Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,476 Excellent

About blueshark747

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

3,277 profile views
  1. AI traffic as it sits in MSFS is low effort and even outdated for a release 2020. The AI traffic implementation doesn't match with the effort and innovation of the terrain/aerodynamics tech in MSFS.
  2. Thanks for the heads up, not gonna buy this one yet.
  3. Connection issues will do that to photogrammetry in places dense cities like Hong Kong, NYC or Sao Paolo. It was a bad timing thing for me back then, haven't seen that issue in the last two SU/WUs though.
  4. I don't see that much of a load increase with those cloud types in VR, then again maybe it's more of a 4K 2D thing.
  5. Nah....its much easier just to blame Hans Hartmann even though the same people with those pitchforks are lowkey enjoying the ATR🤣
  6. MSFS does have a too bright washed out look since release in both 2D and VR during middle of the day clear weather hours. It's pretty much the equivalent of jumping out of a pool as a kid with chlorine still in your eyes on a hot sunny summer day. This was solved with VR thanks to OpenXR Toolkit image/contrast/brightness settings. For those who never leave the virtual cockpit the default Longitude's darker cockpit glass tint would be great across multiple other default and addon aircraft.
  7. Notice every screenshot you see of XP12 is the only sweetspot people think actually looks good. Late evening sunset or early sunrise hours lighting with that wet pavement is the go to "see XP12 looks gorgeous too" every time.😂 At this point it's pretty much the go to setting for addon devs to take screenshots of products because anything outside of the sunrise/sunset/wet pavement looks just as bland as XP11.🤣
  8. Honestly the latest E 175/95 builds from Virtualcol flies autopilot/flightpaths pretty well surprisingly. The interiors are just terrible to look at and the landing physics feel like absolute unrealistic feather weight mush. Still waiting to hear if the performance issues with the FSS E175 are all solved before I buy. I'm enjoying their Tecnam P2006 product so far.
  9. A Virtualcol A220 is as good as no A220. Looking forward to what Synaptic Simulations are working on.
  10. Orlando and Tampa airports were always neglected in flight sims. That's how Taxi2Gate sucked us in the first time with FSX/P3D KMCO. That ended up being a horrible performing product also ..
  11. I chose the Tecnam P2006T because I can’t stand the bland looks of the traditional Cessna 100 Series. I haven’t touched a Cessna 100 series since FS98. I think they are the most boring bland planes that I never had any desire to fly in a sim. While the Tecnam P2006T is just as slow…they are something prettier to look at with cool twin engines.
  12. I've had a bad experience with Taxigate KMCO product for FSX. Poorly optimized, horrible OOMs, blurries trying to load the airport 15 miles out on approach. Never again....
  13. That's a terrible screenshot, I see jaggies🤮
  14. Come one its Virtualcol for crying out loud, are you really that disappointed?🤣 Your expectations were actually high for the A220?😂
  • Create New...