Rob Ainscough

Moderator
  • Content count

    7,079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Reputation Activity

  1. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Murmur in FF A320 Ultimate is now available!   
    Some of the best "learning" tools I've seen used are the ones that provide a interactive checklist that the user can follow, the user would check the item and the view will pan to the action and show the operation (be it a switch, knob, button, or just visual check).  No need for any "external" training be it video or manual, all self contained in product and the user would just activate a "training" mode and select a session (be it cold and dark start, to taxi, to takeoff, to departure, to cruise, to approach, to shutdown).  The only other product I've seen that tackles this task but on less complex aircraft is FSW ... IMHO, they're on the right track in regards to getting the novice involved.  
    There is certainly a disconnect between novice users that I personally believe is bad for this "hobby" (more novice users = more money for developers = more products and better quality products) ... there is an "elitist" mentality around operating "study level" aircraft ... in fact, I really don't like the term "study level" (used by many reviewers) as it suggests a certain level of intelligence requirement which is actually NOT needed with proper training tools. 
    Of course, such a training tool requires coding and more development costs ... however, I'm surprised that someone (content provider) hasn't picked up on this and provided "interactive" training tools.  We have "elements" that are close such as products from FS2Crew (on the FSX/P3D side) that operate as a helping hand, but not as an actual training tool.
    From technical standpoint, I'm pretty sure both platforms can support such a method of training, it's not terribly difficult to code but does take some time as checklists for the various stages of operation can be extensive.  But they would go a long way removing the stigma around "study level" aircraft and make it more accessible/desirable to everyone from the novice to the experienced.  More accessible = more users = more money = future development = hobby growth/improvement.
    My 2 cents, 
    Cheers, Rob.
  2. Rob Ainscough gave reputation to Petraeus in Prepar3D v4.2 has been released   
    Cycling is even better. Possibly the most cycle-friendly country in the world. A full network of cycle routes - and no hills!
  3. Rob Ainscough received reputation from awf in Prepar3D v4.2 has been released   
    Walking around your small country is on my todo list, best way to experience a country.  I’ve only made short visits and those were work related or stop overs.
    Cheers Rob.
  4. Rob Ainscough received reputation from anthonyg96 in [16FEB18] Release announcement   
    Excellent, thank you for the heads up ... looking forward to my purchase of this aircraft.
    Cheers, Rob.
  5. Rob Ainscough gave reputation to WR269 in FF A320 Ultimate is now available!   
    The FF developer advised against direct comparisons as the two products simulated different series of MCDU and other items, so the FSL Airbus documentation should be good to go but be mindful of the differences in operation.
    I recall seeing a video of the two products side by side as the FSL model has been the benchmark for many simmers....to be honest they both look great...I noticed setting take off trim is the one major difference in functionality...it has caught me out many times in the FF.
     
  6. Rob Ainscough received reputation from regis9 in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Because LM don't sit back and twiddle their thumbs and wait for Beta testers to report bugs once they release a beta or RC build.  It would be extremely expensive and a huge waste of resources to have developers sit and wait for content providers to provide feedback and then only react when feedback is given.  During my several decades of software engineering there has never ever been a moment in time where I can sit back and say "I'm done" ... there is always, and I do mean always more to do at any given moment it time.  LM continue working, they add features, they proceed on "Future development plans beyond 4.2", they fix more bugs, sometimes a bug fix causes other bugs, and cycle continues all the way up until the last few days before release.  If something came out in those last few days that content providers didn't have time to test/check then they have to work changes post release.
    As a customer also, there is nothing in my EULA with FSLabs that suggest:
    1.  They have to provide me any updates
    2.  They have to provide updates within a specific period of time
    You might want to check your FSL EULA and see what you can and can't claim "as a customer".
    It would be impossible for 3rd party to do a complete 100% systems test of their product on every single Beta drop and RC drop during a minor version cycle especially when the cycles become more frequent (as in a few days) towards final RC.
    Cheers, Rob.  
  7. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Vindeballe in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Please stop doing this ... you know it's not accurate, I know it's not accurate, the developers know it's not accurate, so why do you keep presenting this over and over?  I'm LM's Global Moderator, I've been on the Beta's from V2 to V3 toV4, I see the developers working with LM and LM working with developers.  I honestly don't understand why you keep presenting this false information ... what does it do for you?
    Cheers, Rob.
