vortex681

I completely agree. I'm convinced that upgrading (rather than clean-installing) is what causes many of the issues we see with Windows 10. I always view a new build as the perfect opportunity to start with a fresh OS install and just add the software I need (or actually use) rather than dragging all the old stuff across. I started my current system with a clean install and, to date, have had no issues with Windows 10 and the OS has all of the available updates installed (minus optional drivers).

But 4K is all about resolution and the number of pixels. That's how it produces the quality of the image. If it was lower resolution with less pixels, it wouldn't be as good.

If you're going to argue your case, you need to start by getting your facts correct. What's generally referred to as 4K (wrongly, as it happens because true 4K is actually 4096 x 2160) has a horizontal resolution of 3840, not 3860. That gives it a pixel count of 8,294,400, not 4,000 (which doesn't even equate to 800 x 600). Also, the pixels in most 4K TVs are no better quality than those in Full HD TVs, there are just a lot more of them. Yes - and they still look pretty poor because there's only so much upscaling and post processing that your TV set can do. Your TV does the upscaling internally since the broadcaster has no idea what resolution screen you're watching on. See: https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/4k-upscaling-everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-tvs-turn-hd-into-4k That's exactly how it does it! I can get true 4K TV programs and live broadcasts in the UK through my Sky Q satellite TV dish. Virgin in the UK do it through their cable connection. How else could they possibly be doing it if it wasn't through the cable or the dish?

NO!!!!!!! If I had my way I'd ban polls in this forum as they achieve little except to cause endless, sometimes quite vitriolic, arguments. Polls where, at best, only a few hundred participate out of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of members here are statistically irrelevant.

But not if viewed on a screen with the standard pixel resolution. You can only see the number of pixels your screen physically has so higher resolution images will always look slightly softer focus as they're being donwnscaled to fit.

You can easily set Windows 10 so that it doesn't update any drivers on your PC. In between major version releases, my W10 system only accepts bugfixes and security updates (no drivers) - who wouldn't want these if you go online?

Sorry, but this is just another pointless poll which has absolutely nothing, specifically, to do with the new sim - it could equally apply to any sim. It should be in the VR forum.

What makes you think this? Some may do but i'd be very surprised if most did - I certainly don't.

In my opinion, 4k on 27" screens, or smaller, is just a waste of system resources. At normal viewing distances on a 27" monitor you can't even see the individual pixels at QHD so why bother with the added load of running at 4k? At my viewing distance even my 32" QHD monitor looks pin sharp so, apart from the potential extra colours with 4k HDR (which I probably wouldn't notice, anyway), it's not worth the performance loss for me to go to 4k. If you viewed the preview videos on your non-4k monitor and were impressed, then you'll be equally impressed with the sim when you run it live. They may have been captured in 4k but you're viewing them (assuming you're doing so full-screen) at the native resolution of your monitor. They may look even better when they're not being re-scaled to your monitor resolution.

The very website you linked in one of your previous posts contradicts what you say above - https://www.foxtel.com.au/support/products-and-features/4k-ultra-hd-and-compatibility.html. Look at the first dropdown "What is 4K Ultra HD" which says that 4K or ultra HD is 20 times the resolution of SD. They even refer to it as Ultra HD from then on. There's a better explanation here: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174221-no-tv-makers-4k-and-uhd-are-not-the-same-thing. What everyone refers to as 4K for TVs and monitors is Ultra HD and it has nothing to do with upscaling HD but everything to do with screen resolution. Why would they even bother upscaling old HD content to broadcast as UHD? Your TV does that on its own without any intermediate steps from the broadcaster.

I don't know enough about 4k to discuss the technicalities, but this is from an article on 4k.com (who I'd expect to know): Thus, for ideal 4K streaming connectivity that delivers consistently smooth native ultra HD picture quality, we ourselves would suggest getting an ISP package which offers at least 50Mps for some genuine reliability. http://4k.com/buying-a-new-4k-hdr-tv-how-much-bandwidth-do-you-need-22646-2/ Am I misunderstanding what they mean by "native"? Are you also saying that Stadia’s much-touted 4k gaming service is just upscaled HD? If so, why does it need more bandwidth than their HD service?

An interesting DIY approach here: https://vrflightsim.wixsite.com/mysite/in-progress

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from but you don't need anywhere near that bandwidth to stream 4k. Netflix recommends at least 25Mbps and Amazon recommends at least 15Mbps for 4k streaming. For gaming at 4k/60Hz with HDR on Stadia, Google's recommends a minimum of 35Mbps (and that's streaming the entire game continuously over the connection). As MSFS will be running on your PC and just streaming data (scenery) as required, you'll probably get away with a lower bandwidth. The amount of data is likely to be a bigger problem if your ISP imposes a data cap.

