Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

278 Excellent

About efis007

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/18/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

1,850 profile views
  1. The video was used to demonstrate that constant (constant!) 30 fps is sufficient for aircraft simulation. If the fps are 60 (constant!), even better. But 144 hz / fps is just a useless waste of calculations.
  2. 144 hz ?? Real video at 29.97 (30) constant fps.
  3. I have looked at it several times, I see no difference with my optimized XP11. I don't know how much time you spent on XP11 graphics optimization. I have been optimizing XP11 for 3 years, I have designed hundreds of sky textures and conducted all kinds of experiments on reshades, lua codes, colors, etc, to find the maximum realism from this simulator. This image... ... is an insult to my intelligence because I have NEVER had an XP11 with such crappy graphics. What graphic is that? Where did they get it from? Who has ever seen it? Where are the reflections? Where is the HDR? That video is ridiculous. This is the real graphics of my XP11.
  4. Can anyone explain to me what that video shows? "New lighting system" ..... where ?? ... when ?? ... but what is there to see ?? ... it's the usual XP11 ever! In the video they only changed the sky textures and reduced the raleigh value with the art controls (it gives the illusion that the setting sun is stronger and shines more). All the effects in the video can already be obtained now, just use custom sky textures, play with the art controls, and emphasize gamma and lighting with Reshade. XP12 new light technology? Nope.... XP11 conventional. I am a fan of XPlane. But that video offended me, it's ridiculous, it proved absolute nothing. 👎
  5. With Win7 it is preferable to use this Supersky: https://taxiway.forumfree.it/?t=76540701
  6. Ok, but I don't understand why you replaced the sky and cloud textures. The default FS2020 sunsets are beautiful, you should have left them.
  7. Beautiful shots 👍 but too many replacements with photoshop 😕
  8. I don't understand the speech. I'm not interested in enjoying the future, I'm interested in enjoying now. If now (for example) there is the A300 for XPlane11 (a masterpiece), why shouldn't I buy it? What do I care about Xp12! I buy the A300 now, enjoy it now, and enjoy it in the future as well. I don't have to migrate to XP12 right away, I can continue flying XP11 as long as I want. Xp12 we don't know when it will come out. 1 years? 2 years? Nobody knows. So what do I do ... do I let slip the products that I can now enjoy and that in the future I may no longer enjoy because they are incompatible? Or do I buy them for Xp12 but then I regret because they may not be compatible with XP13? Do I wait for compatibility all my life? So I stop flying, throw everything in the bin and dedicate myself to something else. I am a pilot who has learned to be satisfied with little in life. In fact, I still fly with FS9. Why? Because I don't care about the future. I enjoy now the good things I have now. I know ... I'm an old-fashioned person. 😎
  9. For graphics only. But as aircraft ... on-board systems ... flight dynamics ... it is FS2020 that has to compete against Xplane. I own a fleet of excellent pay liners ... B737 classic and NG, B757, B767, A319-320-321, MD80, A350, Saab Turboprop. I can't throw these planes in the trash and fly with the default FS2020 planes.
  10. Vulkan didn't break anything for me, all my planes work, the scenarios work, script lua work, reshade work, and I also had double the fps than before. 🙄
  11. I didn't want to speak for everyone, just my opinions. This sim currently does not give me security. I will wait for it to mature in the next few months, and then I will resume flying it, I am in no hurry.
  12. I am not familiar with this alt-tab block, I have never used it. What I meant in the previous comment is that when I fly with Xplane I feel safe, the chances of my flight being interrupted due to a CTD are very rare (and I'm not using default aircraft, but very sophisticated aircraft... Toliss...FlightFactor...Rotate...Zibo... etc). With FS2020 instead we go flying and you have to cross your fingers because the simulator can crash "randomly" without warning, even with default aircraft. So FS2020 is not (currently) a "solid base", it is a "critical base", definitely unstable and unreliable.
  13. Forgive me, but what do you mean by "solid base"? Everywhere I read that FS2020 causes (in many users) CTDs, stutters, crashes, etc. It doesn't look like a solid base, it looks like a very fragile crystal glass that breaks when you touch it or when you install a non-default external component. Do you want to see a simulator with a "solid base"? Try Xplane11 to understand what "solid base" means, I filled it with addons, plugins, liveries, planes, I manipulated textures, clouds, LUA codes, airac, reshade, etc ... and the simulator does not crash or stutter ... solid and stable as a rock. FS2020 does not have a "solid base", it is currently too uncertain, delicate, critical. Will improve? Of course. 👍 But it still takes some time before it can really be defined as a "solid base". I state that I am not criticizing the absence of FS2020 addons, planes, helicopters, etc. I criticize the base platform. Today this foundation is not solid. It is as delicate as glass. It has to become steel. The simmers don't want the "F1 car", beautiful, sparkling, with the most beautiful aesthetics in the world, but that breaks after 1000 km! 😕 They want a "battle tank" that never breaks down. FS2020 is the F1 car. Xplane11 is the battle tank. It is graphically inferior. True. But it is a battle tank in terms of solidity, much more reliable than FS2020.
  • Create New...