Dylanear

And the pilot still sticks out of front of the Long EZ in external views. A major and now 2 little updates since that broke (with 1.10.8 I think?) and it's still busted. AND the dev of the Long EZ has a work around fix (1.11) to the Asobo bug that's been ready for over 10 days and Microsoft still hasn't updating it in Sim. I'm never buying a darn thing in the in sim store again since MS can't deal with distributing updates in a timely manner. I'm about to buy the Long EZ AGAIN on ORBX, to get 1.11? and insure I can get future updates when they are released and not when MS gets around to it two weeks later.

I was trying to find a way to include both the commercial and freeware folks when I said, "flightsim addon community". I mostly mean the commercial ones, but there's some excellent free stuff from enthusiasts too and I didn't want to leave them out. Yeah, I know it's mostly a complete rewrite. But I think starting from an existing model and texture maps has to be a help. When I say port, I don't mean taking the actual FSX/P3D packages. More that I assume, hope they still have the 3D app model/scene files, etc. And the research done for an accurate flight model in one sim can be applied to making one in another. Even if the model types are so different the actual previous flight model is no use at all. Etc, etc.

You completely misunderstand my meaning. I am talking about companies like Milviz making MSFS aircraft from their existing aircraft, the Beaver for instance. Or DC Creations P3D F-15 pack which is being developed into a MSFS product. My point is there's many years of aircraft for the older sims, and as impatient as I am, I do understand it's going to take a long, long time to have that many options for MSFS. I am absolutely NOT talking about people modifying other people's work for fun or profit.

I mean, really. Why can't the flight sim add on community create the huge panoply of aircraft in the Xplane and FSX/P3D worlds for MSFS in a matter of months! 😉 I just gotta be patient. Lot's of scenery/airports are flooding in. But I could name 6 or 8 aircraft I'd love to see and would be flying all the time. At least the Beaver and the F-15 are on the way. I'm going to spend a lot of time in those two.

I have no doubt porting and upgrading a P3D aircraft to the new mysterious, buggy MSFS and have it up to MSFS visual quality, new flight model, etc. is no trivial task. And while I'm happy to put up with some minor issues if it means it being released and in my hands, I do want them to get it right, not release a unfinished mess. Living in Vancouver and not having a Beaver for your shiny new flight sim is torturous. 😉 I will try to not hold my breath for the Milviz Beaver, but I do look forward to seeing what you can come up with, leprechaunlive

I am mildly desperate for a Beaver with floats!!!!! Anyone heard anything since Milviz announced their Beaver for MSFS was in development? That was about 3 months ago I think?

Where did you read/hear that? I was really hoping for a better CPU boost for sure.

Anyone know if this fixes the AP altitude only working in hold mode? I can't get it to go to a selected altitude? Or am I missing something obvious? As far as install location, complexity, If it was just ONE mod and it only needed one core file swapped out that's not too bad, But beyond one, it just gets to be a nightmare to remember them all and maintain them all. So, I may check this mod out, but good chance not. I just don't want the headache. Not just MSFS. I've had this opinion going WAY back.

Curious what your CPU and RAM are like and what resolution you are running, (1920x1080, 3840x2160, etc.) If you have an older or weaker CPU and are running 1920x1080, the faster video card might not help much, you need a better CPU. But I wouldn't expect it to get slower, that's just not right.

I saw a pretty huge FPS jump going from a 2080 SC to a 3080 FTW3. Something got messed up. Definitely get the latest Nvidia Game Ready drivers and make sure they are loading correctly. I find MSFS runs better after a fresh reboot and without lot's of other things open, like a big mess of Chrome/Firefox tabs.

Yes, there's WAY too many bugs in MSFS. But it's also a program I am more than happy to part of this "paid beta" period. I hear what you are saying, I don't disagree overall. But in this case I am VERY glad to be using this software with it's bugs rather than seeing images and video of it from regular beta testing and wishing month after month I could use it.

