Claviateur

I agree. If some of MK elements like terraforming, transparent terminal (for night immersion) could make it to the BMWorld one , it would be a great one but we can't mix and match depiste owning both here 🙄

I've been waiting since MSFS was released for my province's main airport so I was too excited and got the MK Studio one yesterday and just got the BMWorld one that I heard here, it is better... Time to compare... Edit: MK Studio version is good for the price. But has a plain aspect to it when it comes to the surrounding facilities... The only thing I prefer in MK Studio are the terrain subtle variations like the ditches they created just like in real life... It removes the flat aspect of the terrain outside the concrete areas... BMWorld CYUL is more detailed than MK Studio in general. I noticed a couple of glitches like missing textures on rwy / twy signs and a floating roof unit. They added static road vehicles on the main central road that are just on one portion of it actually and I do not think it is the best idea I just wish BMWorld reproduce the ditches and subtle airport ground variations MKStudio have...

I used them too yet I do not understand why they can't simply allow us to save and load filters we set or someone else shares with us. Beyond me!

Strangely, I could not find gamelaunchhelper.exe in my MSFS folder not even while doing a file search on the drive or any other drive

I will make a guess or two: Google or Facebook owner(s) And I am still amazed and puzzled when I hear many live in the illusion that P3D is the sequel or a replacement of FSX meant to entertain them...

Watching the MS aka Xbox conference... If anything would be mentioned regarding the peaceful flight simulator we love, it could be that some company bought it to become an Xbox title... No just my intuition... I am just watching and waiting for possible news... Probably it will simply be a press release... Who knows...

Paul J, in fact someone explained to me that the way FS or similar old generation world engines for simulators, were designed in terms of world rendering and its content + skies + 3D elements handling, it relies allot on a database of large textures, layed out in terms of tiles based on some rules in order to build the world... This technology and software architecture was fund on CPUs and not the yet to come powerful GPUs... Allot of effects were also based on textures and not dynamic GPU effects rendering... Now without boosting the textures sizes, they are all around... Now I am not too techy about FS engine details but the VAS issue as far as this gentleman explained it to me, is related to the way the software is designed vs the PC technology of its time... The complexity of the add-ons we have today was not a requirement in the mind of the developers. Thus the engine was not ment to digest and to build the virtual complex default texture based world as well as complex add-ons such as the ones we have today... In any case, this person even if he is not a flight simmer, works in the virtual reality development field and was part of level D simulator visual systems etc. He also describes the visual systems of motion simulators of having a not so modern architecture and very demanding to maintain... However he is very familiar with the way FS, P3D, XPlane were designed... All in all, he is the one who told me about Unigine as an example of a modern world simulation engine and the way it was built. It seems, as far as I understood, that the modern simulation engines are procedural code that builds the world in a completely different fashion from FS or P3D or even XPlane... And they leverage PC ressources in a completely different way. More GPU I believe Cheers Michel

I agree WarpD, this is a demo with a limited world however, as far as my benchmarks tests went with this engine, I can say that an entire earth is possible with it, and it should not be a problem loading its sectors real time at x y altitudes... However, can we confidently say the world of this engine is built in the same fashion as P3D or FSX is? Same technology? Does it rely on large textures to create the earth, the skies and all its elements? Does it use Virtual memory in the same fashion? Does it rely on CPU only ala FSX? (I donno about P3D)... And does it leverage the PC ressources better than P3D or FSX ? All in all, is the architecture of the procedural world engines such as this one or the basic (for now) Outerra the same as the architecture of FSX or P3D ?

Thanks for the clarification WarpD, No X-Plane can't be compared to P3D and Outerra is indeed a modern engine but still early shape. What do you think about this one:https://unigine.com/products/valley/ https://unigine.com/news/2013/10/16/article-on-procedural-content-generation2

WarpD I agree with you on the 4096px, but we agree that a 4GB is easily consumed by a level of scenery complexity that is beyond the scope of the ESP architecture when it was programmed (for the systems demands of back then...) Modern simulation / world engines use a completely different architecture...

Thanks for the info... Yes indeed, I can start reading the topics addressing the OOM CTDs in V2... It's really sad to see this early 2000s sim engine still being used as is in terms of core code... Personnally I don't think the switch from FSX is worth it as long as the core engine is the same. And I don't think with the PCs today, one needs to lower the sliders as it was the case in 2006 to avoid OOM as I hear the classic "lower sliders" advises here and there.... The ESP engine should fly on the gaming PCs of today with heavy add-ons and without any glitch but unfortunately the code is 32bit and the 4GB VAS bottleneck is a show stopper for massive add-ons enjoyment :-/ Cheers Michel

Hi, Does anyone know if P3D brings a solution to the VAS issue in FSX and P3D V1.X? I do not know if V2 is a 64bit code, I doubt it is but in case anyone got a spec about it? IMHO if the 4GB virtual memory limitation is still there in the engine, the DX11 rendering tricks or any visual boost not only are not enough to make V2 fly far but will bring it even more down to its knees with the complexity of add-ons :-/ Cheers Michel

Just want to clarify that I did not Buy any DLC but since I was in the beta team, MS gave me for free the Hawaiian expansionI tried it once and that's itCheers

Nice questions, straight to the point...I was in the beta team and it was clear how Flight business model is shaped from the first time I played the beta. Unfortunately many other beta testers were building castles in space and dreaming about a release that brings FSX features or future DLCs that makes it FS11....And I could not have any motivation to play and test it beyond the very few short sessions i did. I tried hard but could not find any real appeal in it... Therefore my beta contribution was almost non existent. I was more on FSX during that period...It was clear MS wants to 1) sell Add-ons exclusively and make money beyond the one fee retail box price therefore control and adjust the future of the game 3) reduce the game to narrow regions and limited options to reduce head ache of performance issues FSX had... Hence they removed the whole living world FSX brought in (A.I planes, cars, boats etc)... I never saw a game engine stripped out of its innovative features 6 years later, so the commercial objective was superior to innovation or anything like that...Also at the end of the beta testing days, MS was kind or intelligent enough, or both, to give me the Hawaii expansion with the aircrafts etc saying that I was one of the most active testers... oh well :) I hope that others were also given these little gifts because they might be using them much more than I am... I installed FLight release and the expansions given to me for free, opened it once again and that was it... i do not touch Flight at all...My instinct and my reading between the lines of the answers, drives me to say that MS has a plan B sleeping and might be applied in the future... If Flight fails to meet the business expectations (drawing a wide audience and selling DLC) then MS might simply release a DLC such as patched package of FSX features: ATC, Flight Plans, a rough global world scenery and an SDK to the hard-core old FS fans and try to salvage the fate of Flight with this method. Of course only speculations but the answers give the hint of such possibilities depending on commercial resultsThe present state of Flight is opened to all kind of decisions and MS can change its strategy on the fly as for what will and what will not be Flight...IGN review is the most severe I read to date

Interesting to know because this contradicts clearly the MS public announcements to appease the FS enthousiasts :) Marketing was playing it safe when saying in the press releases that it will please both new and FS enthousiasts or something like that...I also think MS would want, to try at least, to pull the life tube of FSX, I have the feeling that with the public announcement as well as the other marketing strategies for Flight, MS will try to end the healthy add-on development market of FSX and make its supporters shift to Flight.And I feel that if MS fails to do so (attract us FS enthousiasts to Flight as planned), the whole saga could become a funny competition between MS Flight and FSX... Can you immagine in the upcoming months, MS competing with its own product that got out of its control (FSX I mean)?! Or more precisely with the add-ons of its own product, FSX ... :)It could be a very interesting situation to watch!Cheers