Jump to content

AnkH

Members
  • Content Count

    2,277
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,008 Excellent

1 Follower

About AnkH

  • Rank
    Member - 2,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3,837 profile views
  1. True, I use ProATC/X in P3Dv5.x due to this. But then, at least P3D gets it right in regard of which runway should be in use, at least most of the time. While in MSFS, it is most of the time plain wrong, in the exact opposite direction. Now of course you can argue that you do not have to use default ATC in MSFS, but it is somehow connected to quiet some stuff, no? Most obvious example is AI traffic, which then takes off and lands on the opposite runway. Now you can argue again that you do not have to use AI traffic, sure. And so on. This is (to me) the main issue with MSFS: it has a lot stuffed in, but also a lot of the basics are just done wrong or buggy. And those basics need to work, also for a lot of addons that depend upon them. Example: it will be nice when AIG comes with their full blown AI traffic to MSFS, but as long as the basics, the correct assignment of the runway by the sim itself, does not work, it will be a mess anyway, even with the nicest AI models, the best flightplans or fully live traffic.
  2. Add the fact that default ATC constantly assignes you the 180° wrong runway for take offs and landings and you can have a small, little glimpse why people still tend to call MSFS a VFR-only sim. BTW: for me, it all depends on addons. With Navigraph and proper addons such as the CRJ and the FBW A320N, the argument is greatly reduced, but for some aspects it is still somehow true (see above ATC issue). Then, and I think many are on the same boat here, I often use "IFR" equivalent to "tube-liner flying". And this is really no big joy with the default tubeliners included...
  3. Just downloaded from the MS Store, 1.00 GB. Lets see, if this really enables multiplayer again...
  4. Nice, btw: did a short flight yesterday and noticed some issues, might be my fault: - the AUTO EXT gear light (the yellow one) was blinking all the time, is this correct? - I was not able to use the radios via ATC menue, how come? I could dial in the correct frequency manually and it worked, but not via ATC menue. Is this how it is supposed to be?
  5. You obviously did not get my point or I was not able to make myself clear. What I wanted to say is (I try again): If you are sitting e.g. 1m from your monitor away, it is not the resolution that matters (alone), but the PPI of your screen on how your experience is influenced in regard of pixelated edges, crispness of the display etc. If you have a 27" 1440p screen 1m away with a PPI of 108 it might give you the experience of a crisper and better image compared to a 70" 4K screen 1m away, simply due to the fact that the PPI of the smaller screen is so much higher. I am specifically not talking about the overall experience, which might be still superior due to the huge size of the screen (but this is another field of experience). That is all I wanted to say by bringing PPI into account, not only 1080p vs. 4K etc...
  6. How the hell can a screen with a defined size, e.g. 27 inch, and a defined resolution, e.g. 2560x1440p have different PPI's? I dont get this, you will always result in exact the same amount of pixels? What you are saying is that depending on the technology, the pixels are closer or further apart from each other, correct, but on a whole screen, this then automatically results in a different resolution on a different size. Example: if you have 1.5 um gap between pixels vs. 1 um gap, you will be able to have a higher resolution on a smaller screen with the latter one, of course. Yet you will still only have a defined amount of pixels per area and this is directly proportional to the term PPI. Use instead pixels per square centimeter or whatever, the result is still the same... What you are trying to say is that with technology A, you can build a panel with 27" and 4K resolution while with technology B, you wont be able to fit a higher resolution than 1440p on the same 27" panel. But this still comes down to pixel density, no?
  7. Sure, I was just irritated by your statement that "most name-brand screens are fairly sharp and have a decent pixel density these days"...
  8. Pixel density is only depending on the resolution and the screen size. I do not know why you think that this is somehow related to name-branded screens or not. Even the most expensive 70" screen with 4K will have only 63 ppi, no matter what panel is used and how expensive or cheap the screen is... Just take a look at your cell phone, why do you think that the image on this small display is so sharp? Exactly, because todays cell phones have a very high ppi, my S10E for example has a whopping 483 ppi. To achieve this on my 27" monitor, the screen would need a resolution of more than 8K (!). Of course, this is unrealistic (today) and as mentioned, I am never as close to my 27" screen as I am to the cell phone monitor. So I do not need such a pixel density on my computer screen. Same goes for your football stadium LED, this probably has an ultra-bad pixel density, but because we sit so far away from this screen, it does not really matter. But vice versa, running 4K on a huge screen such as 70" is pretty much useless until you move your eyepoint so far away that the picture is really sharp. Certainly way more than the 1.40m mentioned here. Get closer, eg. 70cm, reduce the size by half and the resolution by half and you have exactly the same appearance. Get even closer, eg. 35cm, reduce again size and resolution by half and you still have the same experience. Or, what I am trying to say: the image on a 27" 1440p monitor is, assuming you sit a certain distance away, more crisp and sharp than on a 70" 4K display. Sounds complicated and I am not very good in explaining it, but what I am trying to say is: it is not the resolution that defines how crisp and sharp a display appears, but how far away you sit from it and how high the pixel density is.
  9. The funny thing is that people tend to forget that basically all that matters is not the screen size or the resolution of the screen, but the pixel density of the screen. If someone is using a 70" screen with 4K, this is still only 63 ppi. Considering the fact that this ridicously low pixel density is also achieved by a 34" FullHD screen, it is rather funny that people use such a setup for "gaming". My 27" 1440p monitor has a ppi of 109, and I consider this already at the edge of being acceptable. But 63 ppi? Seriously?
  10. Then proof me wrong, otherwise it is just blabla...
  11. No further comments if a.single.water.mask.in.france being added seems to be relevant enough to be mentioned in such a short-communication via twitter...
  12. Do you have the dev mode active? Try once without...
  13. Brilliant idea to take the screenshots in "winter" with snow, as it is by far more visible than in the "alltime summer" screenshots. This was also the reason I initially caught it, when I was flying around in the Alps with snow coverage, then the low draw distance is extremely obvious on the mountains in front of you.
  14. Well, with VSYNC you will never get anything above 60FPS, so yes, for such tests, I would definitively turn off VSYNC.
  15. Silly question, but you do not have by chance VSYNC on, do you? What does the developers FPS counter says in regard of ms for the GPU comparing 1440p with 720p? And how many ms you have under CPU?
×
×
  • Create New...