Jump to content

d.tsakiris

Donor
  • Content Count

    291
  • Donations

    $25.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Neutral

About d.tsakiris

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Looks great! Very much looking forward to this!
  2. I second that. For slow motions like in a GA or airliner, lower FPS numbers suffice. Might be different with VR, I have little experience with that. So, please do differentiate when talking about FPS.
  3. I second what Rob said. I switched from RXP to F1 because it seemed to be supported by more planes. By “supported“ I mean it had a way to be integrated seamlessly into the vc, designed so by the developer - not talking about problem support, I can't comment about that, had no real issues so far. Maybe I did it incorrectly, but before I switched, I tried the tool to integrate the RXP version into a vc prepar3d (haha) for the F1 gauge. All it seemed to do is install a flat (2D) GTN, buttons and bezel and all, into the screen of the vc (3D) display. So, a GTN simulating a GTN on it's screen.
  4. I don't think the fault is with LM. And certainly the user should not be left with the problem, that's clear. So, not to point fingers, but I'm thinking the problem is the way some scenery devs design their sceneries: Exclude what is there in the default scenery of the version at hand, and nothing more. But that doesn't take into consideration that the default scenery can change. And I'm not only talking about objects like buildings, which are new in V5, but also auto-gen, which also changes with landclass add-ons. ORBX, or Pilot's, have done something similar with FTX Vector. It even scans your scenery database and activates only the corrections needed. Of course we're talking about more than "only" correcting the elevation of a number of airports to fit a better mesh here, as the solution we'd need would have to exclude all airports that were updated by LM in V5.
  5. I use both, so that's good news for me! 😄 Kidding aside, I guess I will have to use the lower of both settings and pretend that the airliners are all lightly loaded...
  6. I was wondering about the same thing, but it does have an effect. In the program's GUI you can slide the FFTF value up and down real-time, and it has an effect on the FPS real-time. FFTF value up - FPS down, and vice versa.
  7. Anti-virus programs these days use way more than signature-based scanning. In fact, much more happens via behavioural analysis and reputation databases. In my experience, the latter is responsible for most false positives, in the flight sim environment and also elsewhere (I work in that field). Every second-ish payware software package I install triggers my Win Defender, and that doesn't have to do with “non-compliant coding“, but with the small numbers of the flight sim world, which means it takes longer for add-ons to achieve a good reputation with AV programs.
  8. What are you guys setting the scalar to? I put in 1.5 for starters.
  9. Had the iFly for FSX, and now PMDG 777 and 747 for 4.5, and I don't think the latter are that much better, if at all. The only thing I didn't like with the iFly were a few click-spots. Other than that, for my simming needs, the iFly was up there with PMDG. PMDG has progressed since then, but iFly has and will as well. And I always thought the BBJs were really cool...
  10. There are no free lunches. Once MSFS reaches P3D's level of features, I'm sure the performance will be better than P3D's, but I really doubt it will be so much better that it will shut everbody up, let alone have everyone still drooling over it. Too much unsteady camera action and quick cuts in that video to really be able to make out the marshaller animations. But even so I could spot a few jerky motions. Be that as it may: I know what you are trying to say, but the fact of the matter is that for a lot of us, there are just two flight sims that give us what we want: P3D and X-Plane. Personally, I am not willing to invest money and time in both of them. If an add-on for "my" sim has badly animated objects, and there is a better alternative, that's what I get. If not, I get the non-perfect add-on, but I certainly don't switch the sim to one that doesn't give me the features I want...
  11. That just means it will be a performance hog out of the box, without add-ons.
  12. Don't think you'll reach a consensus here. Everyone and their brother has their own opinion of how a flight sim should look, feel and perform. Some opinions are more informed than others, some comparisons make more sense than others. I'd also like to make the case that if LM were to incorporate all those improvements we wish for (better textures, sounds, scenery, up-to-date navaids etc), it would raise the price of the base product. As it is now, everyone of us can choose what to improve, and where to spend our money.
  13. A building on a runway in a (successful) standard installation is a bug. They happen, and it's probable most of them will be corrected by LM. Show me a piece of software that doesn't have bugs. But that's not what FFTF is about. It doesn't rectify a bug, it enhances performance.
×
×
  • Create New...