garrett_frank

I may be wrong here but it looks like LM finally programmed the ground shadow to show the external vehicle from cockpit view!

Hey Rich. There's only one way to find out! I haven't previously known SODE to be P3D version-driven even though it plugs into the program. I haven't moved over to 3.4 yet so I can't really help you other than advising you to make sure both the .dll and .exe are in their respective P3D XML files and then attempting to use it an airport that uses it. You can also use process explorer to see if P3D is even loading it.

Why do we have the same conversations after every update is released? I wonder how similar the "Prepar3D v3.1 is released!" thread looks to the 3.2, 3.3, etc.

I would submit a support ticket at HiFi.

Screenshots? Sounds like an airport elevation issue w/ ORBX Vector...

Grand Theft Auto 5. That sims just about everything... even things I can't (or shouldn't) talk about in public.

That's why I switched to whiskey. Hasn't happened since... kind of... No no no, don't ruin the reference. You did a fine a job, Matthew. Don't be the one that then has to explain it too.

Techsweden?

Jeez, please sell me one of those kits. Coincidentally, I bought F4-3200C14D-16GTZSK and I can't even get my system to boot on anything more than the XMP with slightly tighter sub-timings (I posted those numbers above). A 1T command rate won't boot under almost any circumstance...

Wow. Ok, I sorta had a hunch that you, along with all of the other folks on HWBot posting huge scores, had some screaming RAM. It aggravated me because a lot of the RAM stats aren't either self-reported or reported by XTU so, as you can imagine, it'd drive you mad if you couldn't figure out how folks with seemingly similar hardware were outscoring the absolute hell out of you. Ok, with that rant out of the way: what RAM (and RAM-related voltages) are you using and are/were the settings you used for that XTU run stable and/or your 24/7 or flightsim settings? Those RAM speeds and timings are insane...

I've found just the opposite with two different chips. My 3770k build was around the mid-950s with HT on and low 990s with it off. Consistently. Very odd. How????????? Were you on a 32-bit OS by any chance? Do you still have the memory timings that you used? I can't crack 1500 to save my life. And that's at 4.7Ghz and 2x8Gb G.Skill Trident X at 3200Mhz, 14-14-14-34-2T and subtimings as low as I can get them. Win7 Pro 64-bit.

I just did close to the upgrade you're asking about. Do check around the forums here as there are several similar threads. I went from 3770k 4.8Ghz to 6700k 4.7Ghz. Not to mention the RAM changes either (subtimings on the latter are very important). I'm finding a pretty good performance increase that, unlike many others who just throw out random FPS numbers, I can quantify: One of my favorite areas is ORBX's Norcal SF bay area. Combined with Flightbeam's KSFO, man, it's heaven. Frames are bad, though. I won't bore anyone with my setup, CFG file, etc. just know that everything is the same (all of my mods and CFG edits were saved alongside all of my addons on my storage drive). Clear weather, noon, PMDG 777-300ER, sitting on 28L, no AI traffic, I was getting around 17.5 FPS (I use the "AverageFrameRate" entry in one of my CFG "textinfo" lines and just let the sim sit for a couple of minutes). After setting up the new system, I'm getting about 25 FPS in the same exact scenario, an increase of almost 43%. Happy to say the least. This is in line with the benchmark increase I found in XTU. With HT off (you score a little better in XTU with HT off and it's also how I recommend running P3D), I was getting 990 marks. With the new system, ~1470 marks (there's a good bit of fluctuation from test to test). That being said, I was getting nervous because some CPU-oriented benchmarks were not showing such performance increases, e.g. 3DMark11 physics and Cinebench were showing about 10-15% increases. Luckily, I got the XTU increase in P3D. YMMV. Certainly feel free to ask more about my methodology and setup. I'm a bit cuckoo about these things and like to actually measure performance properly. On top of all else, I may actually make a profit on this upgrade too. It's the second time I've sold a Z77 board and I'm not quite sure I understand why they fetch such high prices on eBay (not gonna complain!). My delidded 3770k is also attracting quite a bit of attention as well...