Ok? There’s thousands of buildings all over the planet like that. How do the decide which ones they should make? America isn’t the centre of the universe. Lol, this isn't an America vs the rest of the world thing. The whole area around Edwards AFB is all auto gen. You clearly don't know the thing I'm referencing (Only geeks who know the history of Edwards AFB or have read The Right Stuff or seen the 80's movie from that book would.) The recent The Right Stuff mini series doesn't cover the pre Mercury program stuff the old movie did (Chuck Yeager and Edwards, then Muroc I believe). The place I'm referring to is now just rubble. You can see the left overs in satellite maps. But at one time it was the go to hang out for the test pilots at Edwards and famous in the lore of that time there. I'd be SHOCKED if this was given any attention at all by Asobo. They haven't given any attention to Edwards AFB, it's just an autogen airport, has none of the actual features of the base. My point was, if someone spent the time making an accurate Edwards AFB add on, putting in proper photgrametry of the ruins of the Happy Bottom Riding Club would be an amazing detail for those interested in the history of aviation and the part Edwards played in that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Bottom_Riding_Club https://www.google.com/maps/uv?pb=!1s0x80c24b10907f5395:0x5b96184e06fc66bf!3m1!7e115!4shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipOsC4nMj8CReQvtWQ7RNxPPQDUtbPNGfiaH8X3k%3Dw213-h160-k-no!5spancho's+happy+bottom+riding+club+-+Google+Search!15zQ2dJZ0FRPT0&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipOsC4nMj8CReQvtWQ7RNxPPQDUtbPNGfiaH8X3k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjko-TmwrPtAhVGHzQIHQIJANMQoiowFnoECB4QAw

They really messed up the David Monthan boneyard in my estimation. It used to have decent, but not super duper detailed photogrametry of what is actually there. It looked great until you got really down low. If you landed on between rows of planes and were right by them the would look word darn rough. But now they just modeled 5 or 6 kinds of aircraft (F-16,C-130,C-5,k/C-135, E-2,P-3, B-52 off the top of my head.) and placed them all over. And it seems like a much smaller area with aircraft I think? There's a much more interesting mix of stuff and interesting odd gems randomly around. That's the charm of the place, the actual history, the variety of things there. It's just not even close to accurate anymore by my estimations. Maybe the Air Force/DOD called them up and wanted it less accurate?? Probably not a big conspiracy, but I need to try to find a way to get back the old photogrammetry or I'll loose interest in using that airport anymore. I visited Davis Monthan and the Boneyard in the early 90s, so maybe I'm just more a stickler about this than most. If I do a personal add on project for MSFS it would be one or both of two things. Realistically plausible set of aircraft to see around Edwards. The stuff you can see on google maps is pretty cool. The crowning touch would be an accurate representation of the Pancho's Happy Bottom Riding Club site nearby the base. There's auto gen houses there now and that's just sad. Have some respect for the guys that used to have their pictures on the wall there! And a really, really detailed, accurate photogramertry of the actual contents of the Boneyard at Davis Monthan. And maybe add some cool stuff on the AFB, A-10s, KC-135, C-130, Blackhawks. Etc.

Funny, overall it >feels< smoother to me since the update overall. But some places I didn't notice bad slow downs now have them. I have flown low over the San Francisco presidio many times, without troubles, I'd get better FPS there than most of the rest of the city. But now there's some VERY bad slow downs, 10fps (mostly I'm 20-28fps over San Francisco) over some tree covered areas in/around the presidio. I got the new drivers this morning, haven't really flown yet since then. But since I got the 3080 I've been having nothing but trouble putting my PC to sleep and waking it up. Which I generally use all the time, no troubles. So really hoping the new drivers mean I can sleep again and not have to either leave it on or turn it off.

Hilarious! Yeah, that's the funny thing. I do see random palms, never many of them. And yet areas I know that are only palms will have the broccoli.

Yeah, I definitely turn off traffic and multiplayer when I'm just flying solo. They do take CPU cycles for sure. Might not matter as much on a top shelf newish CPU.

Ah! Excellent, so reasonably scientifically accurate. So, It's really more a matter of the biomes xml and the limited tree types available that give it the gross inaccuracies? While I'm picking your brain, do you know what kind of format the tree geometry and materials texture maps are in?

I too have an older CPU (X79 i7-4820k OCed to 4.5ghz), but a pretty top of the line GPU, had a 2080, just got a 3080. So I'm very smooth 45ish fps in rural areas. But dense urban areas are more like 24-28fps at realistic altitudes. And if I drop to unrealistic roof skimming levels I can drop to 12-15fps. (This is 4k, Mostly Ultra settings The latest update does seem to make things smoother, and sometimes it seems like it's a few or up to maybe six fps faster? But the places I was badly CPU limited before are the places I'm badly CPU limited now, no noticeable fps boost really, just seems more consistently slow, smoother, less stutters in those places. Maybe there's a boost in the middle? Places that were 30fps may be 35ish now? But the places I really was hoping for 5-10fps better are the same fps, just less glitches, stutters. But I did find that I drop to 10fps over some tree heavy areas in the San Francisco Presidio heading towards the Golden Gate Bridge. Pretty sure that was more a 20-28fps area before? But that's the only area that seems much slower now and it's REALLY slow, so I think there's something with the new data there that's just not right. It's better, but I was hoping it would cure me of my urges to finally upgrade my mobo/CPU/ram, and it's not that. But it'll be a while until I can get a new mobo and a 5900x or something like that. And with the 3080 and the latest patch I do think I can enjoy the heck out of the sim until that time. Just need to resist the urge to skim rooftops in big cities.

