JamesIceland

I haven't noticed this and I did try and push things a bit a EKCH with lots of detail/cloud - VAS was fine. That said, your comment about not being convinced about ASCA is correct and unfortunately what I am experiencing - the textures just simply aren't as good as REX's and unlikely to be once Skyforce comes out. Overcast is fine but that's mainly a mass of one texture or the same textures - it's the individual clouds which look strange and I can't quite decide what it is about them either - I put soft clouds back in and it was better again. Maybe there will be some updates. AS16 is a great weather program, ASCA textures are not quite there yet. I really hope that 3rd party (REX) textures can be dynamically injected or I'll be a bit pretty disappointed about ASCA to be honest.

Very limited testing so far but I'm coming from ASN and Rex Soft Clouds. Using AS16 and ASCA for the first time I did see a difference in the way the clouds looked. Fluffy white clouds (IMHO) looked a bit cartoony with ASCA compared to Rex Soft Clouds. That said, full overcast was finally full overcast which I struggled to get with Rex - I think this was because the correct texture set was being loaded dynamically so you end up with a better depiction. Loading up the exact weather for where I am now produced ok results - I'm not sure we'll ever get the looking out of the window and seeing the same in sim effect. The cumulonimbus clouds around here right now were depicted but again, against the blue sky did look a bit cartoony compared to the REX Soft Clouds. They did tower up massively though which I haven't seen before. If Rex Skyforce can dynamically load in with AS16 I have a feeling that could be an ideal combo. These are just my initial thoughts and only in a couple of locations. Overcast is good, fluffy clouds not so much in my opinion (compared to Rex). Love the dynamic loading though. James

Hi all, I have posted a similar topic on Orbx's forum but so far I have received no response or comments. I have been holding off installing Vector into my P3D v3 installation as it had a huge impact previously on VAS usage in my previous 2.x installations - so much so that I think it was a major cause of the OOM's I was having. Right now I have FTX Global and Open LC packages installed along with a couple of the full fat regions (Aus, PNW and PFJ) and I have a lot of VAS headroom. In certain areas I really do enjoy the extra detail Vector provides however so I'm a bit torn at the moment. Has anyone seen any real impact on VAS in v3 with Vector installed? If so, do you have any recommendations on settings in the configuration tool (main roads/secondary roads etc) that you have found have helped? Incidentally I watched a YouTube video from Rob earlier and noticed in a comment he said he didn't have Vector installed yet and may wait until v3.1...and not to read to much into that. Any experiences from users already would be greatly welcomed. Happy to sit tight with the sim performing as it is - Vector does add a lot though! James

I'm really in 2 minds as to whether to go for this. I had MyTraffic 2013 in FSX and P3D v1.4 and my experience was pretty mixed. Performance was definitely an issue and I found it hard to remove. I tried UT2 in P3D up to 2.3 - it wasn't bad but again performance and stability were an issue for me. There are a couple of weeks left on the offer price so I'll keep an eye on this forum and see what people are experiencing - I have a pretty clean install of P3D 2.5 right now and traffic is one thing I'm missing. Does MT6 install inside or outside of P3D out of interest (like UT2)?

Hi Nelson, Thanks for that - I did actually uninstall everything relating to P3D before installing 2.5 and then installed PrecpitiFX back in fresh too - I will perhaps try again. My settings are in the right area for it to work. Perhaps the developers could advise if we should wait for an updated installer or manually change any .cfg's? Thanks

Hi there, I would like to know this as well as I cannot see the effects working in 2.5 having installed PrecipitFX into it. Someone on the P3D forums mentioned adding some lines to aircraft.cfgs but they were taken from an FSX installation (which I don't have - just P3D). Keen to get it working in P3D 2.5 as it look awesome in 2.5. James

