Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,442 Excellent

1 Follower

About MarcG

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

10,660 profile views
  1. But that's the point I'm trying to make to you, they may not get the optimisations back because of the fixes they have to make elsewhere. 🙂 Therefore they won't include a setting for something that might not exist 😉 again all hypothetical, only they know what's going and we can only guess. DX12 is and will be in beta for some time yet, so IMO there's no rush to "fix" this issue now as now the public SU10 build must take priority with its impending release.
  2. Perhaps the performance improvements they gained caused the issues for others, so in trying to fix the issues it then became apparent that the performance was a side effect they couldn't keep (not saying that is the case, just an example). Software coding item A doesn't always mean it's easy to code item B, especially when for no reason whatsoever item C gets corrupted.
  3. This was an awful inclusion in the first place and beggars belief how it passed through internally, hope it's fixed for VR though that's the main thing for me. Good job on that, although the other VR UI bug isn't listed which should've been straight forward.
  4. Pray tell Mr Armchair Expert, how does it work exactly from the position the modder is in? As you clearly know...
  5. I'll keep an eye on it over busy areas, in VR like I said so I don't monitor it constantly.
  6. I used about 7.5gb with my 3070ti in VR, not seen it maxed out yet.
  7. I love small jets so will be keeping my eye on this one, thanks for the heads up.
  8. Not yet and no word on if it's going to be addressed.
  9. I would just like them to hire competent VR coders, they're clearly out of their depth with this tech and don't have a clue what they're doing; "we have a VR team, we don't have a VR team, we have a VR team, we've now merged the VR team into the main Dev team, let's add an auto eye exposure that's not needed in VR and ignore the beta testers..." etc etc
  10. Good luck with that - Internet Forums since the 1990s 😄
  11. I understand what you're saying, what I don't understand is how you're expecting a single Dev to check *every single* paid & free airport for tree clashes. That's a monumental task in itself, wouldn't you agree? (Rhetorical question)
  12. I agree the default should've been faster but in VR 200 it's way too fast, 100 would've been better. Unsure why they changed this when no one asked for it in the first place though 🤔
  13. So you want him to check every single add-on airport for Tree Clashes....all of them? Paid & Free?.....is that correct?
  14. So far in this Beta (using VR): First Build = Good move forward generally, performance improved, god awful new (Auto) Eye Exposure though which is a massive step backwards Second Build (including the very small update prior) = Still good performance, nothing touched on the Eye Exposure above Third Build (todays) = Step backwards with performance, still nothing on the the awful Eye Exposure and no other VR regressions fixed alongiside obvious UI bugs in this beta still not fixed. So, for me at least, this Beta is gradually going backwards from a good start. There's still time to sort stuff out, to fix regressions and do *something* with the awful Eye Exposure they've added, but history tells me they practically ignore the forum Votes on anything to do with VR and make it up as they go along. I'm convinced they don't know what they're doing with this tech and they need some help...badly!
  15. EGKA is pretty good, still suffers from performance issues and some niggles I reported long ago haven't been fixed so it could do with a little TLC.
  • Create New...