edu2703

I just completed my first flight. My thoughts: Pros: - Systems: Absolutely fantastic. I dare say this addon possibly has the most advanced systems of a commercial airliner in MSFS at the moment, with a level of realism above PMDG and Fenix. - Flight modeling: Also exceptional. You can notice the inertia and weight of the aircraft flying manually, being the total opposite of iniBuilds airliners that handle like a balloon. Fly-by-wire systems seem identical to the real aircraft, with all flight envelope protections working perfectly and accurately compared to a modern Airbus aircraft. What could be improved: - 3D Modeling and textures: Not great, not terrible. There are some inconsistencies regarding the animations of the slats and flaps. It's definitely not Fenix/iniBuilds level, but it's also nowhere near "FSX-level'' garbage like some "kids" are complaining about, because they think anything below Fenix quality is word not allowed. For the price it could be better, but it won't hurt your eyes, unless you're a rivet counter. Other things I noticed: Taxi cam: It's not a camera, but a low-resolution satellite image of your current location. Because of the low resolution, you can barely see the taxi lines. In other words, it's just a visual gimmick with zero utility. Performance is very good. I had no issues on my flight. Everything went smoothly without hiccups. I liked that, in addition to being compatible with sim rate up to 4x, it also has the option to jump to the next waypoint. I also found it very interesting that it has a built-in replay system, although I would prefer to use my external replay tools, which for some reason are not compatible with the A346, with the aircraft flying erratically on playback. Only the built-in replay works, but at least, it works very well.

I just finished my first flight on the A340 (LFPG-TNCM). The flight was surprisingly smooth. Performance is much better than the A350, almost identical to the iniBuilds A320/A321neo, which are light on fps on my PC. I also felt the aircraft has better physics and handling than the A350. Sometimes the A350 seems to fly like a balloon. On landing, for example, a slight flare just before touchdown, and the aircraft simply floats down the entire runway if you don't give nose-down input. I simply can't make a hard landing on the A350. This doesn't happen on the A340. My first landing was a bit hard. I thought it would behave like the A350, but the aircraft definitely feels heavy when handflying, which I believe is quite accurate to the real aircraft. I used sim rate 4x for much of the flight, and the aircraft performed much better than the A350. The A350, using sim rate 4x sometimes gets crazy mid-route, rolling violently from side to side until the A/P disconnects, especially when encountering turbulence. The A340, on the other hand, handled very well, even during some turbulence. The textures and modeling are well done. Sound could be better, but are acceptable. I liked the wingflex effect, and also having the option to select between EIS 1 and EIS 2 avionics. Overall, I'm quite satisfied. I'd say the iniBuilds A340 is better than the iniBuilds A350 based on what I saw. It shows that iniBuilds has learned from its mistakes with the A350, and I hope that what they improved on the A340 can be applied to the A350 in the future, especially the improved performance.

PMDG not working seems to happen with every first release of a SU beta.

Out of curiosity: Do FSLabs aircraft support sim rate acceleration like 4x or more?

Nope

Back in P3D, people were forced to buy a $140 bundle of 2-3 variants, when most of them were only going to fly one. Now that PMDG has given people the opportunity to buy each variant separately, people are still complaining, irrationally demanding that PMDG sell the bundle again for the price of one. Treating the 200ER as just a ''shortened 300ER'' is a simplistic and erroneous view. The 200ER has three engine variants, a smaller wing and a different landing gear system than the 300ER, which increases the complexity of making custom fuel calculations for each variant and also new aerodynamic calculations based on these differences. The difference between the 200ER and the 300ER is much greater than the difference between the A350-900 and the A350-1000 for example. The A350-1000 is just the stretched A350-900 with an extra pair of wheels on the landing gear and that's it.