There should be a 717 out before the end of the year. May be the next best thing...

Something in your registry must be pointing it there. Not sure if you're aware but the path of least resistance could just involve changing drive letters... so that could be an option if you're willing.

Any flight that has the same number of takeoffs and landings is, in my book, a success.

It's a pretty cool package. Bought several nights ago. I was actually going to wait until the holiday sales (a rare act of patience on my part) so this sale was definitely nice. If you're buying in dollars, pounds or euros, check the price at FSS. I think I spent $43 or $44 and change for both products the other night...

"Stuttering" is pretty accurate, Richard; don't sell yourself short. I too admire the hell out of LHS' LHBP since they did such a great job with it. With the exception of this issue, it'd be a 5/5. I will give them the benefit of the doubt; if there was an easy fix, surely they'd have found it by now. I just wish they'd do the odd thing and ask another developer for help. Surely it's not simply a case of excluding a certain road or area outside of the airport. Until then...

Just to confirm, addman is correct: the effect you get whilst flying through clouds (it's not completely accurate) is an AS16 feature, and not an ASCA one.

Same problem too. Pretty sure I started a thread as well and LH told me the same thing. I thought they were updating the scenery... maybe they've found a fix? And how come no other developer has had this issue?

Just bought both last night. And if you're here in the U.S., definitely take advantage of the currency difference from FSS. AS16 P3D Upgrade and ASCA cost me like USD $44. Played around a little with it last night and both seem like great products. AS16 at least gets rid of the cloud squeeze at high lats. Good for those NAT routes. And look, if we've learned nothing else from HiFi, their products will only get better. They are always improving things. And the concept behind ASCA's dynamic themes is fantastic: cloud and sky textures that match the environment? What a novel concept!

You didn't attempt an actual answer until this post. Just because an answer is in your head doesn't mean your previous--and insufficient--answer wasn't a non-sequitur. And boy gee golly I hope you're a lawyer either in-house or on retainer for one of these developers. Your ability to generally quantify risk on their behalf, given effectively zero precedent, is pretty astounding. Precedent aside (and Jazzfan's reference to MH370 is a poignant one) I'm glad you think scenery developers and Aerosoft, regarding their Airbus product, are exposed to less risk when any clown (or their employer) could claim that an accident was the result of experience with or training on a software product that is not approved for a type rating, recurrent, etc. If this weren't the case, negligent pilots and victims of air accidents (and/or their estates) would be suing developers left and right in this day and age given that some significant portion of pilots under the age of 40 have probably, at some point, used a software simulation product and could assign an element of fault. I can't emphasize this last point enough and sorry for not spelling it out to you sooner. If you were specifically referencing FSLab's Pro version--or whatever--with the "instructor's station" then it might make sense. I'm moving on but again, I'd ask the developer for some concrete information justifying their decision to charge more. Ain't gonna happen but I can raise the stink regardless.

That's all a non-sequitur and not relevant to the point I was making (explain Aerosoft, for example). And I see no reason a scenery or utility developer couldn't be held to the same standard, e.g. "I thought that VOR was over there," or "TOPCAT usually indicated that that was enough runway length." Who knows. What is the point you're making? Are you indicating that there are inferior substitutes in one market but not in the flightsim world? And, specifically, within the Airbus simulation market? And, specifically, within the narrow-body Airbus simulation market? Well, it just so happens that there is (and I'm sure you knew that). So then people will buy the Ford/Aerosoft knowing that it's cheaper than the BMW/FSL but with requisite quality/depth.

The [aircraft] developers that charge different prices for different versions of their simulators still haven't explained to us, unless I missed it, what exactly these costs are and why they feel compelled to abide by such policies. Especially given that numerous other developers for aircraft, scenery, tools, etc., don't.

Some people...

21:9