Alpine Scenery

I checked that as well, but the Xbox app actually deleted some files and the launcher itself when I was in there trying to update. I spent 30 minutes or so in both store apps trying to get it to work, clicked everything. It then tried to install it on the C-Drive, but I just re-pointed it to the correct path (D:\FS2020), and now it seems to be downloading the update without issue (only 525 MB or so). Edit - Yup it seems to be working fine now, but that is a really terrible bug. Some of this issue had to do with the Digital License file, it updated it and invalidated and then re-downloading. When it did that, it appears it reset something in the registry related to the path info. The core issues some are experiencing are because the path gets reset, just re-point it and force it back to the proper folder as people have said in previous threads. In Summation If you have this issue or a similar issue, the update will NEVER appear because it doesn't even think the game is installed correctly anymore. Just make sure you are in the proper version (like Std-Deluxe-PremDeluxe), and then re-run the installer itself. At first it will say it needs to re-install everything, but then if you re-point it to your original folder, it should work. Of course some people have a different issue.

I've never had an issue with the updates until the latest one. I rebooted and MSFS was working fine, but both Xbox app and MS Store showed "error", before I even launched anything. So rebooted again for safe keeping, and then some of the files on the C drive related to MSFS disappeared, flat out gone (though my main install is on D). It's re-downloading the entire 135GB now, but it's probably pointing to the wrong location now, going to mess with it I guess.

The spiders aren't bad unless you live in the higher elevations or deep mid-elevation woods (as I did at 3500+), in which it's not black widows or tarantulas (saw a couple) that get you, it's infestations of recluses and rattlesnakes and bats. The bats were really annoying, my front porch was covered and had to sweep it constantly. Sometimes when I hear a knock at the door, I wasn't sure if it was a bat bouncing around again or a visitor 🙂 Tucson isn't a bad place, but what drove me crazy is no clouds 9 months of the year, you might see a wisp of a cloud until summer when it rains.

There is also a lot of them dotted across Appalachia and the Eastern US (KY - TN - WV - NC, etc...), as well as Colorado has a few. Many of the ones in the Eastern US tend to be slightly larger than a plain old grass strip though, but there are a lot of hops none-the-less.

Good tip, but this needs to be incorporated into the game. And yes, you have to hit the load button or it doesn't pause the CPU + GPU usage.

I actually think that furniture looks really good, it's just the walls that need changed. I'd love yellow-black-red in one of my rooms, maybe with a giant coral snake hanging on the wall 🙂

And still no country or region filter for the in-game store, going through the list of airports now takes nearly an hour of time.

Yes, 60 is better, but it's a lot less of a difference in a Flight Sim unless you are in VR or using a tracking headset or something. The article is OK, but it gets weird talking about 13Hz, and all these theoretical situations from some researcher who sounds kind of clueless mixing up flickering with FPS (it's part of it, but seeing any flickering is very dependant on display type and not just Hz). For instance, if you play on a 15 year old LCD TV, it will look bad no matter how many FPS you get. Over 60+ FPS is best reserved for twitch gamers.

Xplane does not have to re-create MSFS, Xplane is already done. They just have to change the terrain and the underlying rendering, that is a monumental difference in scope compared to writing a flight sim from scratch. I'm aware of the scope, but adding more people to a project does not always equal increased output. As an extreme example on the other side of the coin, Osiris New Dawn was written by 2 people and that was 10 years ago, the tech has come a long ways. It can be done, it's not out of LR's scope, but it's not easy.

Well, that is a separate issue from graphics quality, but there are ways to recreate the buildings and stuff beyond having commercial rights to the aerial imagery, as they can still run some of the free imagery through an autogen system. I am not as impressed by Blackshark.AI as some, I mean yes they did a decent job, but the bar was really LOW from the start. NAIP imagery and similar resources can be used for the autogen, and some of it would be better than Bing. I'm well aware of the difficulty of the project and past failures of people attempting this, that's why I said it's unlikely, but not impossible. The advances in image recognition are gaining steam because of the necessity of better image recognition, tomorrow's autogen does not have to be like yesterdays, that is for sure, regardless who makes it. Again, the technology is all there and possible, but it's not easy. It's just like saying can Volkswagen make a more reliable car, yes it's possible, but a mere possibility existing does not mean someone will do it. On the contrary, just because someone doesn't do something, or even just because no-one else has, does not make something impossible.

