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.

It does look a little tall to me as well

Finally, my local airport. Purchased, can’t wait to replicate my favorite annual real world flight later - Indy to Fly Tampa Vegas. The only question is whether to fly my old favorite, the NGXu in Southwest livery, or my newly acquired FS Labs A320 in Spirit colors…

There are two observations I would make on that point. One, without question China is investing a lot in area denial weapons such as hypersonic missiles which is in part an implied acknowledgment of the lethality of platforms such as the F-22 and F-35, which will soon be available in significant numbers. It’s a recognition that currently neither their air force nor their SAM defenses would be a sufficient deterrent. Two, despite that, they recognize the value of stealth aircraft and sensor fusion because they are expending significant efforts to design and manufacture their own. Aircraft such as the F35 aren’t the end all be all of warfare, but at least in the foreseeable future manned aircraft are a necessary “tool in the tool box,’’ and for what it’s designed for is along with the F22 far and away the best tool at what they do (and are the envy of adversaries). If there is a complaint or flaw is that while it is unrivaled in deployment against near peer adversaries in a high threat environment (which is of increasing concern) it may be expensive overkill in primitive low threat environments, the wrong tool for the job. It’s like going to the store, buying an expensive cordless drill with a 24v lithium ion battery, charging it, and an hour later when it’s finally charged using it to change a switch plate as opposed to using the $1 flathead screwdriver I keep in a drawer. Sometimes cheaper and simpler is more effective depending on the situation. I don’t think that makes the F35 a failure or unnecessary, it’s just that when budgets are finite, sometimes you need some more flat head screwdrivers. Now on the other hand, it is a fair criticism to observe how US defense contractors IMO bilk and overcharge the government for their goods and services, with the amount of bilking seemingly directly proportionate to how desired a particular weapons platform is by the military, but that is endemic to the procurement process generally and not unique to the F35.

Failure? Laughable. There’s plenty of literature available as to its incredible effectiveness, and the current flyaway cost is comparable or less than far less effective 4th gen fighters. Not to mention the eagerness of overseas purchasers to acquire it, which would be unlikely if it was a dog. 4th gen aircraft don’t stand a chance against it, and there are anecdotes of inexperienced f35 pilots having their way with highly experienced pilots in 4th gen fighters during war games. I initially thought this thing was a turkey, but the more I’ve read about it, the more I realize I was quite wrong.. Per hour operating costs are higher than 4th gen, but 4th gen aircraft simply do not stand a chance against it, they’re dead. Pretty much every US ally who has seen what it can do wants to acquire it. Countries, like people, vote with their wallets. I imagine there were similar articles about the F-22 - problems, too expensive, etc., and they foolishly stopped production at I believe it was 187 planes, instead of the approximately 1000 planned, an obvious mistake, and like we are now seeing with the F35, the per plane cost would have decreased with increased production.

Price wise, the F35 may actually cost less per plane than the F-15EX, which is in part why there is opposition to its acquisition; a concern that purchasing F15’s would mean purchasing fewer, more “capable” and survivable F35’s. But I agree as to a need for both - sophisticated low observable aircraft that can penetrate high threat environments, and missile trucks that can unload large quantities of ordinance from stand-off distance thanks to data fusion.