  8. Rob Ainscough received reputation from simbol in What's the upside to going to 4.2 from 4.1?   
    Upside:
    Bug fixes (lots of them, some very important ones)
    Water=Ultra performance benefits for nVidia 10 series GPUs (updated to CUDA 8 Libraries)
    Dynamic Lights performance improvements (this will vary pending add-on airport used and your GPU)
    Additions to SDK/SimConnect that will be used in some current and future add-ons
    Additional compatibility added for Win10
    VR performance improvements

    Downside:
    At this point not much, many content providers have already updated with just a few left pending.
    You need understand the entire context of those folks reporting problems ... I don't doubt they're having problems but there are A LOT of people not having problems.  For example I'm not having any issues with my SimConnect menus and GSX is working perfectly, so your mileage may vary.  But without knowing everything about someone else's problem and system configuration, I wouldn't assume you're going to have the same problem.
    I'd recommend that you do the 4.2 Client only install, if you decide you don't like 4.2 it's very simple to go back to 4.1 using the same process (I've done this many times).  There is nothing in the scenery and content installers for V4.2 I needed, so I only did the client install (on my main FS PC, not my other test PCs).
    Cheers, Rob.
  9. Rob Ainscough received reputation from simbol in What's the upside to going to 4.2 from 4.1?   
    Upside:
    Bug fixes (lots of them, some very important ones)
    Water=Ultra performance benefits for nVidia 10 series GPUs (updated to CUDA 8 Libraries)
    Dynamic Lights performance improvements (this will vary pending add-on airport used and your GPU)
    Additions to SDK/SimConnect that will be used in some current and future add-ons
    Additional compatibility added for Win10
    VR performance improvements

    Downside:
    At this point not much, many content providers have already updated with just a few left pending.
    You need understand the entire context of those folks reporting problems ... I don't doubt they're having problems but there are A LOT of people not having problems.  For example I'm not having any issues with my SimConnect menus and GSX is working perfectly, so your mileage may vary.  But without knowing everything about someone else's problem and system configuration, I wouldn't assume you're going to have the same problem.
    I'd recommend that you do the 4.2 Client only install, if you decide you don't like 4.2 it's very simple to go back to 4.1 using the same process (I've done this many times).  There is nothing in the scenery and content installers for V4.2 I needed, so I only did the client install (on my main FS PC, not my other test PCs).
    Cheers, Rob.
  10. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Mik75 in FF A320 Ultimate is now available!   
    Done!  Now that FSLabs A320 update is out for P3D V4.2 ... this should make for a good compare.  FSLabs version is pretty impressive in systems depth and now performance is back up.  But larger commercial aircraft never seemed to be much of an FPS problem in XP11.11+, I've heard lots of good about the FF A320 ... I can see I'll have a busy 3 day weekend.
    Thanks for the heads up.
    Cheers, Rob.
  11. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Buffy Foster in BREAKING NEWS: Gulfstream in P3D   
    I looked into doing my "first" FS project with a (not to be named) experimental aircraft (seaplane) and was basically asked "how much money will I provide" in order to see design prints and real world aircraft data.  I explained my business aspect along with projected sales numbers and why the money he was talking about would prevent the project from getting started beyond this "introduction/request".  No further communication after that.  It was a sobering experience and I hope this is not "precedence" for all experimental aircraft companies.
    I also had a similar experience when trying to acquire satellite imagery, cost for licensed distribution of such imagery was extremely expensive.  I don't know how existing 3rd party content providers do it?  I'm obviously missing something they seem to have access to that doesn't cost upwards of Millions of US to acquire.  It has given me a new appreciation of the costs involved to produce content for Flight Simulators and that's before ANY work is started.
    Guess I better start talking to Cessna. :)
    Cheers, Rob.
  12. Rob Ainscough received reputation from regis9 in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Because LM don't sit back and twiddle their thumbs and wait for Beta testers to report bugs once they release a beta or RC build.  It would be extremely expensive and a huge waste of resources to have developers sit and wait for content providers to provide feedback and then only react when feedback is given.  During my several decades of software engineering there has never ever been a moment in time where I can sit back and say "I'm done" ... there is always, and I do mean always more to do at any given moment it time.  LM continue working, they add features, they proceed on "Future development plans beyond 4.2", they fix more bugs, sometimes a bug fix causes other bugs, and cycle continues all the way up until the last few days before release.  If something came out in those last few days that content providers didn't have time to test/check then they have to work changes post release.
