Jump to content

gunther

Members
  • Content Count

    185
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

167 Excellent

About gunther

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sydney, Australia

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,340 profile views
  1. As someone who spent a good couple of hundred hours creating one of those "annoying addons", here's my take on the issue. It all boils down to one word: DATA (or lack thereof). Plus the way MS/Asobo interpret some of that data. From my observations, the hydrological dataset in MSFS is largely derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM). The fidelity of that dataset varies significantly from region to region: from water details that have meter-accuracy to rivers and lakes that have kilometer-long zig-zag segments. I have no idea where MSFS gets its terrain model(s) from, but again, it varies in detail from region to region. Not surprisingly, hydrology and terrain in MSFS don't always match … let me rephrase that … almost never match! One additional complaint I have is the way MS/Asobo interpret some of the hydrology. The OSM dataset differentiates permanent from non-permanent water bodies (eg. salt lakes). MSFS appears not to take this into account. To answer your question(s). Until MS/Asobo find a common/matching dataset, the problem will persist. I have not much hope that 2024 will be any different, but I'll be ecstatic if it is!
  2. Medium. Mostly because I can't stand the baked-in behavior of most (if not all) MSFS aircraft so far. Might have to re-evaluate that setting. But I just did a flight across the alps with segments of moderate chop and a fairly tranquil descent into Bavaria, before hitting a line of squalls, and a 12 kt crosswind on landing and it felt VERY realistic.
  3. Ok, definitely not imagining things! A work of art!
  4. Might be imagining things, but turbulence feels way more natural than in any other sim aircraft I've flow. None of this nauseating pitching/rolling/yawing around the CG. Different parts of the airframe seem to be affected differently, as in real life. I'm linking it 🙂
  5. There was already a noticeable decrease in new uploads following their handling of the "premium" debacle earlier this year. This "word not allowed" won't help improve things.
  6. Apologies if this has already been mentioned: 1. If this "new" sim isn't fully backward compatible with current add-ons, they just killed the current add-on market overnight (including their Marketplace). It would be a serious slap in the face of 3rd party devs and their users and would not bode well for the "new" sim. 2. I can't see them "supporting" two separate platforms (server infrastructure, bug fixes etc.). That would be a premature end of the "10 year journey". Given the above I'd guess that 2024 is a (paid) expansion, with new features etc., which I'd happily support. Then again, with MS you never know. It's not like they haven't shot themselves in their foot before...
  7. Short of anyone having broken the encryption algorithm, I'm guessing it's a painstaking process of interrogating the various parameters through the SDK. Various skilled people seem to have at least partially extracted config files for other marketplace-only aircraft, eg. the An-2 and Caribou
  8. I was sitting right next to a NDB when I was testing it, and the volume was adequate. I wonder if the signal strength is simulated. Stations further away should be fainter.
  9. Because he had a spare one sitting in his virtual hangar? 🙂 I guess someone needs to mod an INOP sticker on top of the NAV display.. Having said that, the NAV receiver is actually functional, just that there's no indicator in the VC. I can operate and display it on my Streamdeck.
  10. There's a (white) switch in the left upper panel of the ADF unit that will turn on the ADF Ident.
  11. Having experienced this issue on and off during the last 18 months, I have observed the following: It cannot reliably be reproduced. I can fly over an area and have the symptoms, then fly the next day over the same area and not have them (and vice versa). I've disabled local caching, so I don't believe caching is a factor. It happens with both DX11 and DX12. It's not tied to specific hardware. I have an AMD workstation and a Nvidia laptop, and I've seen the behavior on both. It's not tied to certain geographic areas. I've flown close to 1500 hours, around the globe, and I've seen it pretty much everywhere at one time or another. I've experienced the behavior also at a smaller scale, whilst developing sceneries in Dev Mode, primarily with grass tiles. Anecdotal: It happens a lot more after updates. SU12 certainly seems to have produced a flurry of commentary about it. My assessment, fwiw, this a server-side issue and it possibly relates to the snow/season layer, because the behavior is so much more apparent in areas with snow cover.
  12. Well, fwiw, I flew a dozen circuits with both the standard and 530/430 variants, and to my mind they behave very differently in the approach. At 66% payload (the default for both planes) I can easily get the 530/430 variant stopped in around 300m (1000'), whereas I consistently needed 1000m (3000') for the standard variant. The standard variant also has a tendency to accelerate even with full flaps at idle if I steepen my approach angle just a little, whereas I can easily manage the rate of descend with the throttle in the 530/430.
×
×
  • Create New...