SayAgain

Those pesky Physicists hitting us with reality crushing the spirit of the “believers”

@stans Agree, but the “common” increase pattern usually lasts more than 1.5 months. The failures in SpaceX program and the fact the current design simply will not make Mars journey viable. Brian Cox details the many specific reasons as to why Starship is no more than marketing hype vs. the real physics involved.

He had SpaceX buy 19% of his CyberTruck inventory that isn't selling to inflate his CyberTruck sales figure ... now that's classic. Back to reality Musk. Hopefully those of you here on AVSIM didn't buy into SpaceX IPO. The right way to approach this problem is with multi-government funding (aka tax payers) if they want to be serious about reaching Mars.

Not from how the culling calculation was explained to me by MS/Asobo. In one of their SU releases, MS/Asobo modified the calc to improve FPS and reduce VRAM which caused even more aggressive culling ... that was their so called "performance tuning". It's a rather simple calculation based on percent of screen resolution ... doesn't matter if you create 10 LODs for the model or 5 LODs, the problem will persist. The higher your resolution the more obvious the problem. The reason Asobo will not change it or just provide a graphics slider to adjust is: Could trigger lower FPS Could trigger higher VRAM usage Would impact XBOX performance much more than PC performance As other's have pointed out, it's also not restricted to just AI traffic aircraft, you'll see it on Jetways, tugs (almost pointless to have ground vehicles for different carriers as they all appear white and featureless until you get much closer to them), and payware aircraft. It is easy since they've already done it and made this culling problem worse. I get it, a lot of people use consoles and a lot of people struggle with VRAM usage and performance, but that's exactly why graphics slider settings exist, so people can tune their visuals to meet their FPS goals. Anyway, I'm beating a dead horse, Asobo are not going to make any changes since they refuse to acknowledge the problem and go even further down the misinformation campaign to distract from the real issue. It is what it is, we make our choices, and other flight simulator platforms (some very old) don't have this problem and/or provide options to address it such as P3D prepar3d.cfg file under the [GRAPHICS] section as RS_MIN_OBJECT_PIXEL_RADIUS. Its default value is 2.0 pixels (e.g., RS_MIN_OBJECT_PIXEL_RADIUS=2.000000). Objects with a calculated pixel radius smaller than this threshold are culled from 3D views. and other options in the camera.cfg. XPlane it is a non-issue, FSX it's a non-issue, AF2 it's a non-issue, DCS it's a non-issue ... only with MSFS is it a problem.

I’ve posted videos demonstrating the problem many times with the default MSFS AI aircraft and just get the same avoidance and deflection. Any AI model has the problem … like I keep saying to MS over and over and over. Hence the conclusion this issue is NOT going to be addressed.

Marco, MS/Asobo will NOT be fixing the missing land gear issue (culling issue). One of their reps (Speedy? or something under that name) straight up lied in a thread I put the effort into visually showing the issue ... claimed it was Pre-Alpha build and not present is current version (the Intro video to MSFS 2024 that shows the exact same missing landing gear issue) and here we are in SU5 and SU6 Beta and it's still the same as it was on release day - missing landing gear. The same Speedy person (whomever that maybe) has also avoided commenting on a thread in FSElite website, so that's a pretty good sign that this issue is NOT going to be addressed. I see you found the "great defenders" of MSFS threatening you because of your "tone" ... they'll have a meltdown with my tone (oh the horror): MSFS DevSupportSim "culls" Model-parts and ignores LODs of the ModelSo we are at sim update 5 and this issue has STILL not been addressed or fixed. Absolutely ridiculous.Don't you just love the "community" ;) I still use MSFS 2024, but I spend more of my time with XPlane12 these days because of this single major issue. Be warned, you'll run into the same "Great Defenders" of MSFS 2024 here on AVSIM. But hey, at least in SU6 we get more FPS via more fake frames ... wooohooo how exciting ... love me a dose of AI fake to cure all. Rob.

Which is shared with 15-20 other devices in one's household and a guarantee that of 1Gbps (read the fine print) means can vary from 400Mbps to 900Mbps) thru-out the day (shared with your local neighborhood and assuming you don't have other devices using it) ... and then you are also reliant on the server streaming the data which may or may not be having a good day. So Steaming makes NO SENSE especially since updates are far and few between.

Updates for this aircraft are in the Marketplace and you get a notification of pending update when you start MSFS 2024. I wouldn't recommend streaming, always download whenever possible ... why wait on a much slower internet speed (1Gbps) vs. local storage speed which in worse case will be 300% faster (HDD) to best case of 10,000% faster (NVMe Gen5).

If you’re looking for more accurate flight physics with weather, you might want to add Xplane12 to your simulator collection. Platform diversity does take more maintenance effort, but the work can be rewarding.

Let me check-in with Pete and Co. to see what their schedule is like on Oct 18th ... maybe all meet for a lunch or dinner? Lets connect for a lunch or something ... sorry can't do UK Flightsim Show, our flights all booked and paid for and even if I could change, my wife couldn't change date/times.

