Johnny19

No issues here, I like the new design, and a free upgrade. Thanks Umberto.

We still have ghosting issues with 4.5 in the sim, and we are here talking 5. 😂 Great to see innovation, but with prices (here they are talking two 2!!! 5090s to run it) and everything going on, yeah, no chance.

For those who will be able to afford new shiny GPUs, maybe, yes. For the rest of us mortals, no.

Seen i too, happens with both vpilot on Vatsim and SI.

Here it is, https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/topic/42332-fslabs-–-update-1101326-now-available/

Reading and understanding the read is a virtue these days 😄

Did anyone see this? PW A321 NEOvariant and a huge changelog. here’s the link https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/topic/41766-fslabs-–-update-1101324-now-available/

Weather, weather and more weather.

Same here, back to TAA, tried DLSS with quality, performance, blurry and ghosting, although better than it used to be, but still blurry, although, managed to get clear displays yesterday with DLSS with DLAA, but went back to TAA for performance, and today can't get it to work for the love of me haha.

I’m talking more generally, not just about this case, that may or may not be true. Windows, Mac, gadgets, home devices, you name it, already collect and transmit data, often with very little transparency about what’s being sent or who has access to it. That’s why I don’t like the idea of more surveillance.

It’s my opinion. I would have definitely quoted a source if it were from some other party. However, guys here are correct, I’ll give them that, but, the issue here isn’t scanning per se — it’s what is being scanned, how it’s being scanned, where any collected data is sent, and who ultimately collects and uses that data.

If calmly explaining how launchers have worked for the last decade counts as AI now, then sure. It’s called Ivan, who’s been around this hobby long enough, 25 years to be exact, long to remember how launchers have worked for years.

@Georgleboui I don’t think this comparison really holds up, and I do think some relevant history is being conveniently glossed over here. Yes, launchers scan the Community folder — that part is not disputed. The intent and scope of what’s being scanned absolutely is. There’s a big difference between: checking whether your own product is installed / up to date and actively scanning for other products and using that information to flag users as potential pirates That’s where this crosses a line for a lot of people. The argument of “it’s very likely non-intrusive” is doing a lot of heavy lifting without evidence. Users are being asked to simply trust that: no personal data is transmitted no data beyond what’s strictly necessary is checked no false positives occur no future expansion of this behavior will happen Given PMDG’s past attitude toward customers, skepticism is entirely reasonable. And yes — FSLabs was objectively worse. No one is arguing otherwise. Kernel-level malware was insane, and they deserved every bit of backlash they got. But “this isn’t as bad as FSLabs” is a very low bar, not a defense. The real issue isn’t how bad it is compared to FSLabs — it’s whether this behavior should be considered acceptable at all. History matters here because the community already learned, the hard way, that normalizing intrusive DRM under the banner of “copy protection” leads to bad outcomes. Once you normalize: “It’s okay for a launcher to look around and make judgments about what else you have installed” you’ve shifted the trust boundary — and getting that trust back later is almost impossible. So no, this isn’t malware. No, it’s not FSLabs-level insanity. But it is a step in a direction many of us don’t like, and pushing back early is exactly how you avoid repeating past mistakes.

This also ignores some very relevant history in this hobby. We’ve already been here before with the FSLabs malware incident, where “copy protection” crossed a line and the community quite rightly reacted with outrage. Back then, the argument was also that it was about protecting IP — and it was still unacceptable once it touched users’ systems in opaque and invasive ways. What’s puzzling now is the double standard. When FSLabs did it, the reaction was universal condemnation. When PMDG is suspected of doing something even remotely similar, suddenly we’re told to relax, trust the developer, and assume everything is fine. That’s not how trust works — especially under EU data protection law, where assumptions and good intentions are irrelevant. Transparency, proportionality, and informed consent are the baseline. Yes, licence checks themselves aren’t illegal. No one is arguing that. But after past incidents, users are absolutely justified in demanding clear technical disclosure of what OC3 accesses, how broadly, and for what purpose — before dismissing concerns as hysteria. If anything, history shows that skepticism here isn’t paranoia — it’s learned behavior.

Wow, what a moron....