Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

403 Excellent

About ADamiani

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

1,137 profile views
  1. But here we are talking about an unrealistic challenge that some very good simmers (probably including Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise and a few others) do manage to beat. That makes it look unreal, yes. A.
  2. Great rugby players! Quite spectacular, and nothing can beat a Tonga - Samoa match .... The sound is sooo exotic .... A.
  3. I think maybe reversing mid air could be useful. I actually landed there easily on my faithful 172 with a headwind around 25 knots. A.
  4. I agree: an unrealistic challenge makes you wonder how realistic the sim is. They could split them in two: "challenges" and "impossible missions" or something like that. A.
  5. It IS the case. Performs better, looks worse. This is what I and many others see. You don't. Good for you, enjoy. I am not sure I understand what you mean by "look inward". Care to elaborate for a foreigner? Thank you A.
  6. Yes as I wrote it is also stable for me now. Remembering the frustration of those weeks, I really hope that everyone can get it sorted. Graphically, I still see a big difference w.r.t. SU4 in clouds, lighting, lod, and the popping forests bug is pretty annoying. A.
  7. I really find it hard to believe that you experienced no graphics downgrade in SU5, nevertheless, if that's what you see, ok. But please don't call it a theory, because I had the crashes (lots of them) which were real enough, the memory footprint reduction has been measured and verified (and confirmed by the devs), and the graphics and lighting downgrade has also been confirmed (and partly repaired with a hotfix). The popping forests are a fact, not a theory. I believe that this happened to fit the boxes, someone else may have a different explanation, and these are theories. But facts are facts. It's as if I refused to say that performance has improved. A.
  8. Let's not generalize. I had a totally vanilla MSFS (I like the steam gauges 172 with default scenery). It had been rock solid for many months before SU5. It started crashing with SU5. Stable again now after a hotfix. My pc is also used for tedious numerical computations, so no overclock of any kind here: I need it stable, I cannot afford losing hours of work because I played with settings. Room temperature is always between 24 and 26 degrees, all year round, humidity is also controlled. So "local issues" is not the moral of the story. "Unstable release, subsequently fixed" is. Otherwise why did they push the hotfix asap? Of course, addons, .ini files tinkering, CPU OC, GPU OC, RAM OC, hardware issues, can also cause ctds. Not what happened to me and many others, though. A.
  9. Never said it was a crime, although pushing a broken update that prevented me from flying (due to ctds) for the only two weeks I had free from work was not the brightest move on their part. But I hope to see the sim back to SU4 graphics level and stability (this is ok for me now). With current performance, if possible. I don't like forests appearing suddenly out of thin air, but apparently that will be fixed. I don't like the recurrent hiccup on final between 300 and 400 feet. Let's see what comes next. A.
  10. I gave my reasons, expressed in the clearest form, and you can find them in the past posts. The short version is that before su5, I had the sim of my dreams: performance was good, graphics spectacular. Then, a few things happened together: nerfed graphics, simplified lighting, reduced memory footprint (that coincidentally fits exactly in the small box capabilities, while before that I had observed a total memory occupation above 32 GB on some occasions), repeated ctds, while su4 had been rock solid. All this in the same day when the sim became compatible with the 'boxes. Nobody will ever convince me that it was a coincidence. Back to flying. A.
  11. He wrote "the accusation they have lowered quality to meet requirements of the console version is completely illogical for a number of reasons" . I already wrote that I don't think this is illogical. Quite the contrary. I think this is it. We have different opinions, so be it. Back to flying (those who can fly) and work. A.
  12. As I already wrote and explained in detail a few times, I believe that the graphics were "simplified" to fit in the limited memory of a 'box. It is not illogical at all, quite the contrary. Your opinion is different. We don't agree but we can peacefully live with that. Maybe we agree on a million other things, all more relevant than this one. Also, let's not forget the clunky, bugged, unstable release that was pushed on us innocent bystanders to meet the 'boxes deadline: that was not a brilliant move, whoever decided it (I strongly suspect that it was not Asobo, so who might have been, one wonders ....). The whole problem will be solved when we get SU4 visuals with present performance, possibly without the nearly-systematic hiccup on final approach, which I really hate (I can't complain about stability with the present release). I'm looking forward to that, because the product has very good potential, and I really like the idea of seeing it grow in time. A.
  13. Pro tip: no need to read my posts while flying the sim. Just relax and enjoy your flight. I do enjoy it when everything works fine and looks good. Pro tip #2: In an emergency, you can use the "ignore user" option. In what way does some unknown guy writing in a Forum have an influence on your degree of enjoyment of anything at all? If you like it, have fun! Do you think that I should stop watching Aussie Rules Football because 99.9% people I know out of Australia don't like it? (Not to mention cricket). A.
  14. Why should I answer to March? I totally agree when he says "I wasn't happy, too, because I was satisfied with the FPS overall to begin with, and if I hadn't been I would have lowered some settings. Simple. I didn't want enforced drawing/popping in that didn't exist before. That was a genuine faux pas on Asobo's part; they should have introduced the new rendering slider option to begin with, to allow each user to tweak the rendering as we now can." I do not agree with this: "So, they have listened to feedback again. They are always tweaking based on feedback, not to meet requirements of a different hardware platform." I don't think so, but his opinion is quite respectable. A.
  • Create New...