tttocs

My VRAM would NOT agree! As always, nothing comes for free and one of the costs for all of this PG is increased VRAM usage. I've definitely bumped the limit in several of the larger areas - note that some of the enhanced areas extend well beyond NP boundaries. The area in southern Utah, which features the "Mighty Five" (Arches, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon and Zion) is ginormous. So far I'm super impressed with the details, but not always the colors. All PG areas have a slight color cast (pink-purple) on my system, and always have going back to 2020. I've seen enough screen shots to know that others see this as well. In some areas it's not that noticeable for me, but in others... Gives new meaning to the phrase "purple mountain majesties". Scott

Well that would be lovely, but no. New SSD to replace the failed drive (which contained much of my sim stuff), otherwise still limping along on the old system. Had backups but thought it better to start with fresh installs. Scott

Well, I'd like to say yes that's it, but... I found my problem, and it was me. Above I noted that I had re-installed all of my planes and had manually reconfigured everything according to a config doc I keep. It seems I hadn't remembered that you have to scroll down to see the full list of options on the Black Square EFB, so I configured everything I saw. I noticed when I rechecked after your post. Mystery solved, face red. Classic PEBKAC error. Bad Scott. No Biscuit. My excuse is that there have been SOOO many things I've had to redo/restore, I was rushing a lot, and it was inevitable that I'd miss something simple. Yep, that's my excuse. Scott

This is a classic - "is it just me, or is it everyone?" post. Since the last update, dynamic registrations are missing on all of my Black Square planes. This could well be me, but so far I've been unable to find a solution. My flight sim drive crashed a couple of weeks ago and rather than try to restore most of it from backup, I did a complete re-install. MSFS 2024, planes, scenery, the works. Settings were all restored to the my old values, not with the old config file but rebuilt manually, as I have all settings documented. At about the same time, the latest update hit so I have two major changes, and am not sure which one is causing me grief. So, anyone else seeing this, or am I missing something? Scott

Just did my first flight in one of the new areas. The Canyonlands region of SW Utah is one of my favorite places on the planet. I've hiked it, camped it, rafted it, jeeped it and flown over it regularly over a period spanning decades. I love the place and have always been disappointed in how it has looked in various sims with various software attempts over the years. So how does the new update do? Wonderful! And yet, not in some aspects. First off, while it should probably be obvious to most, it might not be for everyone - these "National Park" updates are vast areas of PG. If you have PG turned off, you're not going to see the improvements and you can skip what follows. On the positive side, at least for this region, the PG extends far beyond the boundaries of the two NPs in the area - Canyonlands and Arches NPs. I flew out of Grand Junction, CO and followed the Colorado River into the region, picking up the PG well east of any of the park boundaries, and that's good, as the canyons begin well outside of any park boundaries. Which leads me to the first not-so-great... the transition between PG and normal scenery on this one is obvious, abrupt and a bit of an immersion killer until you're past seeing it. Colors and textures are just so dramatically different that it's more than a bit off-putting. That said, the canyon country itself is simply spectacular. All the features in this area I know and love so well are there in sharp, glorious detail. None of the melted ice-cream canyon edges that have plagued previous looks at the area are present. The canyon regions are sharp, detailed, complex and beautifully rendered. But... One of the more interesting aspects to the Moab area is the proximity of the redrock canyons to a significant mountain range, the La Sals, which features peaks rising to almost 13,000'. I was running a TLOD of 400, and when viewed from a distance the PG is not rendered and the mountains appeared fine. However, as I flew closer to the mountains and the PG kicked in, the mountains become too pinkish and looked very washed out. The dominate colors and shadings that were right for the canyons were very wrong for the mountains, and that's pretty disappointing. The stunning RL transition from redrock canyon to alpine terrain was, well, less than meh in the sim. Will be interested to see if others are getting this, or if something wasn't right on my system. I did get one VRAM warning on the flight, but it wasn't when I was near the mountains, and at the point I was seeing this effect, my VRAM was well below limits (as monitored with AutoFPS in conjunction with GPU-Z), so I don't think my system was rendering the scene improperly. Nevertheless, I could be wrong. So, a mixed bag. It will be interesting to see how other areas do, or don't blend to their surrounding terrain. Scott

I'm guessing you fly airliners to and from major airports. And/or you've never really spent time using the integrated tools that work seamlessly in the Navigraph ecosystem. If you fly category A or B aircraft, or you enjoy flying to GA and many regional airports around the world (other than in the US) then you're out of luck with the default charts as they only cover larger airports outside of the US, and they don't contain data for category A or B at the airports that are covered. The exception is in the US, where default charts include FAA charts for lesser fields. Navigraph would be the LAST subscription I'd give up in the sim. Scott

