• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sbs9

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

239 profile views
  1. That's perfect, thank you for the information, Kostas!
  2. Paul, I understand that the competition on a market of this size is tough, but please be so kind and don't adjust my words for your needs ;) We live in a marketing world. We hear and read about revolutionary, fantastic and must-have products a hundred times a day. I wonder if anyone still believes that advertising doesn't exaggerate. I had read Sky Force manual before I bought the product and my expectations are fulfilled, period. Gents, try to think positively, please. What you see as a threat could easily be an opportunity. Cooperation gives sometimes more profit than competition. I am absolutely sure that sales of both HiFi and REX would grow if they concentrate on their strengths and realise that coding the best weather engine requires different skills than painting the best looking textures. I like both companies and will always happily buy their add-ons. Just always let your products work together, please, in a congenial synergy.
  3. I feel that my trusty first officer Dieter needs glasses :) When auto-tuning the COM1 frequency, he sometimes makes a mistake, i.e. enters a slightly different frequency (decimals are wrong). We fly with FSLabs A320 and use PF3, clearance.log method, "you have radio" mode. I believe that FSLabs uses the standard P3D way for setting COM1, thus, I wonder what causes this problem and if it is specific to this aircraft. Roman
  4. We can only hope that the two companies will not fortify the barriers or even create new ones. Folks, what do you think about those doubled overcast layers? Does AS16 create them? If it does, performance with SF cloud textures and structures can suffer as well as visuals. REX clearly states that SF is not made for multiple overcast layers as it does not need them.
  5. Jeroen, I set different sky and sun textures for each flight. Cloud textures and structures should be changed dynamically by SF during the flight. No, I don't think SF is revolutionary. It's "just" an evolution. As rampa says, the simulator seems to be the limit and problems in other areas (i.e. dynamic lighting, disappearing shadows, blurry photo textures) show, that this limit will probably permit very few "revolutions", if any. Anyhow, SF gives me some clearly visible improvements, e.g. the highest variety of clouds I've ever seen, much bigger size of cloud structures, "cauliflower" clouds, horizon that blends with sky and clouds, or a strongly shining sun.
  6. I fully understand your approach, Eric. I agree that eye-candies should have only a marginal performance hit, if any. I have not yet encountered any FPS impact of SF, but reading about your experience makes me cautious. Actually, I have a suspicion. AS16 always had an option to enhance overcast. This doubled overcast cloud layers. I don't see this option in AS16 anymore, but I believe that the technique is still implemented. REX says that "Current weather engines on the market are forced to synthesize multiple overcast layers to try and mask holes present within their flawed overcast model system. In most cases these ‘workarounds’ destroy FPS in dense cloud cover. Full overcast in our new modeling system has been achieved. No gaps are noticeable in full overcast conditions at any level." Does it mean we now have redundant and unneeded artificial overcast layers generated by AS16? This seems to be the case and can be the reason for the performance impact. If it is true, then the combination of AS16+SF has its firs real flaw.
  7. I completed ten 'routine' flights using the combination HiFi AS16 + REX SKY FORCE. Here is my small gallery and a couple of thoughts. No edited pictures, manual adjustments of weather or intentionally set weather scenarios.
  8. I wonder how many people [Removed] when reading the title of this topic :) For those of us who don't panic so easily and survived, some more soothing numbers:
  9. No need to panic, it seems that games and desktop apps are not affected at all:
  10. Shots from my first test of SF: Weather data source: AS16.
  11. Gents, the truth is that this product is not meant to be a substitute for AS16. It is a potential replacement and a direct competition for ASCA. The core functionality of SF is to (1) provide textures and (2) change these textures during the flight. The equations are: REX Sky Force 3D = ASCA REX WEATHER FORCE (not released yet) = AS16. Thus, I think the only reasonable question is if SF is better than ASCA. True, they also provide a simple weather engine with SF, but they officially (in the manual) encourage to use other weather engines. Basically, the weather engine provides information about the altitude and density of clouds, temperatures, winds, etc. and SF changes the cloud and sky textures according these data. It means a comparison of (AS16 weather + SF textures) vs. (SF weather + SF textures) may be misleading, because the output of the two weather engines (weather data) can easily be different. One time you can see more clouds with AS16 weather data, another time with SF weather data. It is not a fair, ceteris paribus comparison of the textures quality.
  12. LM says that the purpose of disappearing shadows is to save performance. On the other hand, the dynamic lighting is evidently worth any performance cost. I would sacrifice the whole DL [word not allowed] for stable shadows without any hesitation.
  13. My wishes for 2018 (P3D): Sharp photoreal textures. Dynamic lights without heavy performance impact. Cloud shadows that doesn't disappear because of POV. These generic improvements will make flying (particularly VFR) more realistic and many airplanes more usable (DL performance).
  14. Dear Vic, westman, Nyxx, simbol, Thank you for your effort. I appreciate your determination to help, but please try to understand that some people use the simulator for different purposes and have different needs than you have. And please try to distinguish the method for solving the problem from the reason for solving it. You address the method, but ignore the reason. I know how to optimise my sim, but I do not want to optimise it because of a feature, which I don't need. Prepar3D is a training tool, right? I may accept that for a game, visual effects are crucial. But for a training tool? Thus, I think it's absolutely unacceptable to sacrifice any core functions because of DL. I do not post often, but decided to speak up this time. If you feel that I hyperbolise the problem, let me say something personal. Few days ago, I got an e-mail from my friend and business partner. I recommended him P3D4 as a training platform for his PPL. He requires 60 FPS and the only reason he doesn't get it is dynamic lighting - the feature with a zero impact on his training results. He asks me to switch this *** off, but it's not possible, as the aircraft does not support the legacy lighting. He told me that he wasted his money. I am upset. I am angry. I feel betrayed by my beloved platform :-/ That is why I need to say this: Dear developers, please realise that Prepar3D is a training tool, not a game for children. Do not force us to use graphically intense eye candies, without the option to turn them off. Dear Lockheed Martin, please realise that the dynamic lighting, at its current state of implementation, is a potential threat and can harm reputation of your product as a matured training platform. Please correct the implementation, or take it out from the sim. Those of you who understand and agree, please spread the word. My arsenal of time and energy is now depleted. Wishing you a Christmas that is full of light, folks! Dynamic or not ;-) Roman Heriban