Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

151 Excellent

About PurdueKev

  • Rank
  • Birthday February 10

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Frederick County MD

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

872 profile views
  1. Yes, I think all 172 amphibian has this problem as well. No one has found a workaround that I can tell. Basically those planes are useless as amphibians because you can't steer them - even differential brake application doesn't work. This is one of those silly bugs that, while not game-breaking per se, makes you scratch your head as to how it gets through testing and how long it will take to fix it.
  2. Allow me to make a slight counter-argument... I have been fairly fortunate in that I have not encountered the CTD's and the only issues I have run into are either annoyances, or issues that while disappointing still allow use of the sim. However, that doesn't help the not-insignificant segment of the user base that isn't able to use a product that they paid for because a mandatory update was pushed to them. If the platform is intended to be as developmental as you say, and indeed as the developers openly suggest, then frankly the constant drumbeat of mandatory updates that either break major features of the sim or break compatibility with major complementary payware packages (packages that the develop encourages by providing an in-game marketplace, by the way) is not compatible with that objective. It simply creates extreme frustration amongst the user base and third-party developers, and it is borderline questionable from the standpoint of a business practice. Any user that has their use of the program interrupted by program-breaking bugs in a mandatory update really has no recourse but to complain as loudly as they can - the publisher already has their money, and they can't get a refund. What else are they supposed to do? DCS and Xplane have largely taken a different approach with updates - there is almost always an optional public beta branch for the next update cycle in order to test new features and changes with the maximum number of users, and that allows experimentation in a development environment where users aren't forced participate and thus have full use of the product they paid for while bugs are worked out on the beta. For both platforms, those public betas have in many cases taken months before release candidates were rolled out to everyone. This is especially important in a PC environment with so many different configurations of hardware and software. It is laudable that the developers have a long-term vision for the platform, and I agree that the level of commitment to a very public long-term roadmap is a breath of fresh air. But there is a commercial term for when software developers would like to offer a product to users with the promise of long-term development where features may be removed, broken, repaired and reintroduced in an experimental manner - it is called Early Access. But that is not how this program is marketed, is it? In my opinion, the flight sim community has been far too tolerant of this kind of behavior from developers and publishers. When someone has paid full price for a product or service, it is reasonable to expect that product or service to be available for use and not rendered unusable (as it is for some users right now) or with major features and performance removed or dismantled. MSFS isn't a community payware product - so why do we contend we have to treat it like that? The best and most trusted developers are the ones who try to get it right out of the gate, and take care to keep it that way as they continue to improve their product. And they get a massive amount of loyalty because of it. Again, I am overall satisified with MSFS myself and haven't gone back to [other flight sim that shall not be named] in many months, and excited for the development possibilities for the future. I certainly expect this sim to innovate far beyond what [other flight sim that shall not be named] did in a similar period of time. But the "tut-tutting" from certain quarters that implies people should just be happy with whatever bugs, CTDs and broken features they are served on a regular basis gets tiresome. And Asobo/Microsoft really should rethink their approach to rolling these mandatory updates out if they want more flexibility to "push the envelope."
  3. This is exactly what it seemed to me as well - you articulated it better than I could. The way reflections are displayed seems completely nerfed. Someone in this or another thread compared to Xplane, and that is what immediately came to mind for me as well. XP's reflections (at least up to a year or so ago - I haven't tried the latest release) were always a bit weird and ugly, and what I see reminds me of that.
  4. I saw the same. The only way I am able to do it is by using the Prop level on my throttle quadrant, which is bound to the Prop axis. With full prop, the throttle lever in the sim slides left to flight idle; when I move my prop lever to the bottom, the lever slides back to the right.
