Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
skooma512
Feb 8, 2012

You couldn't grok my race car, but you dug the roadside blur.

Anime Store Adventure posted:

Thanks - all super informative. And yeah, my rudder pedals don't have a very strong center detente so I've found myself applying slight rudder by mistake constantly when my feet are up on them and it makes it hard to hit neutral easily.

Deadzones and curves can be defined for rudders too.

In fact it's probably a good idea anyway. Big ol planes like DC-6s won't ever reach full deflection and should feel hard to move. Helicopters are twitchy as hell on 1:1 and need curves on all axes to model them somewhat properly and to not flip over and die from a slight input.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Lord Stimperor
Jun 13, 2018

I'm a lovable meme.

Regarding coordination and adverse yaw, it's really something to experience in sail planes. Because the wing span is large and the speed slow, yaw absolutely dominates roll. That is to say, because the wings are very large they create a lot of drag. If you roll without applying rudder heartily, the nose will just swing into the opposite direction of where you want to go. Roll left, nose goes right.

I had my first flights in a 1950s Schleicher made of canvas and metal tubes. You couldn't force this one into a turn without applying rudder. Trying to force it would just make it yaw so hard in the opposite direction that the speed indicator couldn't properly show airspeed anymore, which is a scary experience.

Te importance of turn coordination diminishes with speed. Already at Cessna speeds, coordination is far far less important and adverse yaw hardly occurs anymore. When people at my old gliding club needed to feel superior they'd tsk tsk on motorized pilots' lovely turn coordination.

Zip!
Aug 14, 2008

Keep on pushing
little buddy

Happy XBOX flight sim day – looking forward to finally being able to jump into this game.

fuckpot
May 20, 2007

Lurking beneath the water
The future Immortal awaits

Team Anasta
Looking forward to more FPS with this update. What I'm really hoping though is that my stutter problems are fixed. Every few minutes or so the game will have a stutter step. On my GPU/CPU monitoring app it will look like a reversed sinus heart rhythm as the GPU/CPU seems to cut out momentarily during the stutter. I've learned to live with it but I'd love to see it gone

Animal
Apr 8, 2003

así the MSFS patch coming out today? I wanna see some performance analysis so I can decide whether to buy it again (I had it refunded it on Steam after release)

Bigsteve
Dec 15, 2000

Cock It!
Should be any secund now really. Usually about this time of day it goes up.

fuckpot
May 20, 2007

Lurking beneath the water
The future Immortal awaits

Team Anasta
Apparently it releases at 0100hrs AEST time, which is two hours from now.

explosivo
May 23, 2004

Fueled by Satan

Thinking I'm going to pop in and see how much of a difference this new update makes for me performance-wise. Are there any specifics about what is being improved or just all around performance tweaks?

Vahakyla
May 3, 2013
Are the frame improvements for VR, too?

fuckpot
May 20, 2007

Lurking beneath the water
The future Immortal awaits

Team Anasta
The skinny of it is that a majority of the workload will now be handled by the GPU rather than choking up a single CPU thread.

lobsterminator
Oct 16, 2012




fuckpot posted:

The skinny of it is that a majority of the workload will now be handled by the GPU rather than choking up a single CPU thread.

Ugh. Dreading to test this out. I have an RX 580 and it's been playable with lowish settings, but I'm not sure my GPU can handle any more load...

explosivo
May 23, 2004

Fueled by Satan

Lol yeah I upgraded my CPU and doubled my RAM when MSFS came out to make the game playable so my 1070 is the biggest bottleneck I have now. Curious to see if I get an appreciable bump from this or not.

Animal
Apr 8, 2003

lobsterminator posted:

Ugh. Dreading to test this out. I have an RX 580 and it's been playable with lowish settings, but I'm not sure my GPU can handle any more load...

It should still be a win for you, it’s better to be GPU bound than CPU bound. You should have a more stable frame rate and more importantly reduced stuttering

fuckpot
May 20, 2007

Lurking beneath the water
The future Immortal awaits

Team Anasta
Downloading 40GB update right now. Wish I had faster internet :( Some very cool sounding changes.

