CaptainNick

Yah for some reason the click spot wasn't working in VR. Re installed it and it worked.

Initial thoughts: I got the canopy to close finally, that seems buggy in VR. Flight controls are not working for me, several others have posted about it on the MSFS forums. IRIS bug tracker for it is public and it has been reported a bunch of times. Graphically it looks good. MFD's switches etc all look great in VR and pancake. A little toooo clean but thats a personal thing.

picked it up...cant for the life of me figure out how to close the canopy in vr once the pin is removed

Shadowplay, 4k 60fps 50mbps (probably could bump this up a bit) then straight upload to YT.

good review of the 7000 series LGs https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/up7000 TLDR it supports Chroma 4:4:4 when the input is labeled as PC...this is vital for using a tv as a computer monitor. Pixel response is a tad slow but should be liveable especially if get them for a good price.

Well....the reason why your FPS drops is you are going from a 3440x1440 screen to 2 2160x2160 screens. This is a MASSIVE increase in pixels to push. the G2 is pushing 9.2 million pixels, your 2d screen is only doing 4.9 million pixels. Also don't forget that FPS/hz is king in VR. The more the better, otherwise the immersion is bad on top of making you feel sick. Coupled with the fact that the 3060ti isn't really a strong card to pair with a G2....We all have to turn the settings down to get acceptable VR performance. The MSFS display of the goggles wont eat your FPS, they are just a mirror. What you can do though is make WMR window set to not display the headset view...this will be a bit of a bump in performance.

A new CPU wont make that happen (the 20% bump) at 4k currently. Get a 4090, or dial back your settings a bit to bump the FPS up.

I used shadowplay for all my youtube videos. Seems to produce less artifacts (ie better compression) from my tests than the other software capture suits when saving video.

Realistically....you are running 4k like I am. I doubt you would see double digit fps increase with the same settings moving to a newer processor. Yes the newest stuff is faster....but not double digit faster at 4k with the same card. Best bet is to wait until next year. A video card upgrade at that time may prove more lucrative.

I wouldn’t say no to a 135/145 or even better yet a 120

What Orchestra_NL said…don’t go full ham on the the throttle at takeoff. Good way to cook a pt6. Depending on altitude and temp, 100%n1 while keeping itt below 800 (a buffer here isn’t a bad thing…750-775). With that said, I have not had a chance to load the black box king air up as I have been on a work hitch but It’s my Friday today so I’ll be back home tomorrow and see.

It’s one of our daily emergency items to discuss ….the good ol engine chip light. The TL:DR version: the reduction gearbox could potentially separate from the turbine shaft. The light indicates the possibility of “chip” damage detected ie you are blowing metal (“chips”) from the coupling and it is detecting it…hence your blown up engines.

After flying it for about ten hours in FSE now my thoughts: 1.) the lighting is much improved 2.) the overcast depiction is pretty nice 3.) the new clouds are worse than True Cloud in p3dV5 when it came out. Definite overhype by Austin on this one. Hopefully they throw some serious dev time at this. 4.) ground puddles: cool I guess but not very realistic. I do like the look of the fully wet surfaces. The rain on the windshield is pretty bad though. 5.) Performance is not good for me. In 4k with the right side sliders backed off a notch and the left ones turned up (ie no FSR at full res) I'm struggling to keep a consistent 30-40fps. The competition performs much better FPS wise for better image quality. VR is a disaster with the Reverb G2. 6.) Default planes look very bad. They are very much showing their age. The 172 panel could have been in xplane 9 or fsx. The dashpad on the king air 90 glareshield is particularly offensive. Early access isn't an excuse. It is full price at the moment and the same price as the competition who has some very pretty stock planes. Get with the times LR. 7.) Also they never fixed the stupid floatiness of track ir in Xplane. Still needed the ol' X-camera plugin to fix that. 8.) several of my old planes worked fine like the Airfoil King air 350 and the recent Aerobask DA50RG 9.) The AA is bad. Lots of shimmers in the distance. I'm hoping Austin and LR spend some serious time listening to the general population of flight simmers and not the die hard Austin fans because releasing a new version at full price in this state feels like a cash grab, just like Microsoft kicking MSFS out the door a year earlier than it probably should have.

And that was with the analog msfs 172 which I believe does not have the newer CFD model used on the g1000 version (could be wrong..)

I kinda like the sounds. Im not hearing the beech 18 mixed in...but maybe my hearing is bad *Shrugs*. Looks good. I enjoy the heaviness of the controls. Its a stark contrast to alot of the add on planes which feel too light. Though I imagine it would be better somewhere in the middle of the two. Takeoff perf seems stupidly sluggish

The Emb-120 or the 206/210

Noticed a fuel tank discrepancy. In sim it’s only 22 gallons per side, the placard shows 37 useable per side. Caught me off guard using in FSE with the fsuipc client.

Is anyone actually surprised by this, or the ongoing issues with dx12? We saw a lot of these system resource issues pop up when P3D V5 was released as well as the trials and tribulations of Vulkan in XP11. Asking users to be responsible for using game settings realistic to their machine is just asking for trouble again…

Very much so. You are correct he never corrected the weird model geometry and has sat unused in my hanger for a long time due to that. It just looks wonky, and takes away from an otherwise “it’s ok, just extremely bland” product (BRsim).

Not upset about this at all. The price is right. No gtn integration, and the sound is a tad muted imo. It craps all over the existing h35. While not A2A it is certainly a decent little flier at this price. I’ve spent a lot more for a lot less…

Really it is a very subjective issue. I will use my case as an example. I have a 55" 4K screen wall mounted that my head is 32-34" from when I use the computer. 1440 would be factually worse looking to the eyes at this distance, across that large of a screen. If I had say a 24" monitor then we can flip this argument a bit. It may be harder to tell the difference of the 4k resolution vs 1440 on a screen that small, especially at a distance.

Please enlighten the rest of the world as to how you came to this factual conclusion?

Certainly not the case for those of us wanting high frame rates on our native 4k screens, or for acceptable frame rates and visual quality in VR on our G2's etc. Running 1080p? sure. 1440p? Maybe. 4k? No. Great thing about the market is we have choices to fit our needs.....

Am I the only one who grows tired of the rag on Xbox? I’m a ps5 guy myself but the fact that consoles are decently powerful enough nowdays to run a game like msfs is nothing but good for the flight sim community as a whole in the long run. Heck, half the people complaining or making posts trying to word not allowed on the Xbox have computers worse than the Xbox’s specs, the other half just have some sort of elitist mindset.

You were at that point from the start. You were seeking some kind of validation that the new kids have issues (FSX has a ton of them itself) hence the tone and language used in your original post.