IUBrian

It cannot be said enough, thanks for the update! Like others have said, GSX is an indispensable part of my flight sim experience. I appreciate your work (and your incredible patience and grace in responding to the occasional absurd criticisms and ingratitude)!

Yeah I meant 5.3

Regarding 5.2 HF2 performance, I agree. Every update has brought improvements (and occasionally a few problems) but with HF2 - wow, I am blown away -incredible performance and smoothness, just fantastic. Right now the only “tweaks” I feel like making are minor twiddling with HDR lighting effects. Otherwise performance is so fantastic I feel that coupled with the library of add ons I’ve acquired over time I have a sim that I’m going to be able to just enjoy for years to come. I’m loving just flying, not messing around with trying to improve performance, eliminate micorstutters, or worry about CTD’s.

I know this isn’t directly helpful but I’ve had no issues with HF2, Windows 11, and the latest version of EZCA, everything is smoother that it’s ever been for me; in fact I’ve thus far had no freezes or CTD as I would occasionally have before when rapidly switching views. I’m not saying that people who are having issues aren’t having issues only that maybe it’s related to how the program is interacting with some particular addon or background process.

Thanks for the advice!

I’m going to give AIG a shot, have been using UTL. My question is do you bulk install all the possible airlines, or pick and choose? I figured bull install all would be simplest unless it takes up a ton of storage.

I’ll add my name to the list of people with FPS drops/stutters. Did a clean install on a SSD. Tried a flight out of KSDF and KIND (add ons) FSL A320. 9900k, 2080TI. P3D on cores 1-5, EZCA, UTL, Coulati (GSX) and AS on 6-7 with Process Lasso. Windows 11. Starts out smooth, sometimes FPS drops/stutters happen 20-30 minutes in, sometimes later, multiple CTD. Also have ORBX NA installed but not Vectors. I would be happy to screenshot all processes/add ons/settings etc and forward to appropriate people to isolate the problem. I have some suspects but it would be unfair to a developer to say “I think this add on is the problem” without any actual evidence to back it up. Every time I see one of these threads my typical attitude is to think with regards to the poster “this is a YOU problem, stop complaining” and roll on past, but not counting my sublogic Commodore 64 days I’ve been at this off and on for 20 or so years and this one has me stumped.

That’s another point as we circle back to the original post being related to PMDG; when PMDG sold their update 737 for Prepar3d with the enticement that doing so would entitle the purchaser to a credit against the purchase of the MSFS version, I guarantee that no one who did so thought that 16 months after release we would literally be no closer to the release of a PMDG 737 on MSFS than we were 16 months ago. And in this case “literally” isn’t hyperbole - the expectation wasn’t that in 16 months we might be looking at another year, or more, with potentially less functionality; that’s certainly not how it was sold.

I disagree that Microsoft doesn’t care what Lockheed does, at least in terms of add-on developers; maybe they don’t care about LM specifically, but they absolutely cared about bringing in add-on developers. And this isn’t analogous to a “release now, patch later” situation typical with console games. This is a “new” “flight simulator” that was released lacking much of the functionality of its approximately 10 year old 32 bit predecessor - that’s not a “bug” that was a conscious decision to release a product that in any other world would be years from release. If I buy, say COD or Red Dead Redemption, they may have bugs that need to be patched, but the core game functionality is typically present at release. it may very well end up being the future of flight simulation it promises to be but that seems to me to be far from certain.

While it would be silly to shed a tear for how one corporate giant stuck it to another, it does rub me the wrong way that Microsoft released a product for retail that was at best an early beta to accomplish exactly what it accomplished - to take LM by surprise and drive the hobbyist and developer market away from Prepar3d on the promise that “this is the future” when in reality we are a year and a half from its release and besides it’s stunning visuals it’s not clear to me that MSFS has the functionality of even FSX, let alone Prepar3d. Oh sure, people like RSR have touted its “superior” flight modeling, but why would he or anyone else in a similar position have any credibility on the topic - having pushed their chips in with MSFS it’s clearly in their interest to tout these capabilities that we are told will appear at some indefinite time in the future? The other amusing thing to me is the reliance on this “10 year commitment.” Given the questionable business ethics of a major corporation releasing an arguably not ready for market product to kill competition, why would I place faith in its unenforceable commitment to MSFS? Not to mention, even if the people in power to intend to stick with this commitment, corporate power structures change, new people come in, and they don’t always have the same “vision” as their processors. Sometimes they kill projects for no other reason that they were their predecessor’s projects. At least LM has a pretty significant commercial commitment to maintaining Prepar3d beyond the hobbyist realm; sure, they could also cut us out at any time, but their isn’t really an economic reason for them to do so whereas MSFS’s viability is largely dependent on the consumer market (notwithstanding the idea that the world simulation in MSFS may be seen as a platform for other programs).

I am curious how this plays out long term. I understand that for now MSFS is where the money is, and no doubt the initial excitement about the visuals and the Microsoft/Xbox name has drawn a LOT of people who wouldn’t normally be drawn to flight simulation to give it a whirl. But unless it massively expands the interest in flight simming, which lets face it, most people who aren’t avidly interested in aviation find dull, I don’t see the core group of “hardcore” simmers expanding massively; it’s a niche market and I think two years from now that niche will be roughly the same size as it was two years ago. Are the majority going to continue to stick with a sim that is “broken” every few months and lacks complex functionality because of stunning visuals, or will they gradually migrate back to other platforms? The assumption is “give it time, it is the future,” but I am less than certain that is the case, and assumes no progress with other platforms.

I am curious how this plays out long term. I understand that for now MSFS is where the money is, and no doubt the initial excitement about the visuals and the Microsoft/Xbox name has drawn a LOT of people who wouldn’t normally be drawn to flight simulation to give it a whirl. But unless it massively expands the interest in flight simming, which lets face it, most people who aren’t avidly interested in aviation fight dull, I don’t see the core group of “hardcore” simmers expanding massively; it’s a niche market and I think two years from now that niche will be roughly the same size as it was two years ago. Are the majority going to continue to stick with a sim that is “broken” every few months and lacks complex functionality because of stunning visuals, or will they gradually migrate back to other platforms? The assumption is “give it time, it is the future,” but I am less than certain that is the case, and assumes no progress with other platforms.

Yes, I needed to download the SDK. I would think since it was relatively straightforward to fix with ADE I agree that a hotfix might (hopefully) be fairly quick coming. And I will add it was nice, while getting ready to depart from Indy on my makebelieve flight to Vegas, to look inside the terminal and see the airport bar where I pregame on my real life flights to Vegas 😄.

I hadn’t used ADE before, but had no issues using it; the fix and instructions were indeed straightforward and well greatly appreciated.