Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

257 Excellent

About Gulfstream

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks this is actually cheaper than my dual approach, and I agree Anker cables can be too stiff, I was concerned about that. I am running a laptop that only has a 1660Ti in it, so I doubt I can run VR even at the lowest settings. I am eyeing a new 3060 laptop but I haven't pulled the trigger yet as this one runs great for everything else.
  2. Thanks, I just purchased an Anker USB C Cable and an elbow connector to try to get into this VR thing. I also want to play Half Life Alyx so even if I can't run MSFS in VR, at least I'm not wasting my money.
  3. I have a Quest 2 and was going to buy the link cable for $70 but then I saw there are alternatives, including a $20 app called Virtual Desktop that requires no cables. Has anyone tried this with Flight Simulator? I'm curious how downgraded the graphics would be compared to the link cable. Edit: I just realized that Anker sells an Oculus tested/approved 10 foot cable for $22, just going to go with that.
  4. I'm not doing it show off, I say it because I can tell accurate flight models because I to used to fly airplanes by the numbers all day for work. It gives more weight to judging the flight model if you are only a simulator pilot, unless you are extremely familiar with the performance numbers. Some people are, especially aircraft designers, even if they haven't flown. But way too many people say it "feels" more accurate and such, which I won't stand for. A lot of people complain that in MSFS, the plane yaws around a little too much at cruise. But so do real aircraft, especially ones without yaw dampers. To each their own.
  5. I'm a US CPL and someone who has used the SDK for MSFS2020. It's pretty friggin' real to me. This is a simulation. To keep this on topic, what are you expecting from XP12's flight model that MSFS2020 is not capable of doing. You may say "Aircraft X is too floaty" and "Aircraft B reaches 185 knots at 80% throttle too fast" but those are aircraft issues. What about the aerodynamics with those "fancy formulas" do you feel is missing? Or are you just shooting from the hip here?
  6. You're exactly right. The weird thing with X-Plane is now you have people saying "don't move to the improved flight model, give us the older inferior version and let us decide!". So now there is no "X-Plane's flight model is superior", that comes down to "which flight model are you using?". So if that argument can't be had unless both sides are saying they are on the same "version" flight model, what else is there? Graphics.
  7. That does look impressive. Granted these will be cherry-picked so we'll have to see what the final base sim actually looks like. But the A330 model is fantastic, and the changes to the lighting model, the clouds, the reflections, etc. are certainly far better than XP11.
  8. This mostly comes down to the fact that the weather isn't extensible, no? So despite trying to resolve the "legal, ethical and technological challenges" it basically came down to "can you get the weather system into an extensible SDK so that my company remains viable?" and the answer was "no". Well, that's the answer. May not need it. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with that stance, but that's where it stands.
  9. I won't try to derail this any further, but if you have used the new SDK you will know that the aerodynamic calculations are not simply ported over from prior versions. That's how you end up with complex discussions like this ... https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/flight-model-physics-sdk.451996/ "and the MSFS flight model is unquestionably a significant advance on FSX" ... from people actually working with the new SDK.
  10. Is that really fair though? I am on plenty of other forums such as MMO forums, where people will say "I hate how game X handles feature Y, wouldn't it be better if they went the same route as game Z?". It makes sense and widens the discussion. I don't think it should be shut down completely, but obviously if it adds nothing constructive to the discussion or is wildly off-topic it can be shut down by mods.
  11. I am commenting on this "off-topic" post because it applies to any platform. You may be mis-reading this data. Those "bumps" could be from people like myself, who run the sim immediately after new updates to ensure that, even if I don't plan on using it right then, that it will be fully updated when I do want to use it. Nothing to do with novelties, more just trying to ensure it's up to date and not have to sit through the update process the next time I plan on using it.
  12. PSVR is 1920x1080, what about the Oculus Quest 2 with the PC cable? That is 1832x1920 and was recently on sale for $200. Seems attractive at that price range, especially since it's completely self-contained and has no wires if you want to run the large library of Android-based VR apps.
  13. This is a great response, and you are correct, this will work. If basing the data off a METAR parser and then feeding it to the generation pipeline, you should be able to get the exact same results across both clients. METAR -> .CreateAtmosphere() and we're done. That of course depends on the graphic pipeline and code architecture. Don't get me wrong, I'm still wanting X-Plane to succeed. I have zero knowledge of their financials and for all I know, none of this matters and 90% is coming from mobile. The advantage here has to go to Asobo though, because they could develop that entire pipeline from the start, anticipating. It's incredibly more difficult to do with an existing codebase, which can be like trying to steer the Titanic. Perhaps Titanic isn't the best thing to use here. A cruise ship (just not the Costa Concordia). Anyway, this is a thread about X-Plane 12 shaders and I won't derail it further.
  14. You spelled meteorology wrong. Don't worry about my credentials, I know what I'm talking about even if a cloud in a simulator isn't a true-to-life representation of every raindrop properly adhering to the laws of gravity. We don't see proper Arcus or mammatus clouds and I am not sure I need them right now while we are all trying to maximize 4k+ framerates. XP12 won't get you what you are looking for either, it's not possible. Imagine the software engineering. Imagine a world where we have true-to-life 3D clouds, that not only adhere to realistic laws of thermodynamics, but appear the same on my screen as your screen. The particles have to be the same on both platforms, which might be possible if we use sophisticated seed-based noise generators like Perlin noise ala Minecraft ... except that doesn't allow for them to be created for real world weather. Because you of course you want it so if your friend asks you "why did you just fly into the edge of that cloud?", the response is "I screwed up" and not "I'm nowhere near a cloud". To do that last part, you'd have to transmit the shape of the clouds, to the horizon, on both systems. And the more complex the cloud, the more data has to be transferred. Down to the datapoint of "at X,Y,Z there is water suspended in the atmosphere that will condensate at X Celsius". And then bring in the subtle heating effects from the sun on the higher droplets, the warmer air rising from the ground on the lower droplets, the wind fields generated that are moving them all around, yadda yadda. You get the idea.
  • Create New...