    As a customer also, there is nothing in my EULA with FSLabs that suggest:
    1.  They have to provide me any updates
    2.  They have to provide updates within a specific period of time
    You might want to check your FSL EULA and see what you can and can't claim "as a customer".
    It would be impossible for 3rd party to do a complete 100% systems test of their product on every single Beta drop and RC drop during a minor version cycle especially when the cycles become more frequent (as in a few days) towards final RC.
    Cheers, Rob.  
  13. Rob Ainscough received reputation from regis9 in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Because LM don't sit back and twiddle their thumbs and wait for Beta testers to report bugs once they release a beta or RC build.  It would be extremely expensive and a huge waste of resources to have developers sit and wait for content providers to provide feedback and then only react when feedback is given.  During my several decades of software engineering there has never ever been a moment in time where I can sit back and say "I'm done" ... there is always, and I do mean always more to do at any given moment it time.  LM continue working, they add features, they proceed on "Future development plans beyond 4.2", they fix more bugs, sometimes a bug fix causes other bugs, and cycle continues all the way up until the last few days before release.  If something came out in those last few days that content providers didn't have time to test/check then they have to work changes post release.
    As a customer also, there is nothing in my EULA with FSLabs that suggest:
    1.  They have to provide me any updates
    2.  They have to provide updates within a specific period of time
    You might want to check your FSL EULA and see what you can and can't claim "as a customer".
    It would be impossible for 3rd party to do a complete 100% systems test of their product on every single Beta drop and RC drop during a minor version cycle especially when the cycles become more frequent (as in a few days) towards final RC.
    Cheers, Rob.  
  14. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Vindeballe in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Please stop doing this ... you know it's not accurate, I know it's not accurate, the developers know it's not accurate, so why do you keep presenting this over and over?  I'm LM's Global Moderator, I've been on the Beta's from V2 to V3 toV4, I see the developers working with LM and LM working with developers.  I honestly don't understand why you keep presenting this false information ... what does it do for you?
    Cheers, Rob.
  15. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Vindeballe in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Please stop doing this ... you know it's not accurate, I know it's not accurate, the developers know it's not accurate, so why do you keep presenting this over and over?  I'm LM's Global Moderator, I've been on the Beta's from V2 to V3 toV4, I see the developers working with LM and LM working with developers.  I honestly don't understand why you keep presenting this false information ... what does it do for you?
    Cheers, Rob.
  16. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Vindeballe in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Please stop doing this ... you know it's not accurate, I know it's not accurate, the developers know it's not accurate, so why do you keep presenting this over and over?  I'm LM's Global Moderator, I've been on the Beta's from V2 to V3 toV4, I see the developers working with LM and LM working with developers.  I honestly don't understand why you keep presenting this false information ... what does it do for you?
    Cheers, Rob.
  17. Rob Ainscough received reputation from regis9 in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Because LM don't sit back and twiddle their thumbs and wait for Beta testers to report bugs once they release a beta or RC build.  It would be extremely expensive and a huge waste of resources to have developers sit and wait for content providers to provide feedback and then only react when feedback is given.  During my several decades of software engineering there has never ever been a moment in time where I can sit back and say "I'm done" ... there is always, and I do mean always more to do at any given moment it time.  LM continue working, they add features, they proceed on "Future development plans beyond 4.2", they fix more bugs, sometimes a bug fix causes other bugs, and cycle continues all the way up until the last few days before release.  If something came out in those last few days that content providers didn't have time to test/check then they have to work changes post release.
    As a customer also, there is nothing in my EULA with FSLabs that suggest:
    1.  They have to provide me any updates
    2.  They have to provide updates within a specific period of time
    You might want to check your FSL EULA and see what you can and can't claim "as a customer".
    It would be impossible for 3rd party to do a complete 100% systems test of their product on every single Beta drop and RC drop during a minor version cycle especially when the cycles become more frequent (as in a few days) towards final RC.
    Cheers, Rob.  
  18. Rob Ainscough received reputation from regis9 in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Because LM don't sit back and twiddle their thumbs and wait for Beta testers to report bugs once they release a beta or RC build.  It would be extremely expensive and a huge waste of resources to have developers sit and wait for content providers to provide feedback and then only react when feedback is given.  During my several decades of software engineering there has never ever been a moment in time where I can sit back and say "I'm done" ... there is always, and I do mean always more to do at any given moment it time.  LM continue working, they add features, they proceed on "Future development plans beyond 4.2", they fix more bugs, sometimes a bug fix causes other bugs, and cycle continues all the way up until the last few days before release.  If something came out in those last few days that content providers didn't have time to test/check then they have to work changes post release.
