• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Good

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

532 profile views
  1. Sorry, but if you get into your old car, you won't start to panic, it's been two years you've last driven it - you are going to KNOW how to drive it, because you have a drivers licence which qualifies you to drive about any type of car out there. If you don't want to earn your drivers licence, well, then you shouldn't drive a car. Same thing with sceneries: I don't remember myself many scenery I've installed, but if I need to remove any of them, I can find them ASAP because they are named intuitively, and since I know the basics of file interaction, it's just a matter of deleting folders. Again, removing plugins is the same thing: 90% of them resides in the plugins folder, and they are named intuitively. I'm sorry, but you make this whole thing sound like overly difficult, while it's clearly isn't (an as someone who can create installers with Visual Studio, I don't see what is so difficult about basic file-folder operations). And if everyone would have the same attitude (I don't want to know how it works, I don't want to put in the effort), then today we wouldn't have thousands of gateway sceneries, or those addons and plugins you are talking about. The world of X-plane would be much poorer. Which doesn't mean that there are no beginner users (both to flightsims and to computers), but this behavior should not be encouraged in my opinion, instead, people should be helped to UNDERSTAND what is going on behind the scenes: 'Give the man some meat to feed him for a day, teach the man how hunt, and he shall never be hungry anymore.' And while that might sound elitist, that is my point. After all, you cannot just show up at your local airport, and demand that you want to rent an aircraft without proving first that you have the right qualifications and know how to fly an aircraft, because you've earned it. A good flight simulator is there to simulate the procedures of real flying, thus requires (or should require) at least some study and effort. And if those people have decided to leave, then probably an X-plane level flight simulation was not for them, and they are going to have more luck with other offerings (such as FSW or Aerofly, which are both great product by the way, but require little user interaction). If they would have been REALLY interested in the hobby, they would have said 'The hell with it, I'm going to teach myself a little bit about this, I'm sure it's not rocket science'. After all, even in real life, having a pilot's certificate is not a right, but an earned privilege. Why would people expect that they could just jump into the cockpit and fly a virtual aircraft in a FAA certifiable simulator, with no effort being taken? And I'm not talking about an 'exclusive club' here... anyone, who can read and have about a few hours can learn about these things, can easily become at least basically qualified in these matters. We have other platforms which are 'dumbed-down', or shall I say 'more beginner friendly' or 'sealed-off', where end-users can't touch anything about the software, and they get what they've offered, whether they like it or not, but thank God, X-plane is different, and I hope it stays that way. Those who find basic file-folder interactions and text file editing difficult, and totally unwilling to learn, should try their luck elsewhere in my opinion, because flying is not about having 4 buttons on a controller in a casual action-shooter game. Instead it's about learning new things, respecting aviation, and putting in effort. What are they going to do in the virtual cockpit of a 737? Because Boeing doesn't exactly care to make their aircraft 'beginner friendly' to appeal to a wider audience. Anyway, I see we are not getting terms on this, and it's getting really off-topic now, so I leave it there, but I had to voice my opinion and follow up your post.
  2. While I agree to a certain degree with both sides on the 'simple-not simple' discussion, I believe that oversimplifying X-plane usage even more would only attract the type of crowd who should not be using X-plane in the first place. We shouldn't forget that it can be used as an FAA approved simulator, and I believe that anyone who touches it, should beef up their computer skills a little bit. People doesn't need to become computer scientist, but a simple understanding of copy-and-paste, and how scenery folders should be ordered, would be very useful for every X-plane user. And don't forget that those things are not exactly the PHD level of computer usage. If you are willing to pay thousand of dollars for a computer, knowing a little bit more about how to use it would be logical, isn't it? While I'm all in for a large userbase for X-plane (I'm a developer after all, and that would also mean more sales), I would also like to see a somewhat more knowledgeable X-plane crowd. There are other alternatives available (recently Aerofly FS2 also became cross-platform), so anyone, who is unwilling to put some effort into learning how basic computer usage, should probably be better off with a different option - it would spare them a lot of frustration along the way, while they could still take on the virtual skies. Real world flying also requires learning techniques and procedures (way more difficult stuff than understanding X-plane scenery hierarchy or learning how to copy-and-paste), and I believe that X-plane should be treated the same way as well: before you jump into it, learn about it - if you are unwilling to do that, than how do you expect yourself to learn the intricacies of a complex machine as an aircraft? X-plane used to be (and still is), a tweakers simulator: it works well by default, but if you're up to the challenge, you can go in, and modify stuff absolutely to your taste. This serves everyone well: more casual users get a great experience, while more knowledgeable users can get their ways, too. And we (the more knowledgeable crowd) don't want to give up the option to dig into the gamefiles, and modify stuff - this is part of our hobby, and X-plane's tweaker heritage.
  3. While I also prefer modifying my .ini myself (after all it's not rocket science, and at least I know what is going on with my custom sceneries), you can just make a backup copy of it before installing KCGX, to make sure that there is something to fall back on. But as I gathered, everyone is pleased how FTX Central handles changes in the .ini, and there should be no problems.
  4. Susu986

    Reshade Problem.

