patrickbc

Well, as a real pilot (student), I can tell you: You should definitely always be within limits (both CG and weight wise) if you want to fly it realistically. And yes the aircraft handles differently depending on CG and weight. I guess MSFS always just puts 50% fuel and the pilot + front seat pax, which causes some aircrafts to be outside limits (and it would be like that in real life as well, when I fly with 2 people in front, none in the back, I put a sand bag in the back of the aircraft, to get the CG within limits, so adding a few lbs to “baggage” would be the trick, however since your overweight as well, removing the front pax would be the better choice) Also auto-mixture: The mixture controls the amount of fuel going to the engine, and thus the fuel/air ratio, so when you climb (because of thinner air) less oxygen enter the engine, and to keep the optimal fuel/air ratio, the mixture has to be leaned (reduced). Auto-mixture does this for you. If you want to do it yourself, then (when at altitude) lean the mixture until RPM or CHT (cylinder head temp) peaks (depending on the aircraft), and then add a little mixture back in (the exact procedure varies from aircraft to aircraft, but this should work fine generally). Hope it helps.

Sounds about right. Im getting 15-25 FPS High-Ultra 1440p with a desktop GTX1060

Specs in my signature. EKCH RWY 12 ILS at 1400ft, Da40NG, clear skies around noon. Do you have a source stating that the sim automatically adjusts setting according to fps? Because turning the dials from high to ultra definitely made an improvement in draw distance, also I can literally make the sim run at 1 FPS if I set the render to 200%, would the sim “not allow me” to to that, if it adjusts setting according to fps?

Can’t find it either

Well the problem is still there when I cache it (see previous post).

Well with my GTX1060, 1440p, Ultra Im already at like 15 FPS 😂 However i normally use High (I just used ultra for testing level of detail). At high I’m running at 25-30 FPS however still down to 17 ish if I’m really pushing it (night at New York, in an airliner as an example).

Well most be a level of detail problem then 😢

After having cached it (rules out internet speed/server load problem), and flown close to it (to rule out bad photogrammetry data). My two main hypothesis' are: The level of detail radius is simply to small. My 6GB of Vram is not enough. (resolution is 3840x1024, which is approximately ordinary 1440p)

Well I almost feel opposite. When I fly really close, the photogrammetry looks great. But from a medium distance of 2 - 6nm not so much. This is the same area as marked in red on the original photo. Looks fine up close.

Now I've cached it (see pic in original post). It didn't make a change, which rules out internet speed/server load.

I’ll follow up with a picture where i High level cache it.. However I Think Its more a level of detail problem, or maybe more vram helps. Also task manager only shows a 2-3 mb/s usage from the flight simulator, weird Its not pulling every mb it can. or maybe the servers are just overloaded I dont know.

I hate to add to the negativity of this release, as I still believe this is the next flight sim for many years to come (when the addons arrive, and the bugs have been fixed). However Im not really impressed by photogrammetry, with a 100mbps internet and ultra setting. Even close to the airport (4nm, 1400ft) the buildings between me and the runway, just look quite bad, black and spiky/blocky. Hoping this gets fixed. (Airport EKCH, and photogrammetry of Copenhagen) (Also whats up with the non-existing option to preset a visibility? Making IFR practice close to impossible)

Well as an ATPL student, I’ll definetly say both. It completely depends on your mindset when you open the program. Some of my schools simulators run prepar3d, and are approved FNPT simulators, where the hours (at least some of them) actually counts towards your ATPL. So definitely here p3d = simulator. My school also have smaller simulators running fsx/p3d (more or less just a monitor and a joystick, the same as many of us ‘flight simmers’) and even though these obviously aren’t approved and counting towards your hours, because they’re supplied by the school to aid training, I’d definitely also say these are simulators. So what’s the difference between that and my home flight sim? Well not anything really. Id say if you fly the ‘program’ as if you’re sitting in a real aircraft, completely adhering to procedures and rules. I see no reason of not to call it a simulator. However if you’re not, and just start on the rwy with engines running, flying around the city to enjoy the views. It’s a game... So as others stated, it’s both. Depends on the mindset.

For all practical uses yes, GMT = UTC

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/jul/24/head-in-the-clouds-the-return-of-microsoft-flight-simulator “For games like Flight Simulator, the cloud provides “a system that kind of understands how much capability I need at any point,” Spencer explains. “It’s no different than what we’ve done in years past, streaming into available RAM that’s available on our consoles.” Flight Simulator will have an offline mode when it launches in 2020, but given how heavily it relies on data streamed from Microsoft servers, it’s likely to be severely truncated.”