wthomas33065

Really? I misquoted all those statements. I especially like the third one where you said "the theory that it's connected with increasing FPS for VR use and for the X Box Market is very plausible". Your words. Not mine. At least I admitted I was wrong, instead of trying to gaslight my own previous statements.

Great. glad to hear it. And so is the ridiculous, "intentionally done to promote xbox" theory as well. That's why we should all chill out on speculation. Especially when that speculation asserts some sort of dark designs by the developer to intentionally cripple the product. Bandwidth limits is a reasonable explanation, but one that I admitted that I had no proof for. I'm glad that I'm wrong.

Now that's a tinfoil hat I can proudly wear (grin). Because that actually makes some sense over the Xbox/PC conspiracy. Either sales are stronger than they expected, and demand is greater, or it's weaker than expected and they are trying to control costs. But I think we're on to something here. And I know I'm being a hypocrite because I have no proof whatsoever, but it sounds a lot more reasonable than wanting to make the PC look worse compared to Xbox.

I agree with you about the objects, but a lot of people are not taking into account photogrammetric areas in their analysis at all. I think I'll fly around South Florida with Photogrammetry on and off and see if I can see a difference. And even if there is no difference, they might have put a cap on globally so that users have the same relative experience regardless of what areas they are in. Because even with Photgrammetry off, you are still downloading high resolution satellite textures from Bing, and that might affect object placement.

Now THAT is something I can believe, not some xbox/pc nonsense. Narrowing down LOD ranges would affect the amount of bandwidth per flight hour. Thus limiting the amount of bandwidth they need to provide for a given user. If Microsoft wanted to trim those costs, then narrowing down LOD radius would be an obvious way to do so. This would also explain why users are saying that the sim ignores any LOD factors higher than 2.0. in the configuration file. This would make some folks very annoyed, but it's their servers. and their data. I suppose they could offer a "premium" subscription model that would allow you to have higher LOD settings if you were willing to pony up for your additional bandwidth usage. But how many people would scoff at that?

Exactly. I also heard a lot of references to it being as bad as FS9 and FSX. I have vanilla FSX on my system and recently reinstalled FS9. A sim, which IMHO was the pinnacle of what MS offered. I absolutely LOVED FS9. Booted it up and was struck by how bad it looked. The "blurries" were back, but even worse, the quality of the cockpit was ridiculous. Memory is a weird thing. I would have SWORN that FS9 never looked "that bad", but there it was. Proof in front of my face. People are posting screenshots of LOD pop in and other things, which quite frankly have been in the Sim since day one. And even in the official forums there is heated debate as it is not settled that there is a global problem. Almost just as many people are noticing no issues at all. (I am at LOD 100 and am completely satisfied). I notice extreme pop in at LOD 50 and 25, but not at 100 or 200. Any LOD testing should be done in very controlled conditions, and that can only be done with offline mode, using base scenery. It looks awful, but you're not depending on your internet connection to load LOD levels of terrain. Which has to be loaded and rendered prior to autogen taking place. So if the bottleneck is the download of the higher elevation DEM around the plane, you can get pop in regardless of the slider setting. I'm not doubting some people have issues, but it is much easier to believe that the issues are not based on some nefarious developer patch issue, but rather on changes in perception over time, and network connectivity. Otherwise, you wouldn't have just as many people stating they don't have a problem as you have people complaining that they do.

Or your perceptions are changing because you are noticing imperfections you overlooked before. Classic "new car" syndrome. The longer we use the product, the more we note it's imperfections. Imperfections that were always there, yet we missed because we were in awe with what we were first noticing. Perfect example I was (still am) in awe of the clouds, But now I notice that the sim re-uses several cloud formations. In real life, cloud formations are unique. Even two anvil shaped thunderheads are unique. In flight sim I've notice quite a few cloud formations that seem "re-used". Didn't notice that before. But I'm not going to say they "nerfed" clouds so they could optimize for Xbox.