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!

quote:

Known issues:
- Sim may crash when flying with AI traffic
:suicide:

I mean what in the gently caress.

explosivo
May 23, 2004

Fueled by Satan

I know we all got into OnAir for like a month after this came out but I just heard about NeoFly and this looks like a pretty decent free alternative, anyone give this a try?

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane
Known issues: GPS is a gently caress and we don’t plan to do poo poo all.

Wolfy
Jul 13, 2009

quote:

SU5 Issues

The effects of non-standard day pressure and temperature on altitude in MSFS is inaccurate for SU5 affecting the following:

Airplane altitude provided to ATC from the airplane transponder will not correlate correctly with the airplane indicated on the airplane's altimeter. VATSIM / IVAO will see MSFS airplanes at a different altitude than what the pilots see.

If temperature is different than ISA, the airplane altimeter will not indicate the correct altitude, most observable when airplane is on the ground at the airport with the proper QNH set. The altimeter should align with the airport's elevation, but it won't with SU5.

If pressure or temperature is changing with live weather, the airplane's autopilot may wander from the set altitude or "chase" altitude.

The built-in MSFS ATC will experience the same altitude issues - you may see FL390 on your altimeter, but the ATC will see you at a different altitude.
https://docs.flybywiresim.com/start/reported-issues/#su5-issues

lmao

Shipon
Nov 7, 2005
Huh, the game doesn't seem to be acknowledging that there's even an update and just tries to launch normally.

Lord Stimperor
Jun 13, 2018

I'm a lovable meme.

Game gives me an update screen. I click on continue. Game skips to loading screen, crashes :(



Also: I seem to have trouble connecting to Microsoft/Xbox services and it's telling me that something is wrong with my account. Off to a great start. I have to make a trip to get my second vaccination in a bit so I'll just let them figure it out in the meantime.


PT6A posted:

Known issues: GPS is a gently caress and we don’t plan to do poo poo all.


Can you elaborate? Has it got to do with the update? I think you've repeatedly been mentioning GPS problems before.

Lord Stimperor fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jul 27, 2021

Squiggle
Sep 29, 2002

I don't think she likes the special sauce, Rick.


These servers are maaad.

EDIT: Looks like there's some good news on the performance improvements for high end hardware and settings too

quote:

I’ve been testing the update for the past couple of weeks on my own PC, equipped with an Intel Core i9-11900K and Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, and the improvements are staggering even on top hardware. I use Microsoft Flight Simulator for benchmarks during our GPU reviews, and in the same section flying across Seattle, my frame rate has gone from an average of 45fps all the way up to 68fps. That’s more than a 50 percent leap with ultra settings enabled at 1440p.

Even flying across areas like New York City sees some impressive improvements, with my machine now managing to hit 80fps average in what’s typically a very demanding part of Microsoft Flight Simulator. The improvements are so surprising that I’ve had to double and triple check my settings to make sure I was actually running at ultra on everything.

Squiggle fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jul 27, 2021

Cojawfee
May 31, 2006
I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius
I go to install the update and it wants me to download 122GB, and i don't have enough room for that. I might as well just delete the whole thing and reinstall I guess.

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!
Server's are getting hammered. It started out fine doing 90MBit, now I'm down to 13MBit with a lot of wait time between segments.

azflyboy
Nov 9, 2005

Lord Stimperor posted:



Can you elaborate? Has it got to do with the update? I think you've repeatedly been mentioning GPS problems before.

There's still a lot of basic functions for the in-sim GPS units that are either spectacularly broken or just not there.

Asobo did hire the WorkingTitle people to unfuck the GPS's last year (and they recently put out a preview video showing VNAC working properly), so hopefully stuff will get less broken as time goes on.

