism and opinions from its alpha/beta testers and users and actually show their progress so that we can all follow it. I see these sims taking huge impressive steps forward every day. On the other hand I see another community that used to be great but that is now filled negative attitude, where every piece of criticism is offensively defended with arguments like "it's supposed to be bad by default because then the 3rd party developers can fix it" or "he is a beta tester and you are just a user so go away". If you have comments and suggestions you are immediately silenced, humiliated and laughed at. P3D is apparently flawless and must not be criticized. Personally I don't think this will benefit the development. For me it's more about the attitude than what the latest video preview shows.

Good for him. I myself have reported maybe 50 bugs over the years, offering detailed information and suggested fixes and my take on probable causes and so on. The closest I ever got to a fix was a single time when I actually got a response. It was a generic "we will look into it". They never did.

Here is what I really don't understand. There is a new major flagship release and you still need a 3rd party bug fix solution to get acceptable AI lights? If you were on the beta team, shouldn't you report this as a bug to LM and make sure it finally gets fixed, rather than assuring users that the bug fix will still work on the new release? This example proves my point exactly. Lots of P3D users and developers demand that their bug fixes are backward compatible rather than putting pressure on LM to fix all the known issues once and for all. I really don't get it.

Besides the terrible lighting and textures in that video, I really can't believe the poor movement dynamics of the a/c. Have you ever seen a fighter jet take off with full afterburner? That's some pretty violent action with a lot of bumping/rambling/vibration going on. Now look at the video. It's like a static picture of the a/c where only the background moves. Now you could say "it just looks that way in the video" or "maybe all sliders weren't fully to the right". I really don't think that's the answer. If I was on the beta team I would report this as a huge issue that must be fixed. I guess this is just another case of "that's a job for the 3rd party developers like opus/ezdok, P3D is just the base engine". This is exactly my point in my previous post. We should not have to pay hundreds of $$$ just to get the basic functionality.

Do we really? I think this is exactly the kind of attitude that has put the entire FS9/FSX/P3D branch many years behind when it comes to performance and modern technology. The computer hardware industry gave up on single-core performance like 10 years ago. Yet here we are, still tweaking and tweaking and moving 10 years back in time by disabling hyperthreading because the entire sim pretty much runs on a single core, still. Why is that? Because of backwards compatibility and because we didn't have a rewrite. Somehow the P3D gurus seem to think that this is a good thing and noone is allowed to question them. It's like people WANT the default P3D to look bad and they say it like it's a good thing. When MSFS was announced a huge criticism from the old time simmers was "But if it looks good from the beginning, what are the 3rd party developers gonna do?". We see the same thing right now with the V5 but in the opposite way. People see things like "No real-time weather" in the release note and cheer like never before because it means they will continue buying the same 3rd party software they have always used. We see a lot of questions like Will my payware addon to fix broken landclass, broken AI lights, broken night lighting, broken runway textures, broken AI traffic, broken ATC, broken tree textures, broken weather engine, broken ground traffic, broken autogen buildings continue to work? Maybe that's not the exact words but that exactly what it means. I'd rather have talented 3rd party developers create something really awesome instead of selling us payware addons to fix bugs or implement basic functionality. As long as the users demand a software that works exactly as they have been used to for 20 years, we will not move forward. I think that's where a lot of the MSFS criticism comes in because they decided to actually redesign many areas from scratch. Yes, this has implications and it will break some backward compatibility. But instead of "Cool, they actually fixed <whatever>", we see "LOL, the <addon that fixes something broken> will not even work!". When someone brings this up we immediately get the "he is on the beta testing team so don't even dare to question anything he says" kind of attitude. I think this is pretty sad and I think this difference in attitude is what is going to really divide the flightsim community from now on. But then again, according to the same people who humiliate us who thinks that some rewrites are necessary, the entire MSFS thing is just a hoax that will never be released. Case closed.

And this is the problem with those "gurus". They are sometimes totally wrong and people who even try to question some of their "truths" are immediately attacked by a huge fan base. If you ever see someone say: "all flight simulators would always be very much dependent on a single thread performance" My recommendation is to downgrade that person's guru status immediately. There sure are some bad legacy software that, in their current state, would never benefit much from multiple cores without being rewritten from scratch. This is absolute not the same thing as "all flight simulators would always ...". Still, this "truth" among others is repeated over and over almost daily in all those never ending core0/hyperthreading/affinitymask threads.

When I first saw PMDG's marketing about the NGXu being "a completely new product", I compared the feature list and screenshots with those from the classic NGX and saw two pretty much identical products. Personally I think of the NGXu as a hotfix to slightly modify the cockpit geometry. If they can make people pay for the same product a 3rd (!!!) time I must give it to them that they must be marketing geniuses.

I recognize those stretched and blurry mountain textures from FS9.