I remember when a lot of people reported that eating pop rocks and drinking soda will make your stomach explode, or that putting batteries in the freezer helped make them last longer Point is, the fact that collective belief doesn't make something true. Here's a much more likely scenario. We've become "jaded". The new car smell is wearing off and we are noticing imperfections that we didn't notice before because we wer overwhelmed by what we initially were experiencing. You buy a new car and it's perfect. Then as you own it, you notice little imperfections you hadn't before. The car didn't magically get worse, you got more critical. We're now getting more "used" to what MSFS is offering, so now we notice pop in when we didn't before. We notice the melting buildings or vegetation flaws that we didn't notice early on. The longer we own the sim, the more we will notice it's imperfections. That is basic human behavior. And it explains a lot more than some half cocked idea that a developer would cripple a version of software written for $1500 plus PC's to sell a $500 Gaming system. To think otherwise is to believe that the flight simulator market is not the incredibly narrow niche market that in reality, it is. News Flash...Microsoft is not counting on Flight Sim to push Series X sales. Games like Halo Infinite Assassin's Creed Valhalla, which will move more than 10x the volume of Flight Simulator is what will move Series X sales.

See if the same think happens if you use the keyboard to apply brakes. Maybe certain controllers spam the program and the program see's it as a stuck key. That's why you wouldn't see the parking brake enabled. It's not. The "brake" command is still being spammed to the program even though you are not pushing the button. I bet you could simply hit the space bar or another button on the joystick and continue to move without parking brake. Any input from the keyboard or controller would break the stuck key condition and clear the spamming of the brake key. Of if that doesn't work tap the brake key on the keyboard, that should also "unstick" it.

weird. Never had this happen unless I was letting OTTO taxi. Is OTTO handling your radio comms? Maybe he's popping the brake? No, if he was popping it, you'd only have to set it once. How bizarre.

Also, are you starting "cold" at parking or at the runway? At the runway, it is automatically engaged. I'll have to run through some scenarios myself.

That happened to me, but it wasn't the AP's fault. Flight Sim decided to hit me with a gust of wind like a brick wall that disengaged my AP and sent me plummeting into Puget Sound, shortly after takeoff from KORS.. Pilot dead, restart flight. I am much more careful about flying with 'otto' now and usually only engage it after I've put a few thousand feet between me and the ground and have properly trimmed up my ascent. As far as the 172. I have the deluxe premium, and they have a conventional instrumented 172 which is my favorite plane to fly. I guess because I've been flying 172/182's during my entire flight simming "career". So if you want a non-glass 172, that's an option. But your virtual adventure does sound pretty challenging. I remember digging out the old Jeppsen charts that they used to include in early versions of flight sim and navigating with one of those from Meigs to Champlain IL. Hopscotching VOR's seemed like such an acomplishment back then. When you first saw that "Champlain" scenery appear from a sea of green felt like seeing a lighthouse in a storm. I then started being more adventurous and used two VOR's to triangulate my position and plot a more "direct" route to Champlain. Needless to say, I haven't done that lately. When Microsoft stopped including their charts with the simulator, I went on to different ways to navigate. Ironically now with MSFS 2020 I primarily navigate the same way as I navigate using my car....Freeways.

I got my patch. It works great. Many Thanks and happy flying

I've done a lot of fussing with this over the years, and quite frankly it comes down to how well your card does filtering. (bilinear,trilinear,anisotropic) Unfortunately I have an All in One with a crappy Intel card who's drivers won't perform anisotropic in FS9 even when forced through the driver So I have to settle. If I move my MIP quality to 4 with Triliniear set, I get a blurry mess in urban areas. if I move Mip to 5 or 6, the roads and textures have more pop, but I have to deal with shimmering. I use FSUIPC to limit visibility to 40NM, the "haze" seems to cut down on the shimmering. So I set MIP to 5, visibility to 40 miles and deal. I would check your filtering settings and MIP level settings. I think you will find some improvement on the blurries, but you may have to deal with some shimmering.