Thank you both - Andras, I look forward to the new mesh arrival. JH71 - you comment on OSM data being key I think is the main reason I'm seeing odd placement of autogen although this was over London which I'm told has very good OSM data - I've installed Simheaven photoscenery for London and I think it looks a bit better now but will play around a bit. Will also install the Iceland mesh properly...good learning experience this! Thanks for all your help

Thanks for that. Can you recommend any orthoscenery for Europe coverage? Will that really solve autogen placement? From what I understand I have Iceland satellite scenery and Europe osm but it doesn't produce any buildings...but I know Iceland is a bit random so prepared to accept it may be unique (I just happen to like flying there)

Thanks - I've pretty much done that I think haven't I? Bar the Iceland scenery (which I originally had below OSM with same result)

Hi there, I'm just settling into using X Plane 10 and finding my feet somewhat. I was recommended to check out the Simheaven OSM scenery - it looks really excellent but so far I'm finding issues with autogen placement. As a newbie to X Plane I realise I am probably doing something basic wrong so as a starting point I've attached a few pics which show autogen placed oddly on the underlying textures (just outside EGLL in London) whilst some textures/buildings don't appear at all. I've pasted my scenerypack.ini below which I have ordered as per the instructions. I have also taken out UrbanMaxx to see if it makes a difference too. You'll notice I have Iceland HD mesh/scenery installed too - this is a great example of where Reykjavik (the capital) has almost zero buildings - trees seem ok but building autogen is almost non-existent. I have moved this around in the .ini file a bit to see if it makes a difference and it doesn't - I had it at the bottom originally. Any ideas anyone? Just keen to try and get some semblance of underlying textures and autogen lining up roughly - it's jarringly wrong at the moment! Scenery pack.ini: SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Anchorage Recut/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - BIKF Keflavik/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EHAM Airport Amsterdam/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - LSZH Zuerich Airport/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - LSZH Zuerich Scenery/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EBBR Brussels/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EDDF Frankfurt/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EDDH Hamburg/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EDDK Cologne/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EDDM Munich/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EDDS Stuttgart/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EDDT Berlin Tegel/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EDDV Hannover/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EDLP Paderborn-Lippstadt/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EGBB Birmingham/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EGKK London-Gatwick/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EGLL Heathrow/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EGPF Glasgow/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EGSS London-Stansted/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - EIDW Dublin/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - LEBL Barcelona/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - LEMD Madrid/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - LFMN Nice Cote d Azur X/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - LFPG Paris CDG/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - LFPO Paris Orly/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - LPFR Faro/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Aerosoft - LSGG Genf/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Global Airports/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/KSEA Demo Area/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/KSEA Demo Terrain/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/LOWI Demo Area/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/zzz_new_zealand_pro-v1/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/zzz_new_zealand_pro_overlay-v1/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/x-plan10_hd_scenery-iceland/ ----have placed this at bottom too SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Osm_Europe_osm+autogen/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Osm_South-America/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Osm_North-America/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Osm_Central-America/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Osm_Antarctica/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Osm_Australia-Oceania/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Osm_Asia/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Osm_Africa/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Urban_Maxx_Extreme_V2_3D/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/OpenSceneryX/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/R2_Library/ SCENERY_PACK Custom Scenery/Europe_Library/ Any help appreciated! Many thanks James