I selected "Yes" in the poll because I usually do look at more than just the first for any livery I'm seriously considering. There are some paints that just hit me right off and I know I don't need to view additional images. In most cases, however, I don't see enough to fully decide in the first image and I just need to get more angles for a better feel. It's probably 70/30 in my case. That said, the first image is more than enough for me to pass on most paints. So, it's a bit of a qualified response. As several others have mentioned and as an FYI, I rarely pick up a livery these days that doesn't support dynamic registration. Scott

Not just better, but necessary. Another reason why, as a GA flyer, Jepp is the right choice. Yep, if you fly airliners, the LIDO charts are arguably better... because they're designed specifically for the big iron and omit data (and airports!) needed for small to medium GA. It's not a question of which is "better", so much as it is one of which is the most appropriate for what each of us fly. I've got nothing against LIDO, but I still believe it to be the poorer overall choice for a sim like MSFS with its wide audience and whole world coverage. LIDO is for big iron flying to and from large airports. Jepp covers far more aircraft types and fields. Scott

Got the update this morning. MS Store version, which included a substantial download. After the update? Couldn't be happier so far. As with SU5, I appear to have gained a bit of performance. Before moving to '24, I was fairly balanced between CPU and GPU. Since moving from '20, I've clearly been GPU limited, but SU5 improved things on the GPU side, and this update seems to have taken that a small step further based on the (obviously small sample size) flying I did today. Don't see any obvious quality degradation either. The improvements are small, but noticeable on my aging system. Sorry if others are having a different experience, but all upside here. So far (knock wood). Scott

Indeed. LIDO covers almost NO airports that I actually fly into as a GA flyer, and while the sim does provide FAA charts in the US for the (many) airports not covered by LIDO, it doesn't provide similar options in other countries. I also prefer Jepp to LIDO and definitely prefer them to FAA charts. The LIDO offerings may be great for many scheduled airline flights, but they are pretty much a non starter for me. And with all of the other tools and integrations offered by Navigraph I find my sub one of the best values in simming. YMMV, of course, depending on the kind of flying you do. Scott

I think I'll coin a new phrase: Too many hobbies, not enough equity! 🤣 Scott

When I returned to simming after a long layoff (now almost 2 years back, good grief!), I decided I was going to be extremely selective in the planes I purchased this time around. No more impulse purchases of pretty faces, only high quality models of planes that match my personal interests get considered these days. As a consequence, every plane I own gets flown regularly so this would be a really tough call. That said, at heart I'm a turbo-charged, single engine piston guy. While twins beguile me, turbines tempt me, and I've recently even added a jet with glass (and I'm enjoying it! Don't tell anybody!), push come to shove I'd still revert back to who I am IRL. So... If it's really the ONLY one I could have - The BS Turbo-normalized Bonanza would be it. Piston guy that I am, it was still tough not to say the BS TBM 850. As Ryan notes earlier, it's such a great "sweet spot" airplane - fast and with an avionics setup that just works for me - but I'd miss the sound of my piston engines too much! Side note: Lost my "data" D: drive late yesterday - about 1.5 TB of "stuff". So I get the "what if you could only have NO planes" scenario. No simming for me until the new SSD arrives and I get things restored. Critical stuff (but not everything!) is backed up in the cloud, but this is still going to be a pain as pretty much my whole sim environment was on it. I think the computer deities are trying to tell me something. 3 weeks ago one of my 16GB RAM sticks failed. Scott

Nice to see someone's gonna integrate the Avidyne unit. I've no idea how I'll feel about it compared to the Garmin 750, but I've been hoping a plane I'd want would come along that featured the it. This one should be fun. As for the delay, if there's one attribute I've picked up as I've gotten older, it's patience. I can wait for quality. Scott

This cannot be emphasized enough. I keep seeing folks saying things like "it can't be bandwidth, I've got a 2 terrabit internet connection". That's all well and good, and, in fact, overkill on your side. MSFS doesn't really require anything more than average (by today's standards) bandwidth on your end. But mongo bandwidth on your end doesn't help when the servers you're accessing don't have the necessary capacity and/or your path to those servers has bottlenecks. Even here in the SE US, where MS server capacity seems well above average, I'll occasionally note a bit of softness on weekends when server load tends to be higher. Scott

Depending on where you're trying to import, there are two places on the Phenom where you need to enter your Simbrief credentials. The most obvious one is in the EFB, but if you import directly from the Garmin units (specifically the GTC interface) you'll need to input your credentials there as well. Other than that, verify that you are using your account name (not email address), double-check the password and be sure you have a recent FP to import. Can't think of anything else offhand, Scott

