wyman_hd

Youre clearly being very confrontational with your responses and I can tell the tears in your eyes have welled up causing your spelling to degrade. Please read the last few words of my response as I'm not entertaining your rage bait.

I implore you to make you up your own opinions instead of preaching what others say. Pilots are people too, and are not free from having their own opinions. And if you've never flown the A320 and thus cannot make a reasonable opinion, then you don't need to try this hard to try to convince others that you're right. Agree to disagree.

As others have mentioned, he most likely uses it for practicing cockpit flows and use of his instruments, which could've also been done on something like the original Aerowinx PS1.3 for MS-DOS. Flight model is irrelevant in that case. You are not going to develop the necessary muscle memory and tactility of flying an aircraft for real through a desktop simulator, regardless of whether its MSFS, X-Plane, or FS98. Flightsim is a tool, not the bible, and nobody claims it to be one.

You're assuming that MSFS is even used in the context of pilot training. I don't think many real world airline or GA pilots takes MSFS seriously to the point where they need to meticulously pick apart extremely minute details in the sim. Most people (that includes pilots) understand that it is going to have faults, and you're conflating the issue. Real full motion simulators don't even feel as good as flying the real thing, so how do you expect MSFS to do that with a 2d screen and an office chair? How can you even expect anybody to describe the process and feeling of flying in words? There isn't enough words in the entire repository of the English language to describe in 100% full detail the dynamics of airflow. It is going to be approximated, and it's already being approximated to a pretty word not allowed good level. Is it lacking in some small, esoteric way? Sure it is, but if everything was judged in this extremely pedantic way then you would hate every other simulator within this hobby.

Certain small details in FSL are more "accurate" than Fenix. There's the obvious point that FSL has both IAE and CFM engines in the base package, and they offer the 319, 321 and SL variants. There is also the problem with the engine's burn performance but in fairness, they have addressed the issue as being an issue with MSFS and are working to get a custom engine model in place. I've heard from real pilots that the Fenix's climb profile is out of whack, it can nose up 15 degrees with one engine only which is not realistic, but again it's probably due to that inaccurate engine model that they're already working on. Another thing is the old ADIRS panel on the overhead, which the Fenix has. In the real world, the older IRUs cannot do RNP AR approaches or fly RF legs. For some reason though, the Fenix is able to do both perfectly fine. The newer ADIRS panel you see in the ToLiss A321 NEO or FSLabs is more accurate of a depiction to the real aircraft as of recently. It's an easy fix though, since they just need to change that panel's 3d model to the newer ADIRS panel to properly reflect the version of IRUs they're simulating. There's still value in Fenix, but it's still not yet "better" than FSLabs at this very moment. Of course, if you value visuals more, then there isn't any reason to choose ToLiss or FSLabs at all.

You're right. Though I think the main concern here is more of the fact that this developer hasn't made a product of this size and magnitude, which is why a lot of people are pretty skeptical.

I think on both sides of the spectrum, both are right to a certain degree. The flightsim community has been quite bipolar at times, (one week before release: grrrr this product sux!!! 😡 the next day after release: OMG i love this product 😍) but I think this negativity stems from the community being more apprehensive and skeptical with developers that has never made a product, for good reason. Although this community could have some more positivity (the name-calling only demotivates the developers, making it LESS likely the product will live up to expectations) I think using the "it's early access" excuse all the time also doesn't really help them. Developers do need to know when the decisions they've made might not be ideal, so calling them out is appropriate.

This kind of thing has always been a "we'll think about it" type of issue. They didn't necessarily say that they will outright not implement an API, but judging from their responses they don't really seem too keen on implementing this either. It's definitely something that isn't high on the bucket list at least.

Both point 1) and 3) are also things I've experienced very frequently. 2) I haven't experienced much but I have experienced it twice. The third point is unfortunately a SimConnect issue, and so the developers can't do much (according to them); however I've had issues with it crashing on P3D as well, which apparently doesn't have this SimConnect issue, so I'm unsure if the traffic controller itself is just programmed poorly or if my machine is acting up. I always have the inject on startup option ticked as it would never inject manually.