    As a customer also, there is nothing in my EULA with FSLabs that suggest:
    1.  They have to provide me any updates
    2.  They have to provide updates within a specific period of time
    You might want to check your FSL EULA and see what you can and can't claim "as a customer".
    It would be impossible for 3rd party to do a complete 100% systems test of their product on every single Beta drop and RC drop during a minor version cycle especially when the cycles become more frequent (as in a few days) towards final RC.
    Cheers, Rob.  
  19. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Vindeballe in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Please stop doing this ... you know it's not accurate, I know it's not accurate, the developers know it's not accurate, so why do you keep presenting this over and over?  I'm LM's Global Moderator, I've been on the Beta's from V2 to V3 toV4, I see the developers working with LM and LM working with developers.  I honestly don't understand why you keep presenting this false information ... what does it do for you?
    Cheers, Rob.
  20. Rob Ainscough received reputation from regis9 in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Because LM don't sit back and twiddle their thumbs and wait for Beta testers to report bugs once they release a beta or RC build.  It would be extremely expensive and a huge waste of resources to have developers sit and wait for content providers to provide feedback and then only react when feedback is given.  During my several decades of software engineering there has never ever been a moment in time where I can sit back and say "I'm done" ... there is always, and I do mean always more to do at any given moment it time.  LM continue working, they add features, they proceed on "Future development plans beyond 4.2", they fix more bugs, sometimes a bug fix causes other bugs, and cycle continues all the way up until the last few days before release.  If something came out in those last few days that content providers didn't have time to test/check then they have to work changes post release.
    As a customer also, there is nothing in my EULA with FSLabs that suggest:
    1.  They have to provide me any updates
    2.  They have to provide updates within a specific period of time
    You might want to check your FSL EULA and see what you can and can't claim "as a customer".
    It would be impossible for 3rd party to do a complete 100% systems test of their product on every single Beta drop and RC drop during a minor version cycle especially when the cycles become more frequent (as in a few days) towards final RC.
    Cheers, Rob.  
  21. Rob Ainscough received reputation from regis9 in FSL for V4.2 Tomorrow   
    Because LM don't sit back and twiddle their thumbs and wait for Beta testers to report bugs once they release a beta or RC build.  It would be extremely expensive and a huge waste of resources to have developers sit and wait for content providers to provide feedback and then only react when feedback is given.  During my several decades of software engineering there has never ever been a moment in time where I can sit back and say "I'm done" ... there is always, and I do mean always more to do at any given moment it time.  LM continue working, they add features, they proceed on "Future development plans beyond 4.2", they fix more bugs, sometimes a bug fix causes other bugs, and cycle continues all the way up until the last few days before release.  If something came out in those last few days that content providers didn't have time to test/check then they have to work changes post release.
    As a customer also, there is nothing in my EULA with FSLabs that suggest:
    1.  They have to provide me any updates
    2.  They have to provide updates within a specific period of time
    You might want to check your FSL EULA and see what you can and can't claim "as a customer".
    It would be impossible for 3rd party to do a complete 100% systems test of their product on every single Beta drop and RC drop during a minor version cycle especially when the cycles become more frequent (as in a few days) towards final RC.
    Cheers, Rob.  
  22. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Rafal in Prepar3D v4.2 has been released   
    You might be referencing a different issue.  PR scenery done by most 3rd party is pretty low quality resolution at lower LOD levels when compared to LC type of scenery tiles (AF2, XP11 Ortho4XP, P3D are all pretty low quality IMHO).  PR devs use lower LOD levels when making the scenery due to file sizes, each increase in LOD when making the scenery is an exponential growth in file size.  To leverage very "crisp" PR tiles the scenery dev would need to go up at least 2 LODs which would produce HUGE file sizes (for example lets take MSE's California ... it's around 100GB of PR data right now with no AG), if MSE have sufficient source resolution (sat or aerial imagery) and shift/increase the LOD by two levels, you'd have California weighing in at over 1TB of PR data.  Most computers couldn't handle that much PR data.
