Kopteeni

I'm surprised you were able to get anything running at all given your team seems to be having troubles on deciding on what the target os is and reading the documentation. Let's get back to your perf comparisons after practising the basics.

Tell Microsoft that your team is having a confusion in which OS your code is supposed to target?

I suggest you to start with the basics, fix your function calls and then proceed with the more advanced concepts.

So... instead of using the programming language as specified by the documentation you rather spend money on new hardware so you can write mclapply instead of parlapply. Good luck for the poor guy paying the bills.

Perhaps you'll be able to convince one or two avsim readers your conclusions about windows multicore support based on one specific programming language having one specific different function call for one specific operation for Windows. Great find.

You refuse to use the correct function call for your target OS because somehow in your brain you see it as hacking and casually proceed to MSFS scenery errors. You are one of a kind sparksy

What are you trying to prove by calling a function that has another implementation under a different name in the target OS and pasting the error message here?

Usually, it only takes one google search to find out sparksy is not telling the whole truth and a lot of times he's downright lieing https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cholera/vignettes/parallelization.html The ‘cholera’ package supports parallelization of certain functions using the ‘parallel’ package, which is included in R’s base distribution. On macOS and Unix, this is done using parallel::mclapply(); on Windows, this is done using parallel::parLapply().

Barely out of beta and already on sale. Austin on Christmas spirit.

It's almost as if flight simmers are not a collective hivemind at all but actually consists of different people with varying opinions. Dimming down the displays was probably a lot more common when the displays were still CRT. I don't know why you would bother doing it with the modern displays.

Why would Nvidia charge developers for using a tech that helps them selling their hardware?

It's a smart business decision. People care more about the domestic terminal's hot dog stand and which label of ketchup they are offering than silly stuff like that.

I buy all my sceneries from the market place. I like the idea of having everything in a single place in case I ever need to reinstall MSFS. Also I hate to fiddle around with custom installers or the file system, the in game market place makes it all a breeze. Also, I think it's a big plus that MS gets its cut from these sales. It's more likely that they keep developing the game forward when they see the money flowing in.

Just had my first flight with 1.0.4.134 build. Ground handling feels way easier now. The plane didn't feel so fiddly on takeoff and landing roll, great! I also enjoy the flare feel a lot in the new version. The only strange issue is that on initial climb the plane started slowing down a lot after thrust climb. The speed dropped all the way to 180kts when the autopilot finally disconnected. The AP tried to maintain something like 15 degrees. I had to lower the nose to 10 degrees to get back my speed. Overall, this plane is headed to a great direction.

Tried the Studio drivers earlier (which should bring the same benefits). I'm still getting noticeably better performance with DX11.