Cojawfee
May 31, 2006
I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius
Jeez, I guess if you haven't played in a while, just uninstall the whole game and reinstall it. I launched it and it wanted to do a 122GB update, I only had 108GB free. I uninstalled and went to reinstall and it says it needs 123GB. And that appears to be 1.1GB for the launcher that the xbox store downloads, and then the 122GB update it wanted to do before.

skooma512
Feb 8, 2012

You couldn't grok my race car, but you dug the roadside blur.
Ah man, I forgot to start the update before I left for work. I'm gonna get home at 8 tonight and still have to wait out the update :rip:

Fuzzie Dunlop
Apr 14, 2013

explosivo posted:

I know we all got into OnAir for like a month after this came out but I just heard about NeoFly and this looks like a pretty decent free alternative, anyone give this a try?

NeoFly is great (although I haven't used it in a few months). Developer is engaged and keeps adding content. It definitely scratches the itch of sending you to places you wouldn't go otherwise. Progression is decent and you can adjust how much you use the AI pilots to change the pace of progression (there may even be a setting,I've never looked but the default has been fine for me). Has a variety of missions point to point, search and rescue, bush landings, and probably some others added more recently. Oh, and FREE.

Really it's like the best of what the addon modding community can be. Free, quality content. This reminds me I should probably go donate like :10bux:.

Cojawfee
May 31, 2006
I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius
Do you still have to pay for foreflight if you only want it for integrating into MSFS?

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

Lord Stimperor posted:

Can you elaborate? Has it got to do with the update? I think you've repeatedly been mentioning GPS problems before.

Yeah, basically my issue with the 530 and the G1000 is that they are essentially unusable to fly the way you would expect to fly in real life. There are some realism issues and missing features that would be nice, but aren't necessary, but the biggest practically game-breaking flaws are:

1) The direct-to button does not work from the flight plan screen. This is basically fundamental to IFR flight using the GPS, because, at times, you'll be instructed to proceed direct to a waypoint and then on course. In real life, you'd select that waypoint in the flight plan screen, hit the Direct-To button, and the GPS would give you a track from your present position to that waypoint, and then on the rest of your flight planned route. For example, the standard instrument departure from my home airport is "climb runway heading to 7000', wait for vectors" so in practice you'd never intercept the track from the airport to your first waypoint, at a certain point ATC will tell you to proceed direct to your first waypoint.

2) Approaches don't load properly. What should happen is you load an approach when you are told to expect a certain approach/transition, then at a certain point you will be told to fly directly to the initial approach waypoint. You select "activate", and it gives you a direct track from your present position to the IAWP. What happens in the sim is that, as soon as you load the approach, it sequences all the waypoints right away, and as far as I can tell, it gives you a course from your last waypoint to the IAWP.

3) Sequencing of the missed approach waypoint simply does not happen as far as I can tell. What should happen is: when you reach the missed approach point, SUSP displays above the OBS button, and then you hit the OBS button and the GPS sequences your missed approach according to the published procedure, you fly it, hold at the missed approach waypoint, etc. etc. What happens is (I think last time I tried) the GPS displays SUSP and... does nothing when you press the OBS button.

These basically preclude the simulation of IFR flight using the GPS. It's essentially useless as a way to practice procedures, and there's not much in the way of workarounds.

Smaller issues:

1) On GPS approaches with vertical guidance, the vertical guidance does not work. At some point the glideslope does something but I can't tell exactly what. What should happen typically is the glideslope indicator starts at the top, then as you hold altitude and intercept the glideslope, the indicator will center itself, then you follow it down. What happens in the sim is that it starts out at the bottom and then centers itself at... some point I'm not really clear about. I have no idea what it's trying to do. Interestingly, the correct behaviour is simulated for ILS glideslopes, so clearly someone knows what it ought to look like. You can still fly a GPS without vertical guidance, you just have to descend to LNAV minima instead of LNAV/VNAV or LPV minima.

