Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

137 Excellent

About Wewk584

  • Rank

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think beta testing is the way... although this update was special since I think the hard date came with pressure to release it then. Probably su5 would have had more testing and maybe even been delayed if beta didnt go well... as often happens with the sim updates. I dont get upset.. but its more my nature... although i having been able to fly the CJ4 since SU5 came out.. i have been flying the caravan and the NXi early access which has been fun. (i havent even tried my dc-6 since im just assuming it wont work with the update) anyways im saying I think future updates will be more like su4 .. maybe not perfect but not sim breaking... (i dont recall having any issues with 4)
  2. I get so confused when people say MSFS graphics needs to optimized... (it needs more reliable gps, some flight model tweaking, and some other things.. but i think considering how much is on the screen the optimization is pretty good ).. flights in MSFS run smoother while looking better with more object being drawn on the screen than they do on my same system in x-plane. (i admit my ryzen 1400 @3800mhz and 1650super are underpowered) ... I run very few addons in xplane. With context -- i have my settings in xplane at mostly high and objects on max .. i have my settings in MSFS at all medium except coulds are at ultra. (there really doesnt seem to be much of a penalty over med or high.. which is sort of my point) and the problem is.. MSFS looks better. i could lower my xplane settings to all medium and then it would run smooth as butter... but ... it already looks worse now .. the gaps in the autogen medium gives you is so emersion killing.. especially since im running default ground textures mostly (i have ortho a couple places like cali and and a couple other forkboy tiles) I dont mean to shame x-plane... its an older sim and i still like it (i flew in my pc-12 rep couple hours ago).. working gps ftw... im just specifically not understanding some folks expecting that drawing way more objects with more detail (trees, clouds, autogen/photogrametry) to have no performance cost.. and very shocked how well these cost are mitigated in the sim. It seems extremely optimized to me. ..
  3. Hollywood has been able to make 48/60 fps movies for a long time and yet they (mostly) still stick to 24fps. Smooth 24/30 fps in slow moving scenes ( flight sim mostly sits in that space) is pretty easy on the eyes. your brain hates jerkiness so it wont like jerky @ any frame rate . its just that jerkiness at 60fps may be harder to perceive. Im one also that thinks smooth 30 in slow moving action virtually looks the same to me in real use. with proper motion blur very difficult to detect in fast scenes (for me) Now if i lower the settings and start panning around or flying in a way i dont normally do then sure... i can tell the difference.. but tweaking for experiments doesnt really work for my use case. So Im for (as someone stated above) agreeing to disagree on this one . the fps topic is as old as the ability to film and make games/sims at > 30fps. the human eye/brain (psychologically and mechanically) combo is unique in every man/woman.
  4. I fly the msfs TBM daily so I have gotten so used to working around things that I barely miss them . (I'm not a rw pilot but I own the hot start tbm and have that as comparison) totoritkos moded g1000 In the hotstart is very well done. Plus the base laminar g1000 holds its own. I still fly the hotstart tbm from time to time (flew it today as a matter of fact).. The Garmins in all the msfs planes have come along way (I too feel like someone coded them based on notes and not experience with one) and I do miss correctly working flight directors for hand flying for a bit after an IFR takeoff. It gives vertical guidance just not lateral. If there is a stiff crosswind even heading mode flight benefits from working FD lateral guidance. The cj4 mod is a joy since they fixed the flight director's when off AP. (And working titles FMS modifications for the CJ4 in general) But having said that.. I still have a hard time going back to xplane. I mostly just to every once in a whole fly the planes I own in xplane (the hot start will always be deeper (in every way) than the stock msfs tbm And Asobo is going the right direction. Again. If the gps was 40 % correct (don't confuse correct for complete. Even the xplane Garmins are missing a ton of features.) .. its like. 60% of what IS implemented is correct now in msfs . Although You still gotta keep both eyes on the gps (as opposed to xplane garmins where keeping one eye on it is good enough] So I'm still loving the sim and I'm willing to wait.