    For the prop disc problem, just find the offending prop disc file, and make it transparent in Photoshop (or probably Gimp can also do that). Even though the spinning propeller will disappear, it won't be too unrealistic, as they are semi-transparent already anyway.
  5. Susu986

    Reshade Problem.

    It always does. Non-fixable, as Reshade has never designed to work with X-plane. We still use it, because it's the best tool around. The hang-up-on-exit error is a bit annoying, but no deal breaker (your are exiting the sim anyway).
  6. Susu986

    XPlane 11 Vulcan

    Vulkan will do directly the opposite. Right now, PC users can use Reshade to give the sim a more vibrant look (look at FsEnhancer for example). Reshade is not compatible with Vulkan, so it will actually TAKE AWAY the ability to spice up those colors. Hopefully MaxxFX will still work, however it's not as powerful as Reshade - well, still better than nothing.
  7. FsEnhancer It's PC only, unfortunately no MAC or Linux because of Reshade, but in my opinion it's the best lookinig package so far. For the haze, reduce the 'haze_be_gone' dataref with the DataRefEditor, it works with any visibilty, and scales automatically.
  8. You can also try FsEnhancer. It's a complete package with Reshade, textures and scripts. Unfortunately he couldn't got rid of the flickering either, but at least clouds and colors are beautiful, and cloud shadows seems strong enough (maybe it can give you an idea).
  9. Yes, the X-Plane Landmarks - London is Laminar's own. However, while they are beautiful structures, there is only 4 of them. So if you regularly fly over London, you still may want to use a third party pack. Also, if you don't mind the time and effort, I would educate myself in WED, so that the next time you see amateurish looking buildings, you can disable them. X-plane is a tweakers simulator (opposed to like Aerofly FS2), and it's worth learning a bit about it's inner workings, if you regularly fly.
  10. Definetely a VRAM overusage problem. If you fly the same aircraft all the time, you can try the reduce some of it's texure sizes. I used to have a GTX 780 with 3 GB of VRAM, and I could ran XP fine, even with orthos, and got around 2,500 MB of VRAM usage (on 'High' of course, which I still do, even though I have a better card since then). The only time this balance got upset when I've purchased the Airfoillabs C172, which was too heavy on my VRAM. So I just went into Photoshop and reduced many of it's textures to half size, and problem solved. But that was before XP 11.10, since then my video card died, so now I have a 1080 and cannot comment if 11.10 had any negative effects or not. Also, I'm not sure about your orthos resolution. Mine are ZL16, with a ZL17 circle surrounding airports. Anything larger than that will seriously challange your VRAM. And I agree, 'High' texture res is mostly indistinguishable from 'Max', however 'Medium' is decidedly bad looking.
  11. Susu986

    Ortho4XP Overlays

    Yes 😃
  12. Susu986

    X-Plane 11 VR and GTX 1080

    Well, thats pretty cool. I've barely gotten any increase with my 1080 from a 780. Only if I compare it to my internal Intel graphics card, haha 😃
  13. Susu986

    X-Plane 11 VR and GTX 1080

    You are probably right, but of course it's always different. My observations: with the GTX 780, that I couldn't really use 'Maximum' texture resolution - my 3GB RAM was not enough, but even then, there was a noticeable fps drop compared to 'High', even when I didn't fill my VRAM completely. With the 1080, I can enable 'Maximum' texture quality without any fps drop, - of course now I also have the VRAM to do so. However, overall framerates stayed the same - and they are no longer affected by anti-aliasing and texture quality level. At least on my PC.
  14. I guess that has nothing to with the quality of the joystick. One just cannot expect to let go of your controller and fly in a straight line, not even in FSX. If you don't touch the controls for a minute, you'll probably enter into a pretty nasty turn. I guess that is normal (but I'm not real world pilot unfortunately). What wasn't normal is that during takeoff your aircraft wanted to weer off the runway unless you've apllied almost full rudder and had screetching tyres, almost drifting while trying to stay to keep the aircraft straight. And that has been fixed, at least on the Cessna, I don't know the others.
  15. Susu986

    X-Plane 11 VR and GTX 1080

    My GTX 780 died about 3 weeks ago and since then I have a 1080. I've expected somewhat better framerates. To my amazement, barely anything changed, average framerates stayed the same. There are some improvements, I can use full anti aliasing for example without penalty and Reshade is also less taxing now, only loosing about 1-2 fps now instead of 5-6. But overall, I'd say, don't expect miracles. X-plane (and P3D too) taxes both the CPU and GPU. You can actually check which one bottlenecks you (I'm clearly bottlenecked by my I7 4770K) with the built in fps counter in X-plane, just at look at response times for both the CPU and GPU, and whicever is higher, is likely the culprit for the average fps. I'm not sure how this will relate to VR. Since newer NVidia cards are geared towards VR, you might see improvements in VR performance, but as for normal framerates, probably not much. And since the Colonel says that Flyinside will byte into your CPU... well, I wouldn't want to loose any percentage out of my CPU performance. I don't really run anything else apart from X-plane, but I've tested a bit of Train Simulator, and I could definetely feel the framerate improvements. If you discount flight simulators and focus on games, you will definetely benefit from better framerates. X-plane is different territory however.