Hi all, My names is James and I am the author of this petition. There was no intention for it to be anonymous, it doesn't show the author's name for some reason in the post page. For those concerned about how it has been written, I take your points on board and would be happy to receive any suggestions from you. Feel free to message me or point me in the direction of someone who may wish to provide an edit of the text. For those concerned about donations, these appear at random it seems and can be totally ignored. I believe it is the ipetitions site asking for donations but you can cancel out. It certainly isn't me! For those making comments about how pointless it all is, that's fine too. I am a flight sim enthusiast along with the rest of you. I'm passionate and keen for our hobby to have a future and I thought this may be a good way for people to show that there is a demand for an updated sim. Whether Microsoft or LM take notice (and I'm fully aware that it is a long shot) time will tell. I happen to think that LM do care about the FS community as a whole. In their interactions through their forums, and in response to requests for features/feedback, they have shown that they are willing to listen to suggestions and ideas from anyone who gets in touch. It was my hope, however misguided it may be, that this may give the petition a chance of being looked at and considered. If that is a mistake, as many of you on here seem to believe, then it is an innocent one by me. I am a user of FSX, P3D and X-Plane 10. I am excited about P3d V2.0 the most as it will still allow a huge number of legacy add-ons to work. I think it has the best chance to be the next gen sim until someone else comes up with something totally new. Therefore trying to petition Microsoft and LM to make it available to the widest audience of users and developers seemed like something worth trying. My intentions are for this to be a positive thing but appreciate there will be many who disagree. To those that think this is a waste of time, there is no obligation to sign up. I don't know whether a few hundred or many thousand signatures will make any difference but wanted to give it a go. Just wanted to clarify a bit of background and also not appear anonymous! James

Christoph, your post sums it up beautifully. Olli, you are also right about an entertainment PMDG 777 not being allowed to work in P3D not being the solution. Hence I will pay anything for one that does work i.e. a commercially licensed one! I don't care as long as I don't have to rely on fsx. What's the point of a long haul aircraft if there's a good chance that at some point during the flight fsx will crash? The longer the flight, the more opportunity for fsx to have it's fun with us! Incidentally, I didn't experience OOM issues. The sounds were OOM like but the crash itself was not. I've had them before and there was no warning message this past few times. Definitely something else! But as I've said, I'm done trying to figure out what. P3D is back working really well for me so I guess a commercial PMDG would be my only real option. Oh well, you live in hope!!

Haha, the law of averages means that for all the many thousands of fsx users with issues there had to be one that has had it running perfectly and here he/she is! I'll bet you'll be the only one immune to the zombie apocalypse too you lucky sod ;-)

What I love the most about FSX is that it has it's own character for everyone's different systems! Sometimes it'll work for months with no issues then suddenly it will take a dislike to something and pack up. Surely FSX is unique in the history of software in this regard? Most software is designed to work on a multitude of platforms out of the box but FSX has to be uniquely tailored for each systems. The various tweaking guides and bibles are full of "your mileage may vary" or " you may find this will/won't work for you" phrases - it's hilarious really. It was such an initially broken piece of software that even after 7 years we still can't get it to play nice. That's why P3D is such an improvement in my mind - someone has taken the time to get rid of the major issues although it is still FSX and a 7 year old bit of code. I was thinking after seeing the comments last night - something like a dedicated flight sim could be ideally suited for the Apple methodology of software and hardware integration. If you could design a flight simulator to fit a specifically designed hardware configuration and sell the whole lot as a package you could end up with something that you almost plug and play. I don't mean specific flight sim PC builds either, I mean a specific box that only has a flight sim on it. For example, EULA's aside, you could take a PS4 or X Box One and use their power and grunt to be dedicated to flight simming. Or similar hardware. Programmed correctly maybe you could add up to 3 monitors? It would come out of the box ready to accept any of the joysticks available and you would turn it on and it wouldn't CTD as it wouldn't have a desktop! If a scenery firm like Orbx teamed up with some of the big aircraft boys like PMDG (maybe 3-5 developers all in) maybe the ultimate flight sim could be created that you would just plug and play. People would argue that the capital investment would be huge - maybe something like Kickstarter would solve this? I know I'd invest and I'm sure many others would too - especially considering how much we all spend on our sims now. There could be future upgrade paths through downloads and there would be no need to worry about the system becoming obsolete - FSX already proves we are more than happy with a 7+ year product cycle! And the PS3 and X Box 360 are still going strong. Come on PMDG, what do you reckon? Not only that, the developers would have a tighter control on things - some would say a bad thing but it works for Apple and the iOS experience is a finely honed experience. This is probably too much to ever hope but I'd be curious to see if it could work. Let me know your thoughts... James