  5. photogrammetry off or only should effect underlying scenary. Add ons should show through without a difference I use photogrammetry off. It's not as realistic (potentially) as having it on but the melted buildings and spikes coming out of the ground kill my emersion way more. It still is way more closer to real life than my other sim. And the fps boost is a plus as well although it wasn't my motivation
  6. Cyberpunk2077 disagrees Titles like this are not sitting on one PC with only the changes updating.. it is (usually) compiled from scratch every time and the assets (files) are rebuilt everytime.. then they 'diff' out the changes and push only those during the update.. (be that changed / delete or added files)... im not saying its OK the issue happened or that its taking time to fix but that would apply to the entire list of items they are working on. Its still a 'bug'
  7. Good convo going in in this thread. Honestly I'm fine reading a constructive complaint thread. .. but when the pitchforks and torches come out I hit back and try a different thread . I had to skip avsim completely for most of the end of aug and Sept. As I couldn't get through any threads. Things have settled down a lot though
  8. A pure tech support thread doesn't require positive testimonials. but how can someone ignore a "I'm so sick of this" thread if their experience has been different. I have had a couple rare ctds since aug with msfs but I fly everyday. I have ctds way more often with xplane as comparison. . I sort of assume some occasional ctds with flight sims due to their nature .. Just through experience from xplane. And ctds I see in twitch streams of p3d. But again, they should be relatively rare . I wish OP luck figuring out the issue with his setup
  9. Ive decided that folks can call MSFS whatever they want to. Avsim beat me down a long time ago. If people want to call this a game.. call it a game... they can call it a rock.. a bird.. I wont stop anyone.. have at it. .. i just know i fly this 'game' the same why I fly when Im in x-plane.. I just enjoy when i look out the window alot more.
  10. Devs said its in the technique they use. I would imagine 'fixing' them would be at a heavy resource cost. Time of day, type of clouds etc can make them more or less obvious at times. I'll take them over.. other clouds ive seen. anyday. Im not against a setting that has 0 pixelation, but if its at a performance cost, it should be a notch above ultra. They did talk about adding another notch. It might require a 4080 (ie a gpu that doesnt exist yet)
  11. I never thought 1. I thought it would be better than xplane and p3d and I still do. (I'm talking the core sim... toliss etc are not laminar) I do intend on flying xplane again but truth is I havent since launch .. and i have flown in mfs everyday . I think that says how I feel about the sim better than anything else. I would say I have gone through light versions of all the stages. I expect all trailers to only show the best stuff. I was disappointed in the sim but never angry. I'd say im at step 5. I think sims can have good planes AND look good. I think the sim is worth supporting. And I have faith that as long as asobo keeps working on the sim it will get better . (Anyone wanting to ask why I have faith, please google "faith")... this is where I personally stand
  12. Those things are usually trees or small bushes or other small objects that got picked up in areas with 3d data. Usually if you view the same area in bing's (and usually Google's also) 3d map you will see a corresponding weirdly shaped translucent object in that spot. usually the bigger ones will get a tree thrown on top if it. But the smaller ones remain as spikes. Pretty much anything 3d that looks weird in bing 3d maps will look weird in the sim. Unless it was redone by hand. I'd be ok if they were just removed. They look scary. Sometimes I prefer the blacksharkai areas over the 3d areas due to this. And again in fairness to bing, usually google earth has trouble with these objects also. I love the sim and things overall look awesome. I assume this will get addressed in future world builds on the server side .
  13. Never mind... this post is like all the rest now 😞
  14. Yes. Thanks for this post. I'm enjoying my time in mfs. I've gotten used to what it's currently capable of... I've developed work arounds (as most people flying the sim have) to the extent I barely notice. I look forward to the journey to improve the sim over the next months/years
  15. I am assuming individual plane issues may take a while (months) Unless 1) a sim wide fix happens to fix the plane... ie the 787 performance was improved but due to sim wide glass cockpit improvements. 2) when they do work on the individual planes, hopefully they chose the latitude and da62 first. But the last planes they choose to fix I'm thinking months
  • Create New...