Jump to content

jrw4

Members
  • Content Count

    472
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jrw4

  1. @kiek makes an important point. The law of supply and demand will establish the price which buyers will pay for a seller's product. However, there's another important point that seems to have been missed. MSFS add-on developers have published their products at prices that are often as much as a factor of two lower than has been the case previously for FSX, P3D, and XP. That's because the size of the MSFS market is so much larger than that of those earlier desktop sim products combined. Those developers took a big risk when they established those lower prices, but apparently they have done well by expanding the market for their products. I'm a former customer of RealTraffic, but recall a much lower price. At some point, I believe that the cost of the feed to RealTraffic increased and hence so did the price to the end user. Fair enough, but it made it sufficiently unattractive that I decided (as I suspect did others) it was no longer worth the cost. As potential users, we either purchase the product or we don't. Only RealTraffic's developer can establish the price. We can't. One other suggestion: if RealTraffic wants to sell to the larger MSFS market, its developer might want to consider integrating the tools required to inject traffic into the sim into a single package, i.e., merging RealTraffic with PSXT. Some of us fled the older sims because we were sick of fiddling with six or eight software packages that did one or another single function, e.g., weather, cameras, traffic, control mapping, etc. Yes, I know that there are some in the community who delight in such things, and that's fine, but I think that the average MSFS isn't likely to do so. Just a free suggestion, and probably worth exactly that. Best wishes.
  2. I believe this tool is meant only for users of vPilot, the VATSIM pilot client. It almost certainly does nothing for model matching internally for MSFS AI.
  3. The ground behavior is clearly in need of further attention, but in the meanwhile, I did test this behavior using the default glass 172. In crosswinds of up to 15 kts I was able to maintain reasonable lateral control by judicious application of throttle, starting with the aileron into the wind and gradually increasing throttle and rudder as speed picked up. I set the sensitivity of all flight controls to the default position, of course. The last thing one wants here is an extremity dead zone, for example. No doubt if I had done this IRL my flight instructor would have had a fit, but that happened often enough anyway, so it would have hardly mattered.
  4. Actually I think we have way more business savvy people than we have RL pilots, but that's just a guess.
  5. There's an old joke in the winery business to the effect that the easiest way to become a millionaire as a wine maker is to start out a multimillionaire. One can hardly imagine that FSL plans to spend the small fortune needed to develop their A320 for MSFS, trying to shoehorn that product into a market that already includes a fine payware model as well as excellent freeware alternative, thereby losing some serious money in the process, and only then use the knowledge expensively acquired in that project to develop yet a different product, something like the A330. We have had this conversation previously on this forum, and it doesn't make any more business sense today than it did then. Notwithstanding its possible superiority to the Fenix/FBW competitors it seems way too late for FSL to squeeze a third A320 model into the pricing niche between free and modest. Good luck with that.
  6. Use the Game filter in the GeForce Experience overlay made available by nVidia. I use a bit of additional Sharpen to achieve an acceptably readable flat panel display in the PMDG 737. You can also tweak the Gamma in the Brightness/Contrast tab to brighten the midtones in the cockpit panels, which helps with the dark cockpits/bright exterior problems often discussed in this forum. Eventually nVidia will fix the DLSS blurry displays, but this works quite well in the interim. Easy peasy using easily accessible tools, and it's easily reversible if the result isn't up to your standards.
  7. Really nice install process and clear instructions that made it possible to set up inside of an hour. Seems to work reasonably well, but it does put a hit on simulator fps and smoothness. Use of this kind of software inevitably requires making graphics compromises in order to achieve acceptably\e performance, but that's just how it goes. BTW it works really well with vPilot on VATSIM. Many thanks to the developers for that.
  8. Does AMD sharpening work with nVidia cards and drivers? I have found a modest sharpening with the GeForce Experience overlay to restore adequate crispness to the flat panel displays in the PMDG 737. Should I be using AMD sharpening instead? Many thanks as always.
  9. That's amazing! However, I have been in the eye of hurricanes twice in my life, and I can assure you that the rain under those clouds in what passes for the eyewall doesn't fall vertically. Also, the clouds tower much more than depicted here. But it's a great effort.
  10. Could not agree more. Outstanding performance in the PMDG 737 with fps in the high 30s-low 40s using DX12 and DLSS (quality). I am dealing with the glass panel blur by using the GeForce Experience Game filter setting for sharpness. Just a touch of sharpening does the trick without oversharpening the rest of the image. Add a bit of gamma correction to lighten the cockpit midtones and it's good. Systems specs should be in the signature.
  11. Not on my system, it doesn't. But TAA is outstanding in that regard. From my experience, this whole DX12/DLSS thing seems overblown, but this being flight simulation, everyone seems to get different results anyway. Choose what you like and then have fun.
  12. Interesting. All I had with DLSS on the 737 was the blurries, so I just use TAA. Seems to work fine. I purchased a new system a few weeks ago and had, of course, to reinstall MSFS, etc. I decided never again to tweak the sim, NVIDIA control panel, and the like. Too many variables and too little knowledge on the part of those who recommend them. To me, at least, it all seems like snake oil. Maybe the tweaking made sense in FSX (HIGHMEMFIX=1 will be engraved on many a tombstone) for which only two updates were published in a decade, but for MSFS, these regular updates make tweaking potentially problematic. Just one guy's opinion. YMMV.
  13. Do you have any idea how it fails? I had no problem with it, except for the blurry glass screens using DLSS.