2) GPS sensitivity does not change depending on approach mode. Full scale deflection means different things during different phases of flight, and as far as I can tell, there's none of that in the sim. Not a huge deal, but it'd be nice.

Lord Stimperor
Jun 13, 2018

I'm a lovable meme.

azflyboy posted:

There's still a lot of basic functions for the in-sim GPS units that are either spectacularly broken or just not there.

Asobo did hire the WorkingTitle people to unfuck the GPS's last year (and they recently put out a preview video showing VNAC working properly), so hopefully stuff will get less broken as time goes on.


PT6A posted:

Yeah, basically my issue with the 530 and the G1000 is that they are essentially unusable to fly the way you would expect to fly in real life. There are some realism issues and missing features that would be nice, but aren't necessary, but the biggest practically game-breaking flaws are:

1) The direct-to button does not work from the flight plan screen. This is basically fundamental to IFR flight using the GPS, because, at times, you'll be instructed to proceed direct to a waypoint and then on course. In real life, you'd select that waypoint in the flight plan screen, hit the Direct-To button, and the GPS would give you a track from your present position to that waypoint, and then on the rest of your flight planned route. For example, the standard instrument departure from my home airport is "climb runway heading to 7000', wait for vectors" so in practice you'd never intercept the track from the airport to your first waypoint, at a certain point ATC will tell you to proceed direct to your first waypoint.

2) Approaches don't load properly. What should happen is you load an approach when you are told to expect a certain approach/transition, then at a certain point you will be told to fly directly to the initial approach waypoint. You select "activate", and it gives you a direct track from your present position to the IAWP. What happens in the sim is that, as soon as you load the approach, it sequences all the waypoints right away, and as far as I can tell, it gives you a course from your last waypoint to the IAWP.

3) Sequencing of the missed approach waypoint simply does not happen as far as I can tell. What should happen is: when you reach the missed approach point, SUSP displays above the OBS button, and then you hit the OBS button and the GPS sequences your missed approach according to the published procedure, you fly it, hold at the missed approach waypoint, etc. etc. What happens is (I think last time I tried) the GPS displays SUSP and... does nothing when you press the OBS button.

These basically preclude the simulation of IFR flight using the GPS. It's essentially useless as a way to practice procedures, and there's not much in the way of workarounds.

Smaller issues:

1) On GPS approaches with vertical guidance, the vertical guidance does not work. At some point the glideslope does something but I can't tell exactly what. What should happen typically is the glideslope indicator starts at the top, then as you hold altitude and intercept the glideslope, the indicator will center itself, then you follow it down. What happens in the sim is that it starts out at the bottom and then centers itself at... some point I'm not really clear about. I have no idea what it's trying to do. Interestingly, the correct behaviour is simulated for ILS glideslopes, so clearly someone knows what it ought to look like. You can still fly a GPS without vertical guidance, you just have to descend to LNAV minima instead of LNAV/VNAV or LPV minima.

2) GPS sensitivity does not change depending on approach mode. Full scale deflection means different things during different phases of flight, and as far as I can tell, there's none of that in the sim. Not a huge deal, but it'd be nice.

Ah, I've noticed some of these issues.

I just couldn't figure out whether IRL instrument navigation was always this cumbersome, or whether I wasn't properly using the systems. What I did notice is that whenever I select IFR approaches, RNAV is instinctively my second choice. I think that's because it's a bit more janky for me; sometimes the autopilot doesn't seem to take the vertical guidance and I can't make it, or only after I'm mashing buttons. ILS works out of the box 99.99% of the time.

But even if the GPS navigation were fixed, would you then actually be able to meaningfully use MSFS for procedure training? I still distrust the ATC not to send me into a mountainside (which it has in the past). Are you on VATSIM or something?




Combat Pretzel posted:

Server's are getting hammered. It started out fine doing 90MBit, now I'm down to 13MBit with a lot of wait time between segments.