VR users overall: Steam survey - 1.1% VR users in flight sims: Navigraph survey - 11% (from a rather restricted demographic), X-Plane survey - 2.06% Are those hard numbers enough? I almost laughed out loud when I saw that you wrote this! Perhaps that applies equally to you?

I read that. What they didn't say was whether that was A priority or THE priority. I imagine it was always a priority over some lesser features.

I'm sorry but if that was supposed to answer my question, it was wasted on me! I'd just rather know which outcome you were referring to.

If that was really the case, why did they say at the press conference that it would likely not be in the initial release? Why say that if they already knew (from their market research) that it should be their priority? Just to stir up VR users?

Which outcome are we talking about?

Doesn't the team include a Microsoft representative (on the far right)? Wouldn't he have spoken up if that statement needed to be qualified?

Where are the "pitchforks"? Where are the incorrect comments about VR? Where are the attempts to stop VR support in MSFS? If you can't answer these questions with supporting evidence, your post is simply emotive and inflammatory. Why should the ATC poll be in retaliation to this one? Are you so worried about VR support that you think that it's the only feature that's allowed to have a poll? Everyone can use ATC, even if they choose not to - it's not dependent on hardware. The same can't be said for VR. No, it's not. It's only a sample of those who can be bothered to vote and VR users have already shown that they're much more likely to vote than non-VR users. I'd guess that many members who visit this forum haven't voted. The bottom line is that we just don't know, which is why the poll can't be seen as being in any way representative. Just looking at the numbers involved, both polls can't possibly be show the feelings of the community as a whole and so are invalid as an indication of how many people who use flight sims globally use VR. Do you really think that a company the size of MS will not have done their market research and will need a few hundred votes in a poll to change their build plans and priorities for the new sim?

I'm not even sure that half (or much more, if the result of the other poll is to be believed) of the people posting in this sub-forum are VR users. But, even if they are, the results are in no way representative of Avsim, or the flight sim community as a whole, so what do they actually achieve? Which has been exactly my point all along! Having these polls, particularly one specifically about VR usage is pointless to anyone other than a VR user (who is much more likely to participate). None of the points you've raised have highlighted errors in my original post which is what I'd asked for in the part of the post you quoted. I was trying to give a balanced, alternative view to that given by those with VR hardware who are, understandably, very enthusiastic about it.

I completely agree that MS should support VR and, contrary to what others here seem to be implying, I have actually said as much in other posts. VR adoption is, indeed, growing, but just not nearly as quickly, particularly in the gaming world, as some would have us believe. Global VR sales may be increasing but the figures generally include all headsets, including standalone and console variants, and a significant number of those sales go to commercial/trainIng organisations and not solely to gamers. VR has been touted as the next big gaming revolution for the past few years but has yet to achieve the necessary sales and success to fully justify this claim.

Its my (probably futile) attempt to add some logic and perspective to the VR discussion. Please point out the errors in what I said. Please also point out where I said "the world is going to pot "cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria" give me proof"? It's this sort of emotive, exaggerated posting that's just stirring up the debate for no good reason.

I can't believe that there's another pointless poll here! It's pointless because all of the VR users will vote because they want to appear to have significant numbers and non-VR users will probably think there's not much point because it doesn't achieve anything. Whatever the poll says (unless VR users come out as a very small minority), we know that VR usage in flight sims is small. I have absolutely nothing against VR, but the poll results here are simply exaggerating the apparent proportion of forum members who use it. The poll doesn't actually tell us anything about the proportion of members using VR headsets, just the number (out of the many, many thousands of members here) who do. In surveys which looked at several different aspects of the flight sim hobby (and had no particular VR emphasis or agenda), VR usage in sims was at best around 10% and at worst less than 5% depending on which survey you read. I get that if you use a VR headset you want support for it to be included in the new sim but you also need to accept the fact that you constitute only a small minority of the flight sim community, no matter how vocal or evangelical about VR you are. Making it look as though there is a large proportion of the community using VR doesn't actually make it so. The only way to have a poll which was in any way representative would be if you were somehow able to poll all members. The only way to put this into perspective is, when this poll finally closes, to look at the total number (not percentage) of people who said they use VR and then relate that to the total number of Avsim members. Any other way of doing it is simply not realistic or representative. It's much less than that! If you add up all of the VR stats in the latest Steam Hardware survey it shows that only fractionally over 1% of gamers in the survey use VR headsets. That figure hasn't changed significantly for quite some time. If there's another publicly available VR data set relating specifically to PC gamers (and not just global sales of hardware) other than the Steam, Navigraph or X-plane surveys, someone should post a link to it here for comparrison.

It's easy to stop Windows update from installing driver updates: https://pureinfotech.com/exclude-driver-updates-windows-10/