    Another "possible" issue which I've brought up with LM, is that the LOD radius doesn't appear to be working well for PR.  LM insist it's the limitation imposed by scenery developers and not an LM problem.  Chris Bell was kind enough to provide me with a small 2 LOD increase scenery sample which was VERY impressive but I was unable to determine if the LOD radius problem with PR was still present or not due to the limited size/area and huge file size ... here is the video I made with Chris Bell's very small 2 LOD increase PR where you can see the transition from high quality PR to Orbx LC (keep in mind I'm using TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10):
    Unfortunately this wasn't enough "area" for me to see how well this worked over distances.  It's by far the best PR quality I've ever seen in a simulator but it's a very small area sample due to massive file sizes.
    I still feel there might be a problem with LOD distances and PR, but until someone does PR over a larger area such that LOD comes into play (i.e. 2 LODS higher) that covers a larger area, I can't really positively identify a problem with PR.
    So it's still "undecided" until a PR dev comes up with a good test sample.  And even if the Test Sample does work as expected and LM are correct, there is still the problem of file size which makes usage of such high LOD PR impractical ... I'd be ok with downloading 1TB of PR data as I have 1Gbps bandwidth into my home and I'm not sure how common that is?  There also the issue of housing the data on a server and bandwidth costs in providing the data.
    Cheers, Rob.
  23. Rob Ainscough received reputation from SaenchaySor in Prepar3D v4.2 has been released   
    I'm assuming the snow area is not from Orbx?  If so, who's snow area is that? ... maybe provide some Lat/Long coordinates and season/date?  To me it looks like a mix of Orbx OpenLC (definitely not a region) and the snow part is something else that's not match to correct season?
    Scenery resolution is just one aspect, the key is at what LOD does the scenery designer use?
    My thought process was that TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10 would also improve LOD for "existing" PR.  I tested this extensively in early V4.0 Beta and PR didn't change.  I've kept reporting the issue but it was suggested by LM that PR needs to be "re-worked" to be able to work with TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10.  See my video below of early V4.0 beta testing using TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP values with Orbx LOWI that uses PR.
    As you can see the LC tiles adjust appropriately but the PR tiles do not.
    Keep in mind this was LOWI for P3D V3.x at my time of testing as there obviously was no V4 LOWI ... I don't "think" LOWI has been recompiled specifically for V4 and I don't think any LOD adjustment have been made for LOWI for V4 (even today) ... but I could be wrong.
    Cheers, Rob.
  24. Rob Ainscough gave reputation to vgbaron in GTN 750/650 now compatible with 4.2   
    Download from your F1 account
    Vic
     
     
  25. Rob Ainscough received reputation from Rafal in Prepar3D v4.2 has been released   
    You might be referencing a different issue.  PR scenery done by most 3rd party is pretty low quality resolution at lower LOD levels when compared to LC type of scenery tiles (AF2, XP11 Ortho4XP, P3D are all pretty low quality IMHO).  PR devs use lower LOD levels when making the scenery due to file sizes, each increase in LOD when making the scenery is an exponential growth in file size.  To leverage very "crisp" PR tiles the scenery dev would need to go up at least 2 LODs which would produce HUGE file sizes (for example lets take MSE's California ... it's around 100GB of PR data right now with no AG), if MSE have sufficient source resolution (sat or aerial imagery) and shift/increase the LOD by two levels, you'd have California weighing in at over 1TB of PR data.  Most computers couldn't handle that much PR data.
    Another "possible" issue which I've brought up with LM, is that the LOD radius doesn't appear to be working well for PR.  LM insist it's the limitation imposed by scenery developers and not an LM problem.  Chris Bell was kind enough to provide me with a small 2 LOD increase scenery sample which was VERY impressive but I was unable to determine if the LOD radius problem with PR was still present or not due to the limited size/area and huge file size ... here is the video I made with Chris Bell's very small 2 LOD increase PR where you can see the transition from high quality PR to Orbx LC (keep in mind I'm using TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10):
    Unfortunately this wasn't enough "area" for me to see how well this worked over distances.  It's by far the best PR quality I've ever seen in a simulator but it's a very small area sample due to massive file sizes.
    I still feel there might be a problem with LOD distances and PR, but until someone does PR over a larger area such that LOD comes into play (i.e. 2 LODS higher) that covers a larger area, I can't really positively identify a problem with PR.
    So it's still "undecided" until a PR dev comes up with a good test sample.  And even if the Test Sample does work as expected and LM are correct, there is still the problem of file size which makes usage of such high LOD PR impractical ... I'd be ok with downloading 1TB of PR data as I have 1Gbps bandwidth into my home and I'm not sure how common that is?  There also the issue of housing the data on a server and bandwidth costs in providing the data.
    Cheers, Rob.