Just did my first flight. Smooth, without any hiccups. The performance is incredible, even better than some default aircraft. Nothing to complain about at the moment. Regarding someone's comments about the textures not being nice, they seem good to me. Everyone has their own preferences and standards, but I spend 99,9% of my time in the simulator in the cockpit view. I usually only look at the wing on the landing replay, so I don't have much time to observe if each wire and hydraulic duct was modeled correctly. The cockpit textures are the ones that matter most to me and they are well done on the PMDG 777 in my opinion. Ultra-realistic textures and modeling are nice to have, but they usually come with a big performance hit (Looking at you, iniBuilds). PMDG 777 textures and modeling are good enough and performance is exemplary for other airline addon devs. The quality that PMDG delivers at launch is also exemplary, rather than adopting the ''release now, fix later'' mentality.

The current version of the 777-300ER and 777F work in MSFS 2024 to a certain extent. Of course, it depends on workarounds such as not being able to load from the gate, having to always load from the runway with the engines running, then teleport to a gate using GSX menu and only then being able to start pre-flight preparations. You also can't use workaround mode otherwise it will bug the aircraft and you may also need to delete the 777's WASM folder between flights. But apart from these issues, everything else works just fine. I've already done 7 successful flights with the 777-300ER in MSFS 2024 without any hiccups. For me, a person who already has the 300ER has to be extremely impatient to buy the 200ER just to be able to fly a fully functional 777 in MSFS 2024 during the one month period it will take until the 300ER compatibility update comes out, while during that one month period, they could be flying the 300ER in MSFS 2024 using relatively simple workarounds.

Nope. FSS only purchased the external model from X-Crafts. FSS E-Jets and the X-Crafts E-Jets are developed completely independently of each other.

According to the dev, it's a workaround for a bug in MSFS 2024 SU2 beta that causes 3rd party toolbar windows to have tiny fonts unless you resize them. The dev says he doesn't know if this is actually a bug or a change and that it will stay that way until Asobo makes changes to it.

Did the latest 737 MAX update improve the aircraft's behavior using sim rate, allowing the use of sim rate 4X or does it still the same? I'm holding off on buying until Ifly improves the aircraft's behavior with sim rate, but if they add MSFS 2024 support first, I might bite the bullet and settle for sim rate 2x max until they improve that.

Wake Turbulence will now be modeled for multiplayer aircraft and injected traffic. I can already imagine the confusion that wake turbulence will cause in a typical multiplayer session. At least, it should teach the dangers of tailgating an aircraft.

Delete

FSLTL developer is radically against reducing texture size, because he values realism above anything else, including performance.

Today I did my first long-haul since the 1.0.2 update, (KLAS-EGLL), using sim rate 4x since I reached cruising altitude. Before the update, the longest I could use sim rate 4x continuously before the aircraft went crazy and disconnected the A/P was about 20 minutes. On this flight, I was able to use sim rate 4x continuously for over 2 hours until TOD and the aircraft stayed safely on its course. I even had the courage to leave my PC unattended for several minutes, returning with the aircraft still stable. I will still do another long-haul to be sure if it wasn't just a stroke of luck, but I am confident that the issue of aircraft not being able to handle sim rate 4x has been resolved.

I tested it on 3 flights today and was very pleased with the results. What I liked most is that Lossless Scaling's Adaptive Frame Generation can compensate really well when your fps decreases, keeping a constant fps on your screen, especially when you go from an empty area to an area with heavy photogrammetry or when you are at cruising altitude and have to land at a performance-heavy airport with AI traffic and vice versa. There are significant differences in fps in these cases and AFG in my tests was able to compensate for this difference AFG is really a very useful feature. I will certainly use it on my flights from now on.

One thing I learned from using an FG mod in MSFS and also FSR 3 FG in other games on an RTX 2060: Frame generation is not a savior if you are experiencing unstable performance and/or performance below 30 FPS. Even if the indicated fps with FG is decent, if your normal fps is below 30, you will feel that the gameplay is not nearly as smooth as it should be if the indicated fps were the normal performance, especially when moving controls and moving the camera. You will immediately notice the input lag and several artifacts. Furthermore, if you are experiencing stuttering and fps drops, FG won't prevent you from having them. This means that you need to already have stable and acceptable performance without FG in order to have a good experience with FG. Frame Generation is not supposed to take you from unacceptable performance to acceptable.

