shipdriver

It's hidden behind the Shadowplay control panel in Rob's screenshots, but ensure that 'Allow desktop capture' is checked. It is right under the image of the computer monitor on the Shadowplay preferences tab.

Debatable, but as Ryan mentioned not T2G. Well that's a bush league play. I would think (and correct me if I'm wrong) all they really need to do is have a higher quality mesh than PNW (especially since it is a relatively small area). Then their mesh would trump others. Killing a higher quality mesh and who knows what else to allow a lower quality mesh to be displayed is pretty lame. Why is it that I can count truly high quality and consistent scenery developers on only one hand and probably have fingers left over? It would be nice if one of those few had picked up the Seattle gauntlet, esp. since the real solution for Seattle probably involves rebuilding the city a la Dubai. Some questions: Can the surrounding photoreal be disabled without affecting ground textures inside the airport fenceline (i.e. separate bgl)? Is there a control panel at all? It was mentioned earlier that T2G recommends AI at 0%- are there static aircraft provided as an option?

I found this to be the case as well, especially from above. However I had vegetation receive shadows checked and that really exacerbated it. With those receive shadows off, it looked considerably better in that regard and now requires me to be dangerously close in my plane to notice. Not meaning to pick on you individually Dark, but I have to admit, this is quite the drama-filled thread. Then again, I did have small performance gains in non-urban heavily forested areas (with TML at 2048 BTW) and to be honest, I'm less likely to feel swindled by those developers who give me massive numbers of free P3D versions of FSX stuff I already bought (drastic enough?). There are only 7-8 aircraft and scenery developers who in my mind form the top-class of the industry (and ORBX is one of them) and yet most of the rest of the industry whose products tend to fall short in some way or are even just selling freeware-quality payware don't have product descriptions on Simmarket or whatnot which accurately portray their lower quality. C'est la vie (or C'est la Madison Avenue?). Do most of those 7-8 elite developers occasionally display excessive hubris as a result of pride in their accomplishments? Yes, and in some cases it really gets people here (and other places) up in arms, yet in other cases people will actually defend it or just don't even bat an eyelash. Then again, information technology is the most religious technological area I know of (except for maybe hi-fi audio and pickup trucks/muscle cars) so perhaps such angst shouldn't be a surprise. I've bought many flight sim add-ons which were quickly uninstalled (or at least never re-installed) for one reason or another (usually inferior quality or they induced excessive performance issues), and this one does not fall into that category. Lastly, I tend to only really get upset in cases where patently absurd demands are made of my funds, of which this is also not an instance.

I saw plenty of blossoming trees in the countryside around Kaliningrad- definitely not in a full-fat region. Time was set for May something (I'm not at home right now) 2015.

I just finished some simple stationary tests using FSUIPC to measure at two locations and the impact appeared to vary depending on location. At KSQL in the Bay Area (FTX NCA), fps was basically the same: 37.4fps ON compared top 37.3fps OFF. At Ultima Thule Lodge in the middle of nowhere, Alaska (FTX SAK), fps improved with the HD trees on but not by a lot: 82.6fps ON compared to 79.3 OFF. In both cases, the VAS hit was about 10MB with the HD trees ON. Frames were unlimited and building autogen was at Dense and tree autogen was at Very Dense. All shadows enabled except for terrain shadows and vegetation receive shadows, HDR ON, volumetric fog OFF. ASN was not running for the tests and clear skies selected. Maybe if trees are the limiting factor, there is a bigger gain.

as I said, add-on aircraft with their own FDE (like A2A and PMDG) may not have all parameters recorded because they are outside the sim. Same thing in FSX and same thing with FS-Recorder. It's not a bug anywhere, just a consequence. The only for it to work is for each of those add-on developers to make their own custom recorder software that only works with that add-on.

I generally used FS-Recorder 1.331 for recordings for my videos, but for my last video I used the built-in recorder, and was pretty pleased. One problem with the built-in is skipping ahead or back isn't a function. It has bookmark capability but I haven't yet been able to figure out how to use that feature, so it is best for short recordings (at least until I figure out the bookmarks). It does have the advantage of not having FS-Recorder's pop up window appear when starting the sim holding up startup. Also, using spot view with FS-Recorder was terribly unsmooth. The other aspect is that the built-in recorder records many more variables than FS-Recorder (like weather, etc.). On some aircraft, I have found that the built-in performs better. For example, a playing back a recording in FS-Recorder with the IRIS T-6B Texan II in emits an annoying undulating squeal in the VC whereas in the built-in it sounds normal. Both only record FSX/LM variables, so add-ons which have their own FDE will have problem with things like flaps not moving and engine power not changing, etc. There are more choices for recording rate in the built-in as well (4Hz, etc.). I have never had any Simconnect issues with FS-Recorder 1.331. I just installed 1.331 and went. Unfortunately, development stopped on FS-Recorder before P3D V2 existed, so 1.331 is the best we'll get from noisy and it is far less powerful than the later versions for FSX. I had some issues with AI in 1.331 but I am not sure if that was a one-off.

