turbomax

Yes plus a complex installation and no HDMI/DisplayPort connection. My favorite solution would be: comfort and light weight of the Beyond Be2 (with eye tracking) with Pimax's displays. Until then, enjoying my Pimax Crystal light.

No, not only not noticeably. But not at all. Transfer speed of any ssd will be more than enough. Just check MSFS file transfers via taskmanager and you'll see how slow they are.

several Carenados needed them, and fortunately user Bert provided quite a few.

I start both simulatiors via the xbox app and earn usually 10 bonus credit points or more towards a free ms game store purchase, which at 30.000 a piece should be in only 2-3 years. no pain no gain. 😄

apologies, you are absolutely right! I missed that "SE" "If you're comparing display resolution only, here's the key difference: Headset Resolution (per eye) Total panel resolution Difference Pimax Crystal Light | 2880 × 2880 | 5760 × 2880 | Baseline | Pimax Dream Air SE | 2560 × 2560 | 5120 × 2560 | ~21% fewer pixels | Pixel count comparison Crystal Light Per eye: 2880 × 2880 = 8.29 million pixels Both eyes: 16.59 million pixels Dream Air SE Per eye: 2560 × 2560 = 6.55 million pixels Both eyes: 13.11 million pixels So the Crystal Light has: 12.5% more pixels horizontally and vertically. About 26.6% more pixels per eye (8.29M vs 6.55M). This translates to roughly 21–27% more total pixels, depending on how the comparison is expressed. Does that mean the Crystal Light looks sharper? Not necessarily. The Dream Air SE uses: Micro-OLED panels Modern pancake lenses Better contrast (true blacks) Much lighter headset (~140 g) The Crystal Light uses: QLED + Mini-LED LCD Glass aspheric lenses Higher native resolution (2880×2880) In practice: Fine text and distant cockpit gauges: Crystal Light usually has a small advantage because of the higher resolution. Contrast, colors, and black levels: Dream Air SE has a significant advantage thanks to Micro-OLED. Lens clarity across the field of view: Many users expect the Dream Air SE's pancake optics to provide a larger "sweet spot," although final comparisons depend on production hardware. Bottom line Highest native resolution: ✅ Crystal Light (2880×2880 per eye) Best display technology: ✅ Dream Air SE (Micro-OLED) Lower GPU requirements: ✅ Dream Air SE (about 20–25% fewer pixels to drive) Potentially better perceived image despite lower resolution: Possible, because Micro-OLED contrast and pancake optics can outweigh a modest resolution deficit for many users.

"If you're comparing display resolution specifically, here's the key difference:" Headset Display type Resolution per eye Total pixels Pimax Crystal Light QLED + Mini-LED 2880 × 2880 ~16.6 million Pimax Dream Air Sony Micro-OLED 3840 × 3552 ~27.3 million The Dream Air has about 64% more display pixels per eye than the Crystal Light.

Judgement, cross checks, natural intelligence, prayers. 😄 How do I know all of avsim posts are correct?

Chatgpt knows: Yes. It's true that many PAPI systems are intentionally not exactly coincident with the ILS glideslope. There are several reasons for this, and in many cases the difference is by design rather than an error. The main reasons are: Obstacle clearance The PAPI may be set at a slightly higher angle than the ILS (for example, PAPI at 3.2° while the ILS is 3.0°). This provides additional clearance over obstacles close to the runway threshold. It also helps protect aircraft with lower cockpit heights. Eye-to-wheel height An ILS guides the aircraft based on the glideslope antenna, which effectively provides guidance for the aircraft's flight path. A PAPI is designed so that the pilot's eyes see the correct indication. Since different aircraft have different distances between the pilot's eyes and the landing gear ("eye-to-wheel height"), a single PAPI angle cannot perfectly suit every aircraft. A slight offset helps ensure that the main landing gear crosses the threshold at an appropriate height. Large aircraft considerations Very large aircraft (e.g. wide-body jets) have much greater eye-to-wheel heights than small aircraft. If they flew a standard PAPI exactly "on slope," their wheels might be lower than intended at the threshold. Many operators of large aircraft therefore use procedures such as: follow the ILS until visual, then transition carefully to the visual aiming point, or, at some airports, use specific guidance in the aircraft operating manual. Independent design criteria The ILS and PAPI are designed under different international standards. The ILS glideslope is established by radio-navigation requirements. The PAPI is positioned and adjusted according to visual guidance standards, runway geometry, threshold crossing height, obstacle environment, and operational needs. Their design objectives overlap but are not identical. How big is the difference? Typically, the difference is small: ILS: 3.00° PAPI: 3.20° or ILS: 3.00° PAPI: 2.95° A difference of 0.1–0.3° is fairly common. While that sounds tiny, over several nautical miles it corresponds to tens of feet of altitude. Which should a pilot follow? In instrument meteorological conditions, pilots fly the ILS glideslope until reaching visual references at or below decision altitude. Once sufficient visual references are established, they transition to a normal visual landing, using cues such as the runway perspective and the PAPI. If the ILS and PAPI don't agree, this isn't necessarily a malfunction. Pilots generally continue to fly the published instrument procedure until visual, and then use judgment while respecting any airport-specific procedures or aircraft limitations. If the discrepancy is unusually large or unexpected, it should be treated cautiously and, if necessary, reported. In short, a PAPI and an ILS are not required to coincide exactly. They are separate guidance systems with different design criteria, and a small angular difference is often intentional to account for obstacle clearance, threshold crossing height, and the wide range of aircraft eye-to-wheel geometries.

"The jury concluded that each company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who testified that her childhood use of social media created an addiction to the technology and aggravated her mental health problems. The multimillion-dollar award is expected to increase significantly," I have suffered from MSFS addiction since 1982. that will cost them a pretty bundle ....

your (and my) Pimax Crystal Light are not the latest, highest resolution VR sets that I was referring to.

nobody has yet a pc CPU/GPU powerful enough to drive the latest VR headsets at max resolution with max. MSFS2024 settings at constant 60 fps. so no bragging in the VR department yet, but hopefully sometime in the future. 😄

what's wrong with that? the whole MSFS sim world is "fake"

"In an email to the division, also published on the Xbox blog, Asha Sharma (Xbox CEO) paints a bleak picture of the Xbox division's state. She argues that the business model is unhealthy, with the company achieving margins three to ten times lower than its competitors and operating with a smaller hardware base and higher costs in the current console generation. Sharma considers the attempt to achieve growth through multi-platform titles and Game Pass to have failed."

this ongoing Hangar Chat discussion goes here:

I myself don't have SI, but I appreciate your analysis, efforts and feedback to the community! When you close that SI VR window, does SI still work? In other words, what is it for, is this perhaps some sort of copy protection, license check or can you still use SI with this window closed?