• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Afterburner

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    South Carolina
  • Interests
    Flight Simulation, Multimedia

Recent Profile Visitors

559 profile views
  1. I use Webroot. Very light, easy to switch off before using P3D and doesn't use much computer resources.
  2. This issue is usually related to sky texture files. I am saying that because I did sky texture editing a while ago, and I figured out that this occurs if the bottom two lines of the image are not edited properly (by the developer). Can you try using ENVTEX sky textures and tell us whether you see the same problem? I bet you won't, because I have been using their textures and experienced no issues. Personally, I can't imagine any other add-on delivering better sky textures than ENVTEX.
  3. Hello, The terms "FPS Limiter" and "Fiber Frame Time Fraction" pop up in FSX/P3D forums every now and then, so I wanted to dig deeper and find how it affects FPS and scenery loading. I have demonstrated the effects in this video using different values and explained the trade-offs. If you limit the frame rate in your simulator, I highly recommend to watch it.
  4. Thank you for your answer. Just one last question to make sure that I understand what the product is about: Is it a cloud-replacement tool (like REX TD) that requires an additional weather program, or does Sky Force 3D include a weather generation engine, so that we don't need to use a weather add-on like AS2016 to fully benefit from the advantages?
  5. If you want better FPS, you just turn down some sliders in the display settings to your liking. For that, I don't need a $15 tool that does it for me...
  6. Yes, it sounds really amazing. The most appealing feature to me is the following: However, I am wondering if this feature unfolds itself only when you use REX' internal weather engine without Active Sky, or whether the improved FPS comes to fruition even if you do use other weather add-ons. In the latter case, how will SF3D interact with the weather add-on? I mean, if Active Sky injects new clouds every 15 minutes, which hurts the FPS (because that's the way it has been programmed), it must surely do it with the SF cloud textures, too...
  7. While it is true that UTL offers a function that limits your traffic to sustain a defined target FPS set in the configurator, to me, it comes down to the relationship between the number of AI planes and frame rate. With MT5, I have more FPS per plane, and I can use external tools (such as FSUIPC) to limit AI traffic. I am not saying that UTL is a bad product - it has great potential in my opinion. However, the decision to continue using MT5 is just my personal preference.
  8. tooting, have you read through the whole thread since you posted last time yesterday? It concerns your avatar:
  9. After doing some further tests, I think I will stick with MyTraffic for the time being. It turns out that the performance drop at huge airports is too big. I started at KORD in a situation where almost all gates were occupied, and the FPS was initially 12, but climbed to 16 a little bit later. The traffic toolbox showed 400 airplanes processed (at 75% IFR-setting and 100% GA-setting). One reason for the low FPS is that the airplanes use jetways, and according to the information in the UT-forum, there is no way to disable them. With MyTraffic 5.4b, I get 24 fps in a similar situation with 377 airplanes processed. This is too much of a difference to ignore. On a fair note, I have been using low quality airplane models in MT5 (the old version allowed you to change between low- and high quality models, while MT6 only uses high-quality). They may look horrible for today's standards, but for me, performance is more important. And honestly, most times we see AI-traffic from a huge distance, where the bad quality is not as noticeable. In addition, I have found that UTL has very little GA-traffic at small airfields even at 100% GA traffic setting, while MT5 has more of it at 50%. It might be hard to get used back to the longer start-up time, but in return, MT5 has military traffic, while UTL doesn't (as someone has stated before). It's nice that Flight1 offers refunds...
  10. Look as if you are right. The "Start Simulation" button apparently starts simulating the "behind the scene" flight movements on the map, but not the actual traffic in the simulator.
  11. To those who see no movement of traffic, have you clicked on the "Start Simulation" button in UTL live configurator after loading the scenario?
  12. My initial test with P3D v3 yields that the quality-performance "product" of UTL is better than with MyTraffic 5.4. The frame rate is higher despite much better visuals (assuming a given number of AI planes processed). The other advantage over MyTraffic is that the simulator does not need to process hundreds of airplane folders upon start, which significantly reduces the start-up time. I will keep testing.
  13. I personally would be happy if FS-Labs managed to release the new Concorde on March 2, 2019 - those of you who know a little about Concorde history know the significance of that date.
  14. Exactly! The only caveat is: Be prepared to pay a huge fuel bill if you decide to fly short haul on Concorde - I mean, virtual fuel bill
  15. In the text, FSLabs have stated that this would probably be the last Concorde developed for a PC flight simulation. Does this mean that P3D v4 will be the last version supported, or would support be extended for a future v5 (but the base would be identical, much like the Concorde that was originally developed for FSX was made compatible with P3D v2 and v3). I am asking, since by the time the new Concorde would be released, P3D v5 would not be too far away (provided that LM keep their 2-year period for bringing out new P3D versions)