him225

probably fs2002 type ground polygons will be completely left behind this time as they almost did with 3.3 making many airports unusable. MCX is able to convert some of GPs to p3d type but it is not perfect as there is lot of flickering. Plus there are no seasons in p3d type ones from what I have read.

also been trying to find some real world flight plans having explored flightaware unable to find the routes and some incomplete ones, but found that skyvector has only the same routes available as flightaware. Looks like they take routes from the same source.

interested in such a fix as well since the AS a320 seems less responsive to small control movements, however could not see a noticeable difference to this on applying the fix. I looked in what has been changed to tweak further to my preference but found only aileron related parameter is modified in the fbw system. There are changes to MOI and geometry in the cfg but the aileron area has been roughly doubled to what appears to be unrealistic large value close to that of the elevator/rudder area. Have not looked into changes in the air file, but not sure if it carries fbw information as well.

Tessellation enables detailed water which is what you are seeing, there are moving cloud shadows without tessellation as well. How is the difference in performance though?

Cant imagine what the competition against p3d really is though. It is not in the same target or price segment, will never draw most users and become mainstream. Furthermore it is more of a professional usage oriented software so more of reliability/optimization directed than expansion/creative development as in a next gen sim. Due to stagnation of ESP years ago XP11 now somewhat surpassed in graphics and scenery department but it has much to go in other areas to draw preference. Doesn't look like DTG has much competition at present, the question is whether they are actually interested and able in involving with the core niche market and their interests or just casual short term arcade oriented gamers. The recent "what you want from the new sim" campaign for FS2016 was not a promising sign in this regard, it looked kind of superficial. Perhaps the delay and silence that has followed says it all.

I almost took this was about closing down of the ACES/MSFS development.

They may be old code but there is a difference in working in continuation of your own code and on someone else's code. The former will have lesser hesitation in changing things at the core while things will always be comparatively conservative and complicated with the latter.

In my observation p3d being the same core will give you at most the same performance as fsx plus some additional graphics enhancements as shadows reflections etc that will additionally use up the gpu. I think it will be simpler to start off with fsx settings that worked well for you and then increase the p3d specific settings gradually. It is easier to reduce the latter without significant difference in visual quality so you may want to try that. I had acceptable performance with the a320 although I do not have a top of the line gpu, so it might be the cpu bottlenecking. You might want to check in task manager if the main core is getting maxed out.

it seems the entry just sets upper limit of texture resolution for vc and actual resolution still varies with global texture setting as before

Curious to know how much gpu terrain rendering actually adds to performance, does it help in every case or can it become deteriorating such as in bad weather? Interestingly AS a320 is able to use gpu rendering for panels as opposed to cpu within p3d, not sure if other complex aircraft do this and how much that offloads from the cpu.

1. It seems AI isn't slowing down on taxi turns and as secondary measure it is getting slew turned at its point based on the stop angle setting. Don't know if it matters but for fsx taxi control I have toe brake scalar at 0.2 for most AI, tried increasing brake gain up to 10 in settings but no difference. The AI keeps taxing at its speed and jerks to halt at the intersection in slew, at some points it turns with stopping if it is slow enough. The taxi turn speed scalar is affecting degree rate of turn at slew but couldn't see any change in taxi speed approaching turn. 2. Like others seeing AI getting push backed too far and arrival one stopping bit early at parking. 3. Many AI going around citing too low on approach. Dropping in altitude between CI and FI waypoint at final though both have same assigned altitude. 4. AI engine sounds seem to be dropping to idle instantly and appear like gasping. A gradual throttle decrease might minimize this or perhaps keeping throttle little above idle.

if HT is on then use AM, at least to give the primary task a whole core. By default 1st and 2nd task get to share the same physical core.

well I guess the missing piece is as stated in the above link a higher empty weight and aircraft cost from the large fuselage structure forming that higher volume, which probably makes it less efficient indeed than other freighters for payload by weight. Also found a mention it has lower wing span and aspect ratio than required of 90m for its design, to minimize airport restrictions at cost of 10% reduction in fuel efficiency. Both carried over from it being a passenger design. Perhaps it would become viable at some point if the overall freight density becomes low enough to overcome these and make it a cost effective option in comparison.

do you have hdr turned on, that could be downing the colors

from the screenshots seems lacking in color fidelity than FT's other works. have become bored of EU/US airports though that many have been done twice, wonder why no quality developer is yet covering FIMP, WSSS, FAOR and the likes.

interesting article from 2005: http://www.airways.ch/files/2005/0805/001/boeing-airbus-freighter.htm

Lack of nose cargo door in what is supposed to be a large freighter seems to be another thing going against the a380. I think removing a single floor would be sufficient to set it on par if not surpass other freighters without losing structural rigidity. Still not clear about the volume weight ratio problem though, from what I understand it just means a380 has a larger space allowing easier accommodation of less density cargo. Why is that a downside?

If boeing has managed to sell 748 freighters why there are no a380 ones? One explanation I found is that the a380 is weighted out before it can be volumed out at typical cargo density. But why should that matter? If it is able to carry what it can carry at comparable or more efficiency/less expense than a 748f then it has potential to be an aircraft of choice. The additional volume then should be a bonus as it would allow larger volume cargo to be adjusted without weight penalty and premium. Another reason cited is the airbus's inability to adhere to delivery schedule. Is that the sole cause or are there other more obvious deal breaking issues? How is the payload carrying efficiency in comparison to the 748f?

I still remember the excitement when I saw that FS2002 trailer of landmark 747 holding short then taking off communicating with the ATC showing improved graphics, AI traffic and autogen in action - all for the first time. After trying to use fs98 and fs2000 and left unimpressed with the dead seeming world, I felt this was going to be something worthwhile.

How about the asus turbo one? I thought the blowout type fans were the more sensible design but most manufacturers seem to adopt the simple fan type that throw the heat inside the case too which gets re cycled into the gpu and heat other components as well before system fan flow can blow it all out. Noticed the founders editions also always carry the blow out design. What is the downside of it that most manufactures don't use it (for non overclocked versions too)?

how well does xplane11 handle multicore cpu? Does it also benefit from HT? In fsx/p3d performance is limited to one core which always gets maxed out.

After a short trial run with UT2, some issues I noticed: 1. Frame rate dropped from 30 to 20, didn't go back up on exiting aicontroller 2. AI control movements in air is twitchy 3. Taxiing aircraft coming to halt on turns then rotating while stationary 4. Not using middle runway for landing 5. Landing on both runway 9 and 27 simultaneously in calm winds, 360 at 1 in sim 6. Aircraft coming to halt on runway after landing 7. Some AI did a go-around on vacant runway Other than that great attempt at trying to externally control AI. I would like further options to set criteria for distribution of landing traffic among runways such as parking code/type, aircraft type etc. I don't think it would be problem since this information should be available through sim connect. Maybe have custom runway usage modes based on winds stored in their airport folder. Also as stated above would like to let p3d control ground traffic, but actual taxiing ai is awesome if you could stabilize the engines and better the turns.

OP might be asking this in light of a possible 64bit release in near future

I just tried asia mesh and saw many details added to the terrain. However I am finding there is in general too much variation/unevenness throughout in what should be flat areas, like a rough sea, in areas that should otherwise be mostly flat for eg around omdb. Is the terrain actually that uneven and less perceivable so in real life or this is expected in fsx/p3d with high resolution mesh? I do not have this with default or fsgenesis where with latter there is variation but it is gradual that doesn't take away the feeling of it being flat.

I see that if I switch pc to high performance mode there is much less cpu activity in task manager for background tasks compared to balanced mode.