I think you missed the point I was trying to make, which basically mirrors what you're saying here. PG is a tradeoff. There's good, there's bad and how those balance is going to vary depending on personal preferences and the kind of flying being done. As you say, it is what it is. I don't personally see that many melted buildings around the airports I typically fly into, but the trees? Yep and ugh! I use Bijan's seasons, so at least some of these are being eliminated as he's actively working to remove them around airports. It's a work in progress and a very big world, but it does help. And BTW, some people DO fly cities like they're giant air race courses (even if you or I don't), and if that's what someone wants to do, no judgement on my part. * But they will see the world differently than I do. That's what I was getting at with Chicago. And obviously, as noted, helicopter flying is a whole 'nother thing. The city looked great to me on a beautiful sunny day, from a real world GA VFR flight perspective. Scott Edit: - * oh, OK. Maybe a little judgement. 😆

Things HAVE been improving, as the PG in the newer "cities" updates have been generally higher quality. Still doesn't mean you won't see issues up close, of course. That said, I do wonder how some of you fly. I'd seen criticisms of the PG in the new update of the Chicago area, so I did a nice VFR flight yesterday afternoon from Indianapolis to Green Bay, WI. Along the way, I did the Chicago "Skyline Tour" just as I would in RL, down to 2000' to get under the O'Hare Bravo and the Midway Charlie, and about a half mile out over the lake. The city looked terrific to me, but then - I wasn't flying pylons between the downtown buildings, I was doing what I would/could really fly in a fixed wing AC. As others have noted, investing in some of the payware cities is one solution if things really bug you, but there's a cost, both in $$ and performance in some cases. Drzewiecki Design's Chicago product, for example, is a bit heavy on frames for my tastes and system, especially when combined with their KMDW. I'm perfectly happy with the new default version, but YMMV. My apologies to those of you who fly helicopters, as you do live in a different world. Bottom line for me remains that PG is a tradeoff with good and bad aspects. For me, the good far outweighs the bad in most places. Some fall on the other side of the fence. Scott

Wait, what? Really? That is VERY good news. LOVE the BS TBM, but the sounds are by far its weakest point. Scott

The rental idea is an interesting one, but it has it's limits, time being the biggest. And it's not a matter of just "listening to others". Over the years, most knowledgeable people learn how to read reviews/opinions and filter the highs and lows. In a forum like this, we also get a feeling for posters who's tastes and use models are similar to our own - as well as those that are not. There's value in that. It's not a matter of blindly adhering to others' thoughts, it's taking in available information and considering it. That's what this group is for, after all. Scott

Just took a quick look at DD KMDW and didn't see any glaring issues - this was on the ramp at Signature. Didn't check out the terminal area. Scott

Just absorbing information for a potential buying decision on an add-on I'm interested in. When experienced users who's opinions I generally value see issues, I have concerns. I also have concerns about not having support directly from FSR. That's not drama, it's absorbing information and discussing it. Your input is appreciated and considered as well, of course. Scott

That is just awful! Graphics that poor in a 2026 product is well below my buy/no-buy line. Add in bugs which may be addressed eventually, but may not given the support structure? Hard pass and as noted above VERY disappointing. Scott

Well, this is highly disappointing. I never picked up the 500 due to the FSR branding (a minor thing since I know it can be addressed by community mods) and the lack of the standby AI. I had high hopes that the 600 would be an exciting, and better, alternative. Sounds like no, and with no direct support from FSR itself? Yikes. Thanks for the heads-up guys! Scott

I'm also very much looking forward to this one. I'll never forget the first time I sat in a 114 cockpit at Oshkosh many long years ago. I had no idea a single engine piston cockpit could be so wide and comfortable. No, it's not a speed demon, but you arrive at your destination in style and comfort. Should be a great addition to the hangar. Scott

Sorry for the late response. I've been off on a camping/cycling trip and (blissfully!) away from the internet for the last week plus. I'm happy to have the throttles behave as they would in the RW as well. However, note that there is at least agreement that there is indeed a detent for the TOGA position, which is actually the one I find most needed. So it is not, in fact, modeled accurately. No matter. As far as I'm concerned, I've said my piece on the developer's Discord and been told it ain't happenin'. I've accepted that position and moved on. If it bugs me enough, I can always buy the Prodesksim mod for my Bravo and have physical detents. I mean, hey it's only $109 (cough - not happening - cough!). And for what it's worth, I still love the plane. Sometimes that gets lost when we start to dive into the details and nuances. Scott