:shepicide:

No Mods No Masters
Oct 3, 2004

4 hours to patch, first CTD 3 minutes into a flight. I want to love this game but they make it as hard as possible

No Mods No Masters fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Jul 27, 2021

Animal
Apr 8, 2003

Anyone tested the performance improvements?

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004

Has anyone tried Flight Sim on Xbox Series X yet? Once I am done patching the PC version, I will be downloading the game on there.

Animal
Apr 8, 2003

Are there any advantages to either buying MSFS on Steam or the Microsoft store, or it all boils down to Steam Achievements vs Asobo getting more $?

Cojawfee
May 31, 2006
I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius

I said come in! posted:

Has anyone tried Flight Sim on Xbox Series X yet? Once I am done patching the PC version, I will be downloading the game on there.

I don't know if you're familiar with Giant Bomb/Nextlander, but Vinny played it on xbox for a while today. Seemed to run just fine.

explosivo
May 23, 2004

Fueled by Satan

Started downloading the full game earlier after the patch went live and it's only 44% of the way through the DL after ~5 hours or so. Flashbacks to launch day..

Fuzzie Dunlop posted:

NeoFly is great (although I haven't used it in a few months). Developer is engaged and keeps adding content. It definitely scratches the itch of sending you to places you wouldn't go otherwise.

Thanks, it sounds great from the description and this is pretty much exactly what I want out of it so I'll have to look that up whenever this finishes downloading.

azflyboy
Nov 9, 2005

Lord Stimperor posted:

Ah, I've noticed some of these issues.

I just couldn't figure out whether IRL instrument navigation was always this cumbersome, or whether I wasn't properly using the systems. What I did notice is that whenever I select IFR approaches, RNAV is instinctively my second choice. I think that's because it's a bit more janky for me; sometimes the autopilot doesn't seem to take the vertical guidance and I can't make it, or only after I'm mashing buttons. ILS works out of the box 99.99% of the time.

But even if the GPS navigation were fixed, would you then actually be able to meaningfully use MSFS for procedure training? I still distrust the ATC not to send me into a mountainside (which it has in the past). Are you on VATSIM or something?


:shepicide:

RNAV is pretty broken in the sim right now. In the real world, it's often significantly quicker to fly an RNP or GPS approach than to do an ILS (my home field has an ILS that's about a 20 mile final because of terrain, but there's an RNP that only needs about a 5 mile final), but MSFS is janky enough that approaches don't work at all like they should most of the time.

As for procedures, the MSFS ATC is basically useless. The phraseology is completely wrong much of the time, and there's a lot IFR stuff (course reversals, climb/descend via clearances, direct to or vectors to RNAV approaches, etc...) where a mix of the ATC being pants-on-head stupid and the broken GPS just completely wrecks IFR procedures.

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!

Animal posted:

Anyone tested the performance improvements?
AMD Threadripper 2950X, RTX 3080, everything to high, shadow map and poo poo to 2048, 90% render resolution. Performance uplift is maybe 20% at best. However, it's now super-smooth (in combination with GSync), which makes for a better experience.

Direct3D 12 is not enabled yet for the PC build, that could possibly bring some more frames. Right now I'm CPU limited, i.e. one core being maxed out, while the GPU is at 60%.

Animal
Apr 8, 2003

Combat Pretzel posted:

AMD Threadripper 2950X, RTX 3080, everything to high, shadow map and poo poo to 2048, 90% render resolution. Performance uplift is maybe 20% at best. However, it's now super-smooth (in combination with GSync), which makes for a better experience.

Direct3D 12 is not enabled yet for the PC build, that could possibly bring some more frames. Right now I'm CPU limited, i.e. one core being maxed out, while the GPU is at 60%.

I'm more concerned about steady frame times and decreased stutters than higher average framerates, and it sounds like thats what you got, which is great.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

kojei
Feb 12, 2008

Animal posted:

Anyone tested the performance improvements?

As my own personal singular data point, I'm seeing framerate improvements of over 100% in every situation. Running a R5 5600X and RTX3070 on Win11.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply