cepact

I hope they didnt do that much spelling mistakes as in their game code

it means FSX addons will work on the new game, or will be easily transferred through sdk

They forgot to slow down and speed up the video clip over Barcelona. We can notice the real poor fps, no more than 20 I bet

It's not even 5am in Seattle , don't expect any news in the next few hours

For myself I think I watched it more than 50 times

Why would they make hints to features like flight planning, VR, weather simulation and SDK in their announcements if they aren't going to improve/include them ? You are using the fact that they are making these hints as somewhat a proof that they won't be improved and it will be a "plane game" What kind of reasoning is that ? Ridiculous.

Last time you quoted part of MSFS last announcement about ATC and flight planning saying it was an indication that it will be a plane game. Now you are telling us that them not posting about ATC and flight planning is an indication that it will be a plane game. They did, you even quoted them and laughed, they also talked about addon support on their first announcement. Of course they haven't gone into details, just like any other feature, because they have to wait until a certain date.

I'm worried because every known 3d cloud engine has the same issue, so if even MS couldn't fix it, this issue may not be solvable for ever

Paraffin I'm worried about your eye's health .. or is it all xplane fans who have a problem with their eyes ??? If you really can't notice the tremendous superiority of the mfs screen versus yours then there is nothing we can do for you, you are truly delusional

Maybe they read my topic ? https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/556951-i-think-its-time-for-a-new-update/ They are among us....

It's been several weeks since the last update and we are still waiting So Microsoft please say a few words it's not like it's gonna take you a lot of time to write one paragraph or two. I don't understand about what's the deal of making us wait, it's very annoying.

So what route do you think they should have taken ? Focus on improving landclasses and autogens just like orbx does ? there are still landclasses, probably better, if not then orbx will do that job :) The 3d photoreal cities are just a plus And I am not convinced that the game will be streamed, because it's still based on landclasses except a few areas. So the size may be similar to a modded p3d, around 100 gb maybe

he is triggered or maybe has some kind of mental illness, sad

why aren't any msfs developers spend some extra time during breaks to come here and give us some information or screenshots every couple of hours ? I mean if I was a developer working on this project I would love to share my work

Kevin I've always wondered about the number of draw calls on fsx, I am suspicious that you haven't optimized at all and you have one draw call per autogen, per cloud etc.. and you haven't batched anything at all. Is it true ?

do you think msfs forums opening will be the beginning of the end for avsim ? there is no reason to stay here because xp11/p3d/fsx will be dead anyway and we will be able to interact with msfs developers in their forums and there will be much more people there because all of the fs communities combined will post on it what would be the point of coming here ?

p3d and XP11 are gpu limited because of the number of draw calls XP11 is an objectively ugly and low quality game in terms of graphics, water, trees, autogens, cars.. there is nothing impressive except the night lightning shader. And yet I can drop to 30 fps without clouds with a medium graphic card like gtx960, which is completely ridiculous because there is nothing more than low poly autogens and a plane rendered on the scene. My character on the witcher has probably more vertices than an entire city rendered in xp11, yet I have better fps its because they havent batched the textures and models etc of autogens, so they have too many draw calls passing 32 bits to 64 bits or replacing code is meaningless if the developers are bad at what they're doing, which they clearly are