That's kind of what it looked like to me. Biomes with lists of different trees and such with values to control density I think? Is there any visual representation of where it puts the different region/biome like a image map I can look at? How are those defined on the globe. There must be a image map or vector data to define these regions/biomes? And what data is telling it to place tree or not on any given spot? Those are even less clear than the biomes.xml.

Posted Tuesday at 07:55 PM "To be fair, it specifically says visitors centre on the POI." Posted Tuesday at 09:22 PM "Hopefully the two can work together to complete the “picture”." They do nicely combine to change a rather sad KSC to a much more interesting one. Really, MS/Asobo should have made a deal with the maker(s) of the free KSC add on, gave them proper credit and included it, at least in the Marketplace as a free download if not as part of the sim. I did notice the massive concrete bases on Pad 39 A and B were partially floating above the ground in significant ways. Doesn't look all that bad at a glance, but I could probably park a Cub under the tallest of the gaps. Maybe the authors need to adjust it to the latest height maps Asobo is using? Still plenty of KSC that has messy bad photogrammetry or less than ideal Blackshark auto gen buildings, often where a launch pad and tower should be not a house. Happy to see Asobo partner with volunteers on special places, but seems like the volunteers are shouldering a lot of the KSC area!

Yes, palm trees. A lot of southern California and tropical Pacific islands I've flown over just looks horrible. No palm trees to be found, just the messed up photogrammetry and often the big (huge?) kinda generic looking, round, fluffy, no branches or variations "broccoli" that don't belong on those landscapes. And the conifers don't really look like conifers and are all too alike as well. But I have seen a few detailed palms here and there at times, MSFS does have palm models that look pretty good, which makes this even more frustrating. On one hand, as generic all over trees in a flight sim are concerned, the MSFS trees are fantastic, they don't bog down the sim as a general rule, thankfully don't look like simple "cross" geometry trees, have a nice volume to them. A big step up from the base trees in other sims. On the other, the sameness and inaccuracy of the trees really is one of the distractions that pull me out of really feeling it as real when flying low in wild areas. Which is one of my favorite things to do in sims. Anyone who can upgrade the MSFS trees I'll buy an add on from. Something like TeraFlora or HD Trees, etc. But ideally also improving species placement/biome definitions. The bad photogrametry palm trees will probably need an AI solution specific to trees. But if they can train an AI to make buildings, hopefully they can train an AI to plant more accurately matching trees and forests. Granted there's a LOT more trees on planet earth than buildings. But since the MSFS trees are not bad in execution, some better variations and some more accurate placement would make good, but generic trees amazing.

I've been meaning to look at your seasons mod, now I have even more reason to. Can you explain about how the biomes and species in the config work? Seems like the biomes are define as probabilities of a certain trees with certain size settings? But how does it place the biomes? Is there some kind of texture maps for the whole globe defining which areas get trees from which biomes in the species cfg?

Well, it's not a building sim either and yet there's a comparatively infinite variations of buildings. I spend a LOT more of my sim time over forests and rural areas than over cities, but seems like a lot more dev time has gone to urban areas? Flying the Southern California coast just isn't the same without palm trees. Northern California's majestic Redwoods shouldn't be hard to discern from deciduous trees.

I'd love to see Blackshark Ai working with Speedtree! Something like that? More varieties of trees, more accurately placed around the world. Don't get me wrong. I started this thread because I think MSFS is amazing, but would be better with better trees. The ones it has look great. The biggest problem is they are not accurately placed and the conifers seem all pretty similar and rounded. Not pointy at top. I went to someplace that should be all conifers, redwoods and the like and when looking closely they weren't deciduous, but they just didn't feel, look like it. And places in the world that should be mostly or all palms have few to none. I can't fault Asobo that much at this point in the software's development, some things are actually a bit disappointing. But overall MSFS is so amazing, how could I complain much? But it does seem like a fantastic opportunity for the modding community/businesses. I'd buy Terraflora for MSFS if they improved the quality, variety and >placement< of the trees. My understanding Terraflora doesn't change where tree types are placed, only adds more variety and better looking trees of similar types?

In coastal desert or tropical areas, coastal Southern California, Pacific Islands there's fluffy deciduous trees where there should be palm trees. Palm trees exist, I've seen a few here and there, just rarely. In mountainous areas or far northern areas most trees are conifers, but I don't think I've EVER flown over a predominately conifer forest or at least one that looked like one in MSFS, fluffy round deciduous trees everywhere. Anyone modded the "biomes" file? Sure would like to see TerraFlora for MSFS, the trees just aren't accurately placed or diverse enough by default.