I have a simple theory as to why Asobo chose streaming: Simply because MSFS 2024 would be too big to run on Xbox if all the files had to be downloaded locally. If I'm not mistaken, the content of MSFS 2024 (excluding scenery streaming) totals 1.4TB of files. That's more than the storage of the Xbox Series X. MSFS 2020 with all the world updates and additional free content already takes up over 400GB of space. 1.4TB would not be attractive even to PC users. I have a 500 Mbps connection and downloading just the 300GB of MSFS 2020 World Updates takes almost the entire day, because the download is not direct, as it's necessary to download and decompress each of the thousands of packages one by one. I have no idea how long it would take to download 1.4TB of content. Not to mention the loading time with those 1.4TB of files would be significant longer than MSFS 2020 vanilla Personally, I'm enjoying the streaming, I haven't had many problems with blurry textures since day 1 and I believe the practicality of avoiding having to download thousands of packages of content and the improvement in loading times outweighs any negative points it may have.

Basically, since MSFS2020_autoFPS wasn't compatible with MSFS 2024 at the beginning, someone took an old version of autoFPS and modified it to work with MSFS 2024 and named it MSFS2024_autoFPS. Technically, these are two different apps, but I'm not sure if the author of MSFS2024_autoFPS will continue developing it, since the author of the original app already has a beta version compatible with MSFS 2024 and works better than this version. In my opinion, it wouldn't make sense to develop a competing app, when your app is essentially the same as the competitor's with a few changes.

This version is not compatible with MSFS 2024. Compatibility is still being tested and will be available in the next version when it's ready. In the meantime, you can use the other mod for MSFS 2024. https://github.com/kayjay1c6b/MSFS2024_AutoFPS-by-kayJay_1c6?tab=readme-ov-file

The new version fixed the CTD issues I had. Now it's working fine.

From what I've seen, the dynamic settings either don't work or react very slowly to maintain a target fps. It also seems to change other settings besides TLOD and LOD. However, there's no way to be sure about any of this, since there's no way to know exactly what the dynamic settings are actually changing in the settings. AutoFPS shows you exactly what's changing and the value of the setting. It also gives you multiple options to customize these changes. This alone makes it 100 times better than the dynamic settings. I just wish it didn't give me CTD when using it.

I did some tests trying to solve my CTD problem with autoFPS and this is the summary of what I found: - Of all the aircraft I have tested so far, the A330 (All Variants) and the Beluga XL are the only ones that are not affected by this problem, which is bizarre, since the A320neo and A321neo have this issue and both should share the same systems as the A330, since they are all made by iniBuilds. - In some aircraft like the 737MAX and the 747-8, I have CTD as soon as I start pre-flight preparation, such as turn on the batteries and aligning the IRS. However, in most of them, I only have CTD after I import a flight plan into them, either from Simbrief or from Microsoft's flight planner. If I don't import any flight plan, they work normally with autoFPS. - In event viewer, the following error message appears every time I have CTD with autoFPS: Autopilot.dll wil error was reported. HRESULT: 0x80070491 File: onecoreuap\admin\moderndeployment\autopilot\dll\dllmain.cpp, line 128 Message: NULL - And just to recap, I had three successful flights using autoFPS before the v1.1.10.0 update. After the update, I got CTD with autoFPS

I did a clean reinstall of both MSFS 2024 and AutoFPS. Fresh install, zero mods in the community and the CTD problem persists. I also tried all the solutions in the FAQ and it didn't work. I'm giving up on AutoFPS for now and hoping there's an update that fixes this. Weird that a small MSFS 2024 update broke it.

I tried to open autoFPS only when I was in the air and I didn't get CTD right away. For a moment I thought I had found a workaround. AutoFPS worked without any problems during the flight, until the aircraft reached the top of the descent. The moment I selected the knob on the autopilot to start the descent, the simulator froze and then CTD. 3 flights completed without a single problem. Then Asobo decided to mess everything up for me and now I'm getting CTD with it.