There certainly seen to be some misconceptions about the F-35, both in terms of cost and operational capacity. While initially expensive, it’s not some super-expensive “super weapon.” That might be the case with something like the B2, but as production of the F-35 has ramped up, it’s per unit cost has gone down, to the 80 million per plane range, comparable to far less capable 4th gen aircraft. And it’s hardly being produced in small numbers - as of now 615 have been built, with numerous purchases and future orders from other countries (which says something about how they perceive its capabilities) as well as a planned 2456 total to be purchased by the U.S. Its advantages are not limited to just stealth (like having an RCS 1000 times smaller than an SU-57), or a 6 times greater detention range which is “game over” in a BVR combat environment. It also has far greater detection capabilities, such as third gen AESA radar and 360 degree spherical IRST. A single F-35 also has EW capabilities comparable to a dedicated package of Growlers. These advantages have been shown time and again in exercises against 4th generation aircraft that are equipped with EW packages, AWACS, and a simulated hostile SAM infested environment. If these capabilities were insignificant in a near peer warfare environment, not only would our allies not be attempting to purchase the F35, China and Russia wouldn’t be attempting to replicate its capabilities with competing aircraft of their own (though they remain decades behind). None of this means that the F35 (and F22) are invincible, but at a time where manned aircraft and air supremacy are still an important part of modern warfare it is a force multiplying game changer even if it were not to be produced in large numbers. But it is. And yes, sometimes technology can be a game changing force multiplier - the F117’s performance in Iraq in one of the most heavily defended threat environments in the world was an eye-opener, for example. As to the idea, “well, how about just deploying 1000 cheap drones to overwhelm the numerically disadvantaged expensive aircraft,” put aside the practicality of the capacity to arm inexpensive and easily detectable drones in the numbers with the BVR capacity to challenge something like an F35, that assumes that there isn’t an inexpensive counter to that strategy as well. Or to use an analogy, I spend millions of dollars on a main battle tank. You say fine, I’ll just have 100 cheap expendable soldiers equipped with anti-tank weapons. I say fine, I’ll deploy 500 M4 equipped infantry to target your 100 soldiers while pelting them from a distance with HE from my tank. You say, ok, I’ll get a few airplanes to bomb your tank and solders...and so on...Drones, SAM’s, etc., don’t supplant something like a 5th gen aircraft, they are all part of a total package used together. A final point is that while exercises are just that, these exercises are against aircraft with a proven record, such as the F15, that have shown themselves in actual combat to be near invincible to anything thrown at them. While not a perfect analogue to an actual war, they are pretty good indication of how the F35 would stack up against near peer adversaries whose capabilities are only now reaching parity with platforms that are 40 years old. And things such as the attritional aspects of warfare degrading capacities, while true, applies at least equally to any adversary, meaning if the capacities of both are degraded over time, the F35 will still retain an advantage (which again, is not limited to just stealth).

A lot of astute comments. I don’t know whether MSFS is the future of flight simulation, but I do know to take the words of someone who has pushed his chips all in that is with a grain of salt. And while he may have valid criticisms of LM with regards to updates, I find those criticisms ring hollow in comparison to a product whose SDK is by all accounts (explicit and implied) wholly inadequate. On that point, I believe the earlier comment regarding disposable income AND that this hobby may go the way of model trains in relevant. At the end of the day flight simulation is a relatively niche hobby - the stunning visuals of MSFS are enough to draw an initial crowd, but the reality is over time, unless one is avidly interested in aviation, it will become boring. I think it’s naive to assume that it will create a whole new enthusiast market; people who were interested in aviation to the extent that they will spend hours in front of a monitor planning and executing a make believe flight, and spending thousands of dollars to enhance that make believe environment have largely already invested in one of the existing platforms. MSFS cannibalizes that market. Its long term value in terms of third party developers lies not with the increased market size of the XBox crowd but its ability to run complex add-ons with acceptable performance - that’s the market that will spend the money for add-on after add-on (and has the disposable income to do so). Perhaps eventually it will, but I must confess some skepticism - the promotional videos leading up to MSFS’s release led to expectations (which were encouraged and not tempered) of a product that is quite different from the product that was actually released. By the same token, I’ll be happy to be proven wrong.

Thus far my performance with UTL 2 beta has also been phenomenal, as others have mentioned. Tried out Flytampa Boston with the gates full in the NGXu in 5.1 (I think I set the number of AI to around 300 in the UI, far beyond where I would normally see my system get hammered). Really couldn’t detect any impact. For myself AI traffic is relatively low down the list of things I obsess over or want to spend time on when flying; I don’t want to fly into dead airports, I just want something that reasonably approximates real airlines with minimal to no effort on my part, with little performance impact. UTL has always served me well in that regard, and UTL 2 seems to have to potential to be a significant improvement.

Does this impact the ability of FSUIPC to limit AI?

Thanks, yes I did add that line, was hoping it would be the cure all, but alas it was not