If you are buying a TV, you may want to go brick and mortar like Costco/Walmart/Sams just in case you discover anything you don't like about it. Samsung is supposedly one of the better TV's for gaming, but I don't know about that specific model. There have been quite a few reports of OOTB defects with QLED TV's, like contrast-banding-dark spots on the screens. Vizio MQ7 models make some even more affordable gaming TV's also. I've never owned any of these recent TV's, so cannot comment personally, but I'd go brick & mortar if you can. That article from PC gamer seems silly and irrelevant, as it is talking apples to oranges the entire time. I think anything higher than 60-fps isn't going to give much benefit regardless other than specific boosts to one area, as the frames are all translated by all these tech capabilities anyhow, but it depends on what motion technologies you are using. It's just like the problem how some large TV's or projectors have when they are panning, sometimes the image breaks up. So there are a lot of variables beyond just the actual Hz or fps, but generally speaking not much advantage going over 60 fps in most situations, maybe for some really intense people I guess. 24p in film isn't chosen because people cannot see more frames, it's because higher framerates obviously lose some of that cinematic effect you get. That said, I'm past the "cinematic effect" of 24p, as I prefer a motion interpolation when watching movies (FI on Low), though a lot of frame interpolation is bad, some companies have done it right. I used to hate it, but now I use it because it provides much higher motion resolution.

Xplane is no longer a flight sim, it's a dying tech company sim. If I were LR, I'd see the only choice as offering the base product free with a premium version upgrade, making it nearly 100% open source, and they are going to be forced to develop the land imagery out with land-class type technology. The landscape of games is changing tech-wise, and it's very possible (not easy) to beat aerial imagery with land-class. Look at Star Citizen or Death Stranding as an example of what can be done with just textures and mesh, no aerial imagery in either of those. There are other games coming out with even better graphics than those two as far as mountains and mesh go, so yes it's do-able. It's their only hope, aerial imagery isn't going to win anyone over at this point as they cannot compete, even if they tried. Problem is, I doubt they can find the talent willing to do it in their budget and attract that talent away from the larger gaming companies, as there is only a handful of people that can develop land-class type scenery at that fidelity in the entire world right now. The talent pool is growing slowly, it may happen, who knows, but seems unlikely.

First decision you have to make is oLED vs. regular PC monitor. For a Flight Sim setup, I would personally go with the largest display possible (like 77"+ oLED), but that is just me. For a regular PC monitor, anything works, you can check reviews, depends on the price range.

There is a difference between 30 and 60 obviously, even for a Flight Sim, but it's hard to tell unless making abrupt movements. It also depends on the display device tech. Not all displays look the same at 30, and not all look the same at 60. Different displays have differing motion resolution and fluidity. To address the 4k debate to others: Per the 4k deal, 1440p is better if all things are equalized, but people are often not comparing apples to apples. 1440p won't look as good on some 4k monitors due to scaling artifacts, but if you compare 2 monitors of the same quality one being a native 4k image on a native monitor and one being native 1440p, no real difference in gaming. No-one has vision good enough to see it, unless they are from an Aborigine tribe where their vision is better than 20/10. There could be anti-aliasing variations or post-processing issues, I suppose it's possible, but it's unlikely to be visible. If people are comparing 2 displays, then they are really saying "one display looks better than the other" rather than "one resolution looks better than the other". There is no simple valid way to compare 4k to 1440p under normal circumstances, even with 2 monitors. Rather, you would need a double-blind test consisting of about 20+ monitors and 10+ people comparing. Already been done numerous times in gaming, results were generally no difference. If you are comparing a still image, certain types of reference level images that are bias'd to make resolution more noticeable or in test patterns, then yes, there is a difference if you are close enough, but in gaming the source was never "reference enough" really. Some that sit really close might see a difference in the pixel grid or something I guess, but that is kind of a separate issue from resolution. Edit - Texture Resolution Some have surmised but if the texture resolution is 4k... Texture sizes are not 1:1 in rendering, they are scaled onto the image. So you would have to be speaking in 1:1 terms, and very few textures in MSFS (if any) are that resolution after the scaling takes place, the post-processing can work better at higher resolution theoretically, but the pixel density of how people map textures isn't that high generally. Also, if talking in terms of actual resolution the eye is seeing and not pixel resolution (which are two different things), then the difference is even less.

At least it works...