I have a video on my YT channel of a flight in the new Texan where I ranged all over the scenery coverage area of Sedona. In addition to what is seen on the video, I shot about 1 hour of footage there (different angles and whatnot). Autogen was at Normal for buildings and Very Dense for vegetation. Tesselation maxed, LOD 5.5. Terrain Shadows ON. Cloud shadows OFF. Because of all the static aircraft available there, I disabled AI traffic. I also made the video in two segments. For taxiing, I enabled most of the control panel items for the airport. For the flying portions of the video, I had the control panel pretty much limited to static aircraft. For the whole experience, max VAS used was 3.1GB. One question, did you start at another airport and then use the Go to Airport function and switch to KSEZ? Switching between high end airports like that is the only circumstance I have ever had memory issues (twice).

How does a potential 64-bit P3D accrue present benefits. Would it be a free upgrade? Was P3D V2? Sometimes I think, 64-bit will give developers a further excuse to bloat their products even more than they do now.

I hadn't thought of that. I have a 3770K and a GTX980 and haven't seen any fps losses from OP=1.

I have had no issues with A2A or Milviz aircraft (at least the 172, Cherokee and 182 and Baron B-55: all P3D native). The fps gains are minimal, mainly 1-2 fps, but are there nonetheless- and certainly no fps losses. In fact, I have yet to experience an aircraft from any developer that actually loses fps with OP=1 and wouldn't understand why if it did. Some of my other FSX aircraft perform brilliantly in P3D as well with OP=1- for example, Classics Hangar Fw190.

The first thing I thought of when they said it was licensed, was that it was from FSDT since they are the only ones I know of who developed such an "airport controller" that runs outside of the sim. Whether that is in fact the case, I couldn't know. That was just what entered my mind as soon as I saw that statement from Mathias. My next thought was, if it is licensed from someone else, how revolutionary can it be?

This is normal and is the same for FSX (upon which P3D is based). Total CPU usage is a pretty useless measure, Core 0 loading is how you determine how overloaded the CPU is for P3D and FSX. You have very high settings in place, you should try and dial back some. I run 4.8Ghz and I wouldn't run those settings unless I am in very remote region. Building autogen is still very CPU-based. Traffic is an fps killer in both FSX and P3D, especially since your CPU is processing planes hundred of miles away.

A nice spring-time jaunt in northern Idaho looking at ORBX's Bonners Ferry and Boundary County Airport (65S) in P3D as well as a discussion of P3D water. Enjoy and happy holidays!

So in real life you see the water below you turn pitch black even on a bright sunny day? I've seen the water surface look black from the air, but it was only in certain circumstances. There should indeed be a Fresnel effect as you change your viewing angle with the water surface (i.e. brighter out by the horizon), but it is too extreme in P3D- especially when one is looking a water down below. You could adjust the Fresnel effect in FSX via the water constants file, but not in P3D.

I've never posted on this particular forum, but felt I had to speak up. I have to respectfully disagree on most of this (including statements about customer service). One thing I cannot disagree with is anything related to the ADF because I never knew anyhing about it (is it supposed to be some sort of fake ADF that uses VORs or something?), and can't find it in the manual or in any advertising. Otherwise, it is my favorite warbird to fly. I have a soft spot for Vertigo's own F6F because the Hellcat has more history than the F8F, having been the frontine US Navy fighter for the last 3 years of World War II- whereas the Bearcat came too late for the Pacific War. However, the Vertigo F8F is a more beautifully done model than F6F (which was Vertigo's (then called RealFlight) first effort) and superior to most others (like the JF Wildcat and A2A P-40). Visually, it is in the realm of A2A's WOPIII birds. Engine and systems modelling doesn't approach AccuSim, but compare favorably with all non-Accusim warbirds that I have flown. One thing that struck me while making a video of it a while back was how realistic it sounded from a distance using the EZCA world camera as opposed to just being a quieter version of the close-up sound. I felt like I was watching a real plane takeoff. And hey, it's got a tailhook. I get the impression that Vertigo is much smaller outfit than A2A, which tempers my disappointment in the progress of the patch, along with the fact that I have gotten tremendous enjoyment out of the bird. Being a Pacific War history buff and a Navy man, I 've always been disappointed with what was available until RealFlight/Vertigo came along. Still waitng for a Zero though...Regards,Rob