kevinfirth

I find AI to be really helpful in some cases. Ethical use demands a reality check though, just like journalists don't publish without having two independent sources to verify information. Doesnt mean you have to check EVERYTHING, but a sense check really helps. I've learned this the hard way, using AI to generate flight sim related procedures, then finding out afterwards that it was only half right and needed a little correction!

Thats great, what settings do you use to have it working for you please? I cant seem to get anything.

I won't comment on individual users feelings about the product and any perceived issues with how it flies. As a member of the beta team I can attest that every report of every issue is considered, debated (sometimes at length!), with rw pilot input and oft-times researching of technical documentation available to the team. Nothing is batted away off hand, there's always a rationale as to why something needs changing or not. Issues need to be verified, reproduced, analysed, determined to be a problem with the product, fixable within the SDK, and viable/prioritised accordingly. Raul himself is an absolute machine and demands the best obtainable fidelity. Personally my performance is well within my excellent hardware capabilities, but yes it is relatively demanding compared to some products. There's a reason for that though, the level of underlying complexity in the simulation is outrageous!

Expect even the lifts to work in the FBO and to have to feed the fish in the aquarium! 🤭

If I understand Raul as I think I do, you should expect to find anything that's feasibly possible to simulate in 2024 simulated 😉 (..and possible some things that no-one ever thought were possible but he made happen anyway!)

I haven't experienced this issue myself it's worked perfectly. I did experience a glitch with calibration of throttle axes the other day but on restart of the SIM it disappeared and worked A OK.

Which bugs specifically?

Assymetric thrust definitely is modelled because on the ground I've steered with it... 🤣

The head dev is really committed and responsive on Discord. The aircraft itself is just getting better and better. It is quite complicated in places though, and definitely is NOT something you should expect to be able to just jump in and fly like an airliner.

And if this should be so, it is their right, is it not, to do so? None of us here have the right to condemn another for what they do or don't find acceptable.

So, first real go on SU5, it's recognising my Fulcrum yoke as a f*cking Tobi, so it's unuseable 😞

I asked about this on their discord today: If I fail say the outboard engine 4, will the correction needed for the resulting assymetric remaining thrust be realistically modelled? FSR], Farley — 14:07 Yes. However bear in mind that, A) it's a 4-engined plane, so unless you're at very low airspeed, you're really not going to feel that much. B) at low airspeeds, there is a system called ATCS which automatically reduces thrust to the opposite outboard engine (you'll see a blue wedge between commanded HP and actual HP on the dial) to reduce the asymmetric thrust.

Nah, only paid £1800 for mine last year, best upgrade I ever made in terms of performance (and value compared to now!). all luck though, can't claim any massive prescience 🤣

Update from a few days ago on Majestic forums is they have a modeler now, work has been done in the exterior, and will move on to the VC when that's complete

To be fair, any decent atc app is going to have to take a chunk of performance away from other stuff. Everything costs compute, whichever way you slice it.

I'll retract my earlier comment - I was watching on my phone, but just having rewatched in 4k, I can see many differences and improvements. Whether it's worth it as an update I'll leave to others to decide individually....

I'm just not convinced, looks to me like pretty much all of those comparison shots were taken under different lighting conditions. So how much of any visual differences are due to the better lighting capabilities of the sim engine itself as opposed to the modelling? I wonder...

Ok, but I wasn't going into the politics of it, no point, and I absolutely don't want to litigate the actual referendum again(!), just curious as to whether it was a semi self inflicted outcome...

Unintended but quite foreseeable. Given the age profile of people I saw at the show, it would be interesting to learn how many of them voted leave...

Thankyou. I've set up the oasis driver, couldnt get the controllers to connect via my onboard bluetooth, but fortunately there's just been a beta driver release last week that allows connection via the headset itself - so have that all working great. I havent played with the frequencies yet, but will do. I see what you mean about the sweet spot, just have to live with that I guess! Cheers!

Just making a foray into VR, wondering if anyone had any tips/tricks to share that will cut my learning curve please? 😁 Thanks in advance!

..apart from the fact you need 2x 5090's to run it

Asobo's advice to combat contribution culling seems to be to group objects, so they are evaluated as more significant by the sim engine and pass the render threshold. It will be interesting to hear some feedback from @Kaiii3 as to whether their internal testing has shown this can mitigate the problems?

For the benefit of others, the landing gear issue is apparently a function of 'contribution culling." Here's a summary produced through Claude AI. Contribution culling is one of the more fascinating rendering optimisations in MSFS 2024, and it operates at several different levels. Here's a breakdown of what it is and how it works in that engine. What "contribution" means In the sim's rendering pipeline, every object — a building, a tree, a terrain patch, a cloud — is assigned a contribution value: an estimate of how much it actually affects the final pixel output. This is a function of several things combined: the object's apparent screen size, its distance from the camera, lighting conditions, and whether it's occluded by other geometry. Objects with low contribution aren't worth paying the GPU cost to render. The culling hierarchy MSFS 2024 applies contribution culling in a tiered way: How the contribution score is built The score isn't just distance. MSFS 2024 factors in: Projected screen area — how many pixels the object would actually cover. A large hangar at 2 km scores much higher than a lamppost at 500 m. Luminance contribution — objects in shadow or behind haze have their score reduced. A dark tree in an overcast scene contributes less than a sunlit building. Object priority class — the sim assigns category weights. Aircraft, runways, and navaids have protected high-priority classes; ambient vegetation and distant traffic are low-priority and get culled first under frame budget pressure. Temporal history — if an object was culled last frame, it carries a small hysteresis penalty to avoid flickering (the "popping" artefact where objects flash in and out). The render budget dimension This is what makes MSFS 2024's approach different from older LOD-only systems. Rather than a fixed distance cutoff, the engine runs a budget-aware cull pass. Each frame has an estimated GPU time budget, and the system ranks surviving draw calls by their contribution score. If the scene is cheap (empty ocean, no weather), almost everything passes. If the scene is expensive (dense photogrammetry city, heavy cloud layer, rain effects), the threshold rises and lower-contribution objects get cut — even ones that would have passed under normal conditions. Shadow pass separation Shadow rendering runs its own contribution pass independently of the main view. An object can be rendered in the primary scene but culled from the shadow map (or vice versa, though that's rare). Ground vehicle shadows, for example, are often culled at distances where the vehicle itself is still visible, since the shadow's pixel contribution is negligible from altitude. World streaming interaction Contribution culling feeds back into the streaming priority system. Tiles whose objects would be immediately culled on load don't get promoted in the streaming queue — the system avoids spending bandwidth on assets that won't make it past the cull threshold anyway. This is why you'll notice different pop-in behaviour depending on viewing angle and altitude: the engine is continuously recalculating what's worth pulling down. Where you feel it as a sim pilot At cruise altitude, dense cities resolve more slowly not just because tiles are far away, but because individual building contribution scores drop as screen area shrinks. Fast panning camera moves can cause brief popping because the contribution scores haven't stabilised yet for the new view direction. Heavy weather scenes cull more aggressively to keep frame rates stable, which is why distant scenery can look sparser inside a storm than outside one.

some active sceneries in add-on linker were detected, and some werent