  5. I will be honest - it doesn't appear to be consistent from session to session (at least what I have observed in limited time with SU5). Did a flight around Hawaii last night, and there was very offputting morphing all over the place (that was why I posted my initial response) - worse than what I had ever seen previously with MSFS. But I just did a flight around Bella Coola, BC which is particularly mountainous and there was hardly any significant morphing. Different flights, of course, so I don't know if there was another variable at play. Also don't know how much is being controlled on the "backend" by what the servers are feeding. I spent a little time in dev mode trying to see how high I could move each setting without impacting my system, but I am honestly scratching my head understanding what sliders do and don't do what. I don't now if there is a slider that addresses or impacts the terrain complexity and LOD distance. For now, I basically just set each setting to the max level where I wasn't dropping frames - I don't know if that did anything to the terrain morphing or not.
  6. I don't think it is your hardware or bandwidth - terrain morphing is significantly more noticeable after the update than before.
  7. Yes - the "Ignore" function in our Profile is our friend in this case.
  8. I'm with you. I find little point in flying alone without any AI. Took a break from MSFS waiting for this update; guess I will wait a little longer. Don't understand how this kind of bug can be de-prioritized 9 months after launch. Appears MS got everyone to spend full price on what appears to be the equivalent of an Early Access title, with the way major features are broken in every "update."
  9. Same for me. 9 months after launch, and we still have to put up with inconsistent performance that just comes and goes. *shaking my head* Hoping that the vaunted "performance upgrade" coming later this month will finally fix things, but I will believe it if and when I see it.
  10. They should delay the update in such a case. Whether they actually will is an open question. This is a step in the right direction, absolutely, but whether the way they have chosen to implement this step will actually be effective isn't yet clear.
  11. There are some pretty long threads over at the MSFS site reporting the "melted buildings" look. It is not entirely clear what the issue is, but it definitely exists in certain parts of the world and has nothing to do with internet speed or connection - I see the melted buildings/trees periodically in Las Vegas and Palm Springs, for example, and I have a nearly 500MBps connection at my computer. I don't think the PG technology, as groundbreaking as it is, is fully perfected yet. Something is going on with either the source data or how it is translated into what is rendered, and perhaps the way LOD ties in with that. The issue has been around for awhile. You can turn off PG if you don't like the "melted buildings" but then you only get the generic autogen.
  12. I agree with you Manny - yes there are occasional bugs (though nothing game-breaking that can't be worked around or manipulated, in my experience), but overall the default MSFS ATC blows default P3D/FSX (and of course default XP) out of the water. It is refreshing to actually be vectored to an approach fix without being sent 100nm out of the way, and ATC actually seems to follow your filed STAR and approach. And I love the new feature to let the AI copilot handle comms while I fly the plane.
  13. I doubt it is any of that. I too have seen the G36 autopilot do this exact thing. Nothing to do with the engines or mixture - the AP just puts in full left aileron deflection and initiates a diving spin. You have to disconnect AP to get out of it and regain control, but if you reengage AP it goes right back into the spin. Only out of it is to quit the program and start over. Doesn't happen every time, but there are reports of bugs with conflicts to AI or MP aircraft that may be close by. I haven't tested enough to gauge how often this happens or if some of the published "fixes" about enabling generic traffic models work consistently.
  14. I think that would be a good way to do it, absolutely. Not saying the idea is perfect since it splits the multiplayer user base, but it is certainly worth considering (in addition to improving the robustness of their regression testing methodology, which as someone else suggested they clearly need to work on).
  15. I think they need to really add a beta phase at the conclusion of their two-week sprints - somebody mentioned they intend to establish a community user group to test patches before they are fully released, if so that is exactly the right move. I'm surprised they weren't already doing this, but better late than never I suppose. Early in development you can get away with just a "minimum viable product" approach, but once you are in a broad release you can't really keep doing that. Customers need to see a more polished product unless they "opt in" to a beta experience. ----- I do welcome this level of communication we are seeing from these developers, and the apparent openness to listen to feedback and to learn from (and admit) mistakes. But I must say I also scratch my head at some of the community commentary that pretends like this is some sort of freeware project and that the developers' feelings are going to be hurt by legitimate criticism. This is a global commercial software franchise worth millions upon millions of dollars - if anyone can't handle the pressure of all that comes with that, they should find another line of work. There is nothing wrong with customers expecting that features that were advertised and paid for work properly. The toxicity in some corners is very unfortunate, but sadly that is the nature of the internet these days.
  • Create New...