It was demolished around late 2014 ~ early 2015. So it's not surprising that the PG data still had it considering that I'm thinking the data itself is from 2013. I'd also mention that the eastern foothills (Alum Rock and other districts) is all autogen even with PG enabled. I would have expected that PG cover the entire Bay Area, but it looks like some areas don't even have PG at all. But I just hope that they decide to use up-to-date data (even anything from 2019 is fine) as well as work on the performance.

I've also had issues with consistently with not only quality, but also the data itself seems to be quite old. In San Jose, various shopping centers and train stations aren't even in the simulator, and i even found the old Walmart in Milpitas that had been completely renovated in 2014. My guess is that for my city in particular, the data is around 8 ~ 9 years out of date. That and the SalesForce tower in SFO is also not in MSFS, though there is a mod for that. So personally, even if the quality of PG is acceptable, it doesn't really do me any good if the data is nearly 10 years out of date.

A bit of an ambiguous title, but recently I replaced my SSD and installed a clean copy of Windows 11 Home. I then re-installed P3D and all my add-ons (not move) to the same drive that Windows is installed (C:). Now, P3D no longer detects ActiveSky, SODE, FSDT's Addon Manager and so on. ChasePlane is the only addon that seemed to have properly put in an entry in the dll and exe xml. (Yes, I did install SimConnect, it did not make any difference) Looking at my documents folder, I noticed that this new installation of Windows 11 moved the Documents folder to C:\Users\<name>\OneDrive\Documents I did not find the Documents folder in C:\Users\<name>\Documents, which is where it used to be in Windows 10 and my previous installation of Windows 11, which was upgraded from Windows 10. My suspicion is that this change in Windows is now messing with the way P3D detects add-ons, since it's now in this "OneDrive" folder. I deleted this OneDrive folder and my desktop went blank. The documents Quick Access shortcut disappeared so it's my guess that Microsoft decided to move your personal files like the desktop, documents, videos, pictures, etc. into OneDrive. I reinstalled OneDrive then these directories were accessible. If anybody has any solution to this, I would appreciate it. Preferably from people who installed Windows 11 fresh and not upgraded from Windows 10, as my previous setup did not have this issue.

As @Ray Proudfoot had put it, it depends on the airport itself. Some developers of 3rd party airports may incorrectly assign airline codes to the wrong parking spot, but from what I've seen, I haven't really seen any airport that has been wholly incorrect with airline placement. If you're using an airport that from a competent developer, you won't have to worry much about the random placement of aircraft. Default airports have a larger margin of error as they are randomly generated but also I haven't seen much default airports that were 100% incorrect. MSFS airports technically can have data with some parking information, but afaik it doesn't actually read any of that data and it just scatters everything everywhere.

If you're looking for paid products, JustFlight's Traffic Global may seem enticing to you, however for me the models themselves are worse than UTLive as they are way more jagged shaped and look more lumpy to me. Free products, nothing at the moment except for AIG. Personally the time spent on AIG is just a one time thing, and you shouldn't really have to worry about it much once you've gone through the process.

LegacyRender reduces the amount of colors used from 32 bits to 16 bit. Just imagine that Amiga colors is used with the displays. It also changes the display rendering from GDI+ to the older FSX style rendering. This reduces the usage of VRAM and the visual quality of the colors. Older versions of TrueGlass was disabled because when v5 was pushed, DX12 was used instead of DX11. At the time TrueGlass was a DX11 product to maintain compatibility with V4 and v5, however the interoperability code for DX11 and DX12 from Microsoft was notoriously inefficient, so we had to rewrite the entire rendering technique for DX12. Now, LegacyRender does not disable TrueGlass as it is built for DX12. Other rain maker products use pre-baked/animated raindroplets, TrueGlass uses custom shaders that's generated by the GPU to merge and animate them sliding off the windscreen. Of course at the time, VRAM wasn't an issue in V4 so although it may seem "overkill" nowadays, it was fine back then. We have to change the entire backend system of TrueGlass to be around the same as other products and essentially strip the shader component of TrueGlass. The baked RealLight textures were made in 2016, for FSX at 1024 resolution. Unfortunately, because they were pre-baked shadows and AO, if we want to increase the resolution (and change the color space for P3Dv5) we need to re-render all textures, as well as change things at the shader level so the colors of the textures are not clashing. I myself posted 4K upscaled versions of the RealLight textures on the TFDi forums, this will greatly improve resolution however certain areas may look splodgy as we haven't done any shader modifications.