So why are you having to manually do this via usercfg.opt file? Also Terrain LoDFactor is a float and ObjectsLoD LoDFactor is a float so no idea where you are getting 1000 from ... do you really mean LoDFactor = 10.000000? TLOD = 8.0 and OLOD = 10.0 ... FPS drops from about 40-44 to 20-22 at LHR with Traffic and I will eventually get GPU memory warning. And the floating AI (it gets funnier with missing front wheel and only the closest rear wheels render ... it's like Pirates of the Caribbean): Regardless of the values entered, the culling calculation will still not render objects less that specific screen percentage (for ObjectsLoD only) ... terrain will look a little better at altitude, but objects will still get culled. AIG models use 5 LODs as recommended by the SDK, but they still get culled. Making the culling adjustable (even if only via userCfg.opt) would be nice (and extremely easy to do), but there are several other significant issues that need to be addressed especially for those of us that use Xplane, the MSFS 2024 flight physics are just not that great ... the inertia is still WAY off and one just doesn't get the feeling of "weight". Changes in speed on approach should have much more of an impact and I honestly can't tell the difference when making an overweight landing vs. just above margin fuel weight landing ... change should be more dramatic. Then we have the limits of Photogrammetry and low level flight with the slow to render melted building look and rock trees and other anomalies that can be a distraction. Where I get disappointed is the continued focus of FPS rather than a focus of better image quality ... IMHO optimization by culling isn't really optimization, it's just rendering less that should be rendered. I get it, gotta make this work on consoles, honestly I don't think PCs are really something MS care that much about (cost to entry for users is high, even worse now) so why bother to focus on PC user side ... DLSS 4.5 is really on nVidia's path and MS/Asobo don't need to do much to support it. On a side note Kevin, I'll be in the UK, Porto, Germany Oct 14th to Nov 1 Will you be anywhere near Blackpool, Winchester, and possibly Staffordshire? Rob.

Unfortunately "back door" channels remain open and it's how nVidia managed to move GPUs to places they claimed they never moved them even when pictures and videos were provided showing the GPUs at locations they weren't supposed to be. Just need to donate to a campaign fund and you're free from investigation leaving only end users and YouTube content providers (who to be fair do a good job but have virtually ZERO impact on anything). The corruption and consumer manipulation is pretty stagging currently with little or nothing being done about it. Agree, and they never will ... software engineers will not stop producing more realism unless told NOT TO by a project manager (or in the case of MSFS 2024 PM cull cull cull cull ... less is more FPS). Unfortunately the ball of progress has become very expensive not because of the technology but because of the so called "for the investors" while actual profits remain with the executive branch ... and BTW, thanks for your money investors (they're the one's really taking the risk, not the executive branch). Even next generation GPUs due maybe in 2028 - 2030 (AMD RDNA5 series nVidia 6000 series) have synthetic improvements of 15% (actual not AI based which is claiming 2.4X faster) ... peel away the true rendering capabilities and these next gen GPU for their actual performance.

How is photogrammetry fake … it’s based entirely on real world data? Not what I said, but ok … what I’ve always maintained is that if you want consistent frame times, then either buy better hardware and/or reduce your graphics settings … it really is that simple. Ignoring the limits of what can be achieved without knowing (or wanting to know) the technical reasons they can’t be achieved (often referred to as “wishy thinking”) or go the route of AI and be dealt something that is a guess of what you should be experiencing at the cost of visual accuracy. But hey, you FPS hunters won … you got your AI (be sure to donate to the Jensen H. Trillion) to wash those stutters aways (South Pacific reference). You’ll need a book for that, not a postcard. :)

True Asobo is independently owned … but without MS financial support and infrastructure they would never have completed MSFS as we see it today. So yes, not “owned” but extremely reliant on MS when it comes to MSFS (especially their servers and bandwidth). The problem with high reviews (8/10) is that they are often fake reviews (even the verified purchase … free $0 purchases provide by the vendor) and rarely provide detailed context. The reviews I look at almost exclusively are the negative reviews because an “unhappy” customer is more likely to provide exact details of what made them unhappy … much more valuable information. Of course, some of what makes one buyer unhappy may not be relevant to another or it’s obvious the buyer is “challenged” in some way. But overall, the gaming industry is taking a big hit from the AI hype and price fixing of RAM and GPUs and other component companies trying to cash in. The priced fixing lawsuits have started so we’ll see if any of these component execs end up in jail like the last time they price fixed. But the sad reality is that a fine of $100M means nothing when your profits have increased by 700% … and not sure how the US could put international company CEOs in jail? Micron maybe, but not the others. But here is the rub, consumers are buying into the AI hype via DLSS is a good example with fake frames so as to produce higher FPS. Part of the problem is the end users thirst for ridiculously high FPS … a stutter is world ending for those who have not evolved thru the beginning of PC gaming … apparently a huge distraction yet AI aircraft floating around without wheels isn’t? Heck MSFS SU6 hype is DLSS 4.5 support … ugh … just more of the same fake frames and adjusted content that’s not as intended. In many ways, consumers brought this on themselves with buying into DLSS/AI as a solution. I think MSFS 2024 will be the end of the road for MS/Asobo involvement. But on the positive side, the content providers kept FSX and P3D going for decades after MS closed that shop. Some of the solutions and hacks people came up with to solve FSX/P3D problems was impressive, so if there is no more MSFS 2024 newer version, it will be around for a while (unless of course MS pull the plug on the servers). And there is still the option of XPlane which is making “slow” (ok very slow, ok super slow) progress. So it’s not all bad.

This doesn’t look good? https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/articles/microsoft-says-lost-64-cents-145000482.html MS claim to be losing 64 cents per $1 invested … and yet 2025 they posted Net Income of $101 Billion? Poor management or just bad expensing to GL? For example, the servers providing data to MSFS photogrammetry is mostly from servers that weren’t doing much with Bing due to lack of demand … are these factored into the Game Studio’s expenses? This smells more like we want some AI hype action please, drop everything else.