  14. Just did an hour's flight in the PMDG 737 with SU10 (I was in the beta) and with the new Studio-oriented driver. Tried DX12 and so long as I stay away from DLSS which looks pretty useless unless I want out of focus glass panels, it seems that there is a modest image enhancement, but certainly not world changing. Everything worked fine, for what that's worth.
  15. I have tried to follow the erudite technical discussion in this thread, but I haven't found the spot where someone asks what the computation costs might be that are associated with evermore detailed real-time computations of aerodynamic behavior. I think we would all agree that Asobo has done a commendable job in providing good performance on fairly modestly equipped computer hardware. That 3PDs have taken good advantage of this behavior is well illustrated by PMDG's implementation of their 737 family entirely within the envelope provided by MSFS, with no need for external processes. Kudos all around for that. How will further elaboration of the physics models underlying the simulation engine provided by Asobo impact hardware requirements, particularly with regard to CPU frequency, memory, and processor count? Thanks.
  16. For the sake of accuracy, the P3D academic license is $59.95, while that for the professional license is $199. https://www.prepar3d.com/product-overview/prepar3d-license-comparison/#:~:text=Developer Licenses – %249.95%2FMonth (,you to develop for Prepar3D. The academic version is specifically limited to students at the undergraduate level or below.
  17. I found this video and the others in the playlist especially useful. These tutorials refer, of course, to the real G1000, but they really address some of the gotchas that invariably accompany any kind of cockpit automation.
  18. If I understand this correctly, the 800 is unique in having a "dead band" in elevator authority on takeoff. Apparently airflow over the wing disturbs that over the horizontal stabilizer/elevator shortly after establishing a positive rate of climb. This requires that one pull back a bit further on the yoke to continue pitching up to 15-20 degrees. This phenomenon was successfully simulated by the Zibo mod in XP or so we were told in some of the excellent videos by flightdeck2sim, but perhaps not in the PMDG simulation in P3D. 737NG Driver confirmed that it is observable in one of his recent videos on the MSFS -800. It's a small point, but there you go.
  19. Thanks Matt. This is a very expensive undertaking, and thanks, too, for all the great work on the NXi. Simply amazing.
  20. No. I'm assuming that much of the development work is being done either by contract workers or consultants, neither of which have any long-term job security nor company benefits like medical. In my line of work (STEM and its administration), consultants routinely were paid double their annual rate on an hourly basis, but I agree that the hourly rate looks mighty attractive, so sign me up, too. Unfortunately, no one seems very interested in my rusty skills at FORTRAN 66. I just looked at the iFlySimSoft web page and there's nothing there about the MAX for any platform, but we should all wish them much luck. PMDG has stated its intention to produce a MAX variant, but has not released any details that I can recall. If I were in the process of creating a MAX variant, one real concern would be that as I got closer to releasing my product, PMDG would simultaneously start teasing MAX screen shots and the odd video or two. That and the occasional somewhat rambling forum post would probably put a serious ding in the market for an alternate vendor's add-on. If iFly can release that MAX next month that would be great. If it's this time next year, not so much. And yes, it's all about the money.
  21. Again, my memory fails me sometimes, but I do recall that Cpt. Randazzo mentioned something like 6,000 hours for the 737-700, so I figured that a number like $150/hr fully loaded with overheads, fringes, etc., for highly skilled technical personnel (along with an estimate for long-term free tech support to users) brought me very close to that number. What I don't know is how much a MAX model could depend on 737ng development, so maybe that number is somewhat high. If others have a better guess, please feel free to share, especially with regard to that per hour guesstimate. Cheers.
  22. It's interesting how nostalgic folks are concerning the iFly 737 family product line. Some even seem to compare it to that offered by PMDG, which really surprises me, as I can't even recall the iFly product. I was about to chalk that up to my admittedly shaky memory, soI thought it would be useful to look for an objective comparison of those two product lines. For that, I chose the number of search returns in Google's video section. Here is a brief list: iFly 737-->1,930 iFly 738-->12,100 PMDG 737-->127,000 PMDG 738-->42,300 Honestly, I never had access to the iFly model, but I did enjoy the Zibo freeware add-on in XP. There was much discussion in their forums concerning how the Zibo compared to the PMDG and vice versa, but I don't recall any such conversation about the relative merits of Zibo to iFly. None of this is meant to denigrate previous iFly products, but the data do seem to suggest that its impact on the broader flight sim community can in no way be deemed comparable to that of PMDG's. If (and this is a big "If") these video search results in any way mirror actual sales figures, this raises an important question. Which of these vendors is likely to have access to the amount of capital required to create a high fidelity MAX from scratch? It could easily take a million dollars to create such a product. Who has the bucks/euros/pounds to make this happen? PS The Google video search for Zibo 738 returns roughly the same number as the iFly 738, for what it's worth.
  23. Thanks everyone. This discussion has put things into perspective for me, quite literally. I don't have room for a screen larger than 30" anyway, so 4K is probably overkill in any case. My current system (i7-7700K, GTX 1080, 32 GB DDR-4/3000 MHz) runs the PMDG 737 adequately with few stutters on mostly medium graphics settings with locked 30fps. The thing that annoys me the most is that at HD resolution those CRT screens are at the edge of legibility when I'm sitting at 24 inches and in the normal pilot's position. The Fenix A320 would probably be right at the hairy edge, but I haven't tried it yet. So bottom line is that it sounds something like an i7-11700K, RTX 3070ti, 32GB DDR-4/3600 MHz) set up would be quite adequate at 1440 even with the more advanced tubeliners and give me some headroom for more advanced models in the future. Cyberpowerpc offers a such a system for under $1900 these days, and I think I could get the parts for $1500 if I wanted to put the thing together myself. Thanks again.
×
×
  • Create New...