AnkH

I guess you did not get the point about the landing gear... we are not talking about landing gear up or down, but about the annoying LOD culling by the sim resulting in landing gear no longer visible when looking from a certain distance...

Proof or it did not happen with visible landing gear. Even Asobo devs claimed it fixed, one single startup from the sim showed how wrong this claim was 😉

Completely disagree. While back in FSX days you werent able to avoid those things even with the currently best hardware due to its limitations (e.g. 32bit code), nowadays it seems more of an issue that people forgot that there is something called "settings" in the menue and that you have to put those settings according to the hardware you use. Nowadays, if not all settings can be put on "everything ultra max super duper", the game is "unfinished piece of garbage" (not only in the simming world, you can see that discussion for almost every game). Example: I have a 4090 with 24GB VRAM, yet I use "only" the setting "high" vor texture quality. Why? Because "high" is sufficient and it results in a nice overhead of free VRAM even in the heaviest scenarios (at around 20GB there). And personally, I do not see that much of a difference compared to "ultra", even on my 32" 4K monitor. Same goes for TLOD: I use AutoFPS to dynamically adjust the TLOD. No need for TLOD=400 when sitting on a huge airport at the gate. Also the built in dynamic setting does a good job in adjusting TLOD dynamically. But you have to use it... You have to adjust the settings to the hardware. And you have to accept that even with a 5070Ti with 16GB VRAM, you are NOT running the sim on the current best hardware available, even if this statement hurts because of the sheer amount of dollar such a GPU costs... Or in short: if you put those settings right and according to what your hardware is capable of (not: what you wish it should be capable of...), MSFS2024 runs perfectly smooth on almost every machine. If you have time and energy left for some tweaking, you can even make the sim run better (e.g. AutoFPS, dynamic setting). There is absolutely NO need to fiddle around with files comparable to the fibre factor stuff in FSX days.

Well, this sounds slightly different than the initial post, no? If you go back and read what you wrote there, you should understand the answers it triggered. Would have been wiser to start off with this post above instead of the one you actually did. Anyway, back to topic: can you already say something about the AI planes you use in your WIP videos? Are those MSFS default? FSLTL? AIG? Or something else? Because those lights in the WIP-002 are looking good ;-)

Well, never turned it off with my 4090, because VRAM is not an issue with my setup currently (single 4K monitor using DLSS Quality).

Thats great, a video of a single AI plane taxiing, stopped right before the interesting part (the final parking) and showing absoluetly nothing that differentiates it from any other AI traffic addon. I am overwhelmed... not.

I would agree on most points, but FSHud has one huge disadvantage for me: they still did not implement pushback (or jetway connection). BATC has pushback of AI planes and it is 100x more immersive on an airport. Those 180° turns right at the gate insta-kill the immersion when using FSHud.

Well, this so-called "longevity" was basically based on the fact that from FSX up to P3Dv3 (or whatever version prior switch to 64bit) was basically using the exact same base engine (ESP). Preventing real evolution. Or do you all forgot about this annoying OOM stories? Prior FSX, a new Microsoft Flight Simulator iteration every two years was default and gold standard... just to remind you of the glorified old days properly ;-)

I too stopped using it, the difference is just not worth the hassle and I already have enough addons to be started along my simming session, one less to care about.

Thank you, this all makes sense, sure, but it fails the moment one of those static planes sits at the very gate the FR24 based one should be injected. E.g. if the airport has only few gates and e.g. only one for this specific airline. What happens then? Will the static one be used instead by turning this active instead of static? Same if the plane from FR24 data is injected into final approach phase, but there is no matching AND free gate due to static planes, what happens with this plane after landing? Does it simply go to an unmatching gate and park there? Does it vanish?

Why again no one is answering my pretty simple questions? Already in the FSLTL thread this was ignored. Should I rephrase it? I would really like to know this...

I dont understand this static parked ac thing (FSLTL with FR24 offers the same). How does it work, e.g. if then an airplane leaves the gate? Does it spawn a new plane on the texiway? Does it pushback the matching static plane? And what happens with arriving traffic? Does it disappear just in front of the gate?

What I said above...

Well, the GSX video is obviously taken in the last days, the Ini variant of multiple jetways is not yet out. So what should be the conclusion of this?

It seems that both Ini AND GSX are suddenly on the verge of releasing something for multiple jetway support. The Ini version will initially be limited to IniBuilds airports (according to their discord), the GSX variant will work on every addon airport, given that the jetways are not modelled as static scenery components. While I look forward to this long-awaited feature, I fear that this double approach of two independent studios developing the exact same will result in a mess instead of a good solution for us simmers. Hope the ini version will not hamper the GSX one and vice versa.

Looks good, but as so many regions havent been touched by one single WU, it is still a slight disappointment.

Ok, forced symlink and account needed, I skip this one as well

has some really nice functions, but the symlink stuff kills it for me, I use AddonsLinker and I certainly do not want to be forced to use it. Can it be used without this? Otherwise I have to say no sadly...

I bet it will be coming with the same limitations as any other 3rd party weather addon: you only get one cloud coverage at a time and you need transitions. Whether they are smooth or not, they will never be able to depict the weather here in Switzerland correctly e.g.

Hope you are right.

Because I fear incompatibilities if it comes from Ini. And I have definitively no need for a jetway addon that doesnt work together with GSX.

Or a working jump ahead feature like the QWsim 787 had. Still miss this nice function in the long haul addons for MSFS2024

Pity if Ini develops and releases a SODE-like addon, this should be the work of GSX. Hopefully they talk at least with each other, multiple jetways addon that doesnt work with GSX is nothing to look forward to imho...

He was asking why Asobo does not open the API for it, not why jetways do work for the internally controlled AI traffic vs external AI traffic.

Because they think that it hampers performance. Like the landing gear culling idiotism...