Ojisan_alpha

You obviously have never flown any of the Flying Iron warbirds. All of them exhibit all the flying characteristics that are typical for high powered piston engine taildraggers, including ground-adjustable trim tabs. All the physics stuff is there in 2020/2024 - but toned down significantly in most aircraft to make them more accessible for the average player. Not so in the Flying Iron birds. RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight use the Spitfire Mk IX and FS2024 VR in a real cockpit as a flight simulator for their pilots. You want to experience all the fun stuff in one place, engine torque and p-factor dependent on propellor pitch, gyroscopic effects due to pitching, rudder stall due to crosswind, blanking of rudder due to a stalled wing, et cetera? If you still want to have fun, get their Spitfire or the FW-190. You prefer hardcore? Get the 109, and report back. 🙂

You CAN do all the tight turns at 180-220 kts. But then you have to watch out for those Lancasters overtaking you..... 😉

In real life she didn't fly the Mach loop because roll agility was insufficient at tactical speeds (250 kts+). You'll find out that the JF Vulcan is the same. 🙂

So sorry for your loss! 😞 Vulcan. The only aircraft that you can fly like an airliner as well as very low level - and both flight profiles are realistic. Not to mention low level aerobatics that hardly forgive mistakes. Very, very challenging to fly, and modelled incredibly well. By far the best "realistic feeling" ground handling of any aircraft I've ever flown in FS2020/2024. And she's got a TFR.....

Well, this is not completely correct. Frame Generation works with the FSR3 patch on RTX 30xx cards, and very well - as long as the VRAM is sufficient. 3090 definitely works extremely well, 3080 with 12 GB might work if the resolution is less than 4k. Both for FS2020 and FS2024. https://github.com/Nukem9/dlssg-to-fsr3/issues/15 There should be a couple of threads in this forum.

Correct - lots of stutter here, especially on and around huge airports with lots of traffic, but as well in rural areas with less dense scenery and photogrammetry. Was much better in .33. Quite disappointing to say the least.

Sir, the overwhelming majority of players does neither report any of your problems nor do they bit** about framerates not improving. Maybe you better start searching for an error (probably more than one) on your side instead of blaming Asobo/Microsoft all the time. At least you could blame Inibuilds. Did you never wonder why your state-of-the-art machine seems to have problems running FS2024 properly when literally all others with comparable or much slower hardware report the contrary? Edit: Some experiences with the A350:

Try to manually use a different DNS server in your windows netork settings. Some providers systematically throttle access to certain websites (in Germany it's Deutsche Telekom that throttles accss to MS Flight Simulator servers). By using a different DNS server (in Germany we usually use Cloudflare) you should get the full bandwidth back. The effect is essentially the same as using a VPN: You circumvent the DNS server that throttles access to your target site.

Quite frankly I'm amazed how many people are spending their valuable time to answer a troll (or an AI).

Up there it's always been very, very smooth for me. The case where it gets interesting is down low, especially over forrested areas, e.g. Japan's mountains, or huge airports with lots of objects. Could you give us some measurements there?

How about showing us the videos to let us judge if you recorded your data in a halfways challenging enviroment?

Same here with a 3090Ti. Smooth as silk.

I got two CTDs in the Vulcan. On the other hand: FSLTL seems to work pretty well now.

The fix is to wait fur SU4 release - at the moment it's looking quite good. The current betas (beta 1 and beta 2) completely got rid of micro stutters for me (on a very fast PC).

How about showing the unzoomed picture? You know, in real life the zoom on my Mk1 eyeballs is INOP.