cobalt

"Sometimes the descriptions/instructions given are completely inadequate"

 

Ok thanks stemp. Oh you sure got that right. No way you could fly the trip by just following the POI/landmark descriptions.

I did ask the support desk if you had to hit all the POI's and such. They said no as long as you complete the legs by landing at the airports.

Boy I sure didn't know about all those trips , Thanks. But how hard is it to install them? Do they sort of install themselves or do you have to put them in that community folder thing?

Right now I'm doing that Alaska one.

I have flown maybe a dozen bush trips, and have many more installed in MSFS that I plan to fly when time permits. For me, these have been a great way to really appreciate the feeling of immersive flying in MSFS. The priority, of course, is sightseeing in low-and-slow aircraft, and the scenery is generally fantastic -- and REAL, being based on satellite imagery. Among others, I have done trips across the U.S., Norway, Germany, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Hawaii, and California. I have found the instructions generally not hard to follow (I will admit I use Little Nav Map to keep track of where I am and to find airports).

As to installation, you just stick the unzipped file in Community (I use addon Manager), and the trip should show up in the Bush Flights in MSFS. Finally, keep in mind that the addon bush trips are freeware and must take a fair amount of work to put together. Therefore I don't want to be too critical of "imperfections" some have mentioned. Have fun!

I have read a lot about this utility and it is an amazing and effective way of managing addons. However I'm one of those gamers on the other end of the scale - I want everything loaded. All the time. I dont mind long load times.

Why would you want to load European or African scenery if you are planning flights in the U.S.? Or Australia? Or Japan? I guess you have your reasons, but it makes no sense to me.

I also find myself reverting to old FSX and P3D more and more often again, due to the deficiencies in MSFS (mainly the lack of a flyby view, extremely long loading time and inability to switch aircraft/liveries in mid-flight.)

Flyby view is available using the drone set to a fixed location. Loading times are very dependent on add-ons and can be kept to a minimum (2-3 minutes) by use of an addon manager. And while it's not exactly realistic(!), for those who want to, aircraft can be switched in mid-flight using dev mode.

I don't think anyone was misled as to modularity. It has been known from the beginning that the program would evolve, and this is confirmed by the SDK still not released, which other programs published just to promote modularity. My speculation is that a functional SDK can't be published until the program migrates to DirectX 12. At some point when a SDK exists, then modularity will soar. You contend that addon creators never had to modify products before, but this isn't true, look at products for P3D V3 vs P3D V5. The same with various versions of X-Plane. Most revolutionary change involves some performance limitations initially. I bought the first Sony CD player back in the 1980s. Only a handful of CDs existed. The sound quality in many ways was inferior at that point to record albums available, but they did get rid of warps, scratches, and degradation from stylus damage. 6 years later, CDs and players were much better. Now most of my music is streamed. The quality may not be quite as good as the best CDs, But I now have access to 1000s of artists! I wager that in another 6 years, streaming audio will be much higher quality than current CDs.

As to stability, I have not had a problem yet. It is better than the migration of SuperCalc from V4 to V5 back in the 1980s, which was critical mission software, not amusement. Again, same with a whole herd of Database programs.

You are absolutely right -- it was made very clear, well before the rollout of MSFS, that this was to be a 10-year project with continuous updates and corrections. The fact that many simmers were apparently unaware of it doesn't change this. As far as I am concerned, the current state of MSFS, while certainly not perfect, is pretty amazing when one looks at what has been accomplished in just a year. Watching it grow and evolve over time is great to see, especially as there is nothing else remotely like it on the horizon.

Back in March or whenever it was that most people's FPS dropped into single figures, everyone with top end systems were saying "no problems here" and posting screenshots all over the place showing their 50-60fps over New York on Ultra. The boot's on the other foot now, which proves that what goes around, comes around.

As a matter of fact, I am getting 50-60 FPS over New York (and London, Paris, and San Francisco) on Ultra, post-SU5. Before SU5, I was gettiing 30-35 in those places. Good computer, but not what I would call high-end.

Alienware Aurora R11, 32 GB ram, Intel i7-10700F, GeForce RTX 2080 Super

Some interesting (and possibly surprising) poll results from another forum

Question: How is the U5 Update and hotfix behaving for you?

Results:

Same as before, 5.3% (18)

Better frame rate but worse graphics, 33.7% (114)

Better frame rate and graphics fine after some tweaks, 42.6% (144)

CTDs unusable, 11.2% (38)

I am leaving for FSX, XP, or P3D, 5.92% (20)

A bit worse LOD problems, 1.18% (4)

Of course, it's true that complainers are over-represented on online forums, but my experience goes back to the days when there was nothing but AOL, Compuserve, and Usenet, and there has never been an outpouring of grief even remotely as severe as what we're seeing with SU5. Essentially no one has decent graphics, and those with literally unplayable sims are legion. I feel it's safe to say that the percentage of users who've suffered significant downgrades is massive. But even if it's not >50%, the horrendous severity of the dismantling described in the threads on flightsimulator.com (numbering in the thousands of posts) thoroughly justifies calling it a crime against PC users.

I did not impugn the veracity of those who are satisfied. By wondering if their descriptions are genuine, I'm wondering if most of them are users with antiquated hardware who had previous graphics that were so bad that they're thrilled with their increase in FPS and lack the frame of reference to even see the massive degradation in graphics. They seem never to include their specs or include screenshots of their own to justify their opinion, which almost invariably boils down to "I'm good. I like SU5."

(I believe that you, personally, did include screenshots, which gave me hope, so my suppositions about supporters of SU5 certainly do not include you.)

Thanks for your thoughtful post -- most welcome in the present climate! I do have to disagree with your statement that "essentially no one has decent graphics". Some of us are seeing great graphics since SU5 (I am one of them) and have so reported in this and other forums. In my case, I had great graphics before SU5 and still have them, along with an increase in FPS from around 25-30 to 50-60, and practically everywhere, and with ultra settings. I realize that for many this is hard to believe, but brother, I ain't lyin'! And as I just said, I am not alone. The only explanation I can come up with -- and I am certainly not a computer guru -- is that I have a reasonably good (not top-of-the-line, but pretty good) computer system, which I bought a year ago in preparation for MSFS, and so far it has proven capable of dealing with the demands put on it by the various upgrades including SU5. Maybe my day of reckoning is coming and the next Asobo update will do me in, who knows! Meanwhile, I do sympathize with all those having problems. My suggestions would be: (a) try running MSFS with no addons, and (b) consider upgrading your processor, video card, and/or ram. Good luck to all.

Alienware Aurora R11, i710070 chip, GeForce RTX2080 video card, 32 MB ram

Are you a member of the Asobo dev ops team? I mean really this MSFS platform is a joke. MSFS should have built on FSX. There is no reason for all of these hot fixes at all. Oh it is the Bill Gates way of doing business after all. Release a crappy product and say it is good enough. I paid over $100 for a simulator than runs far worse than it predecessor FSX. It is screwed up! The screwed developers and hopefully in turn screwed themselves! Xplane and Prepar are such a better deal in that they are at least stable! Update after update, I mean let down after let down. Stop defending those who are getting paid a salary to not do their job which is to provide an a least decent product for their customers.

No, I am not a member of the Asobo team, and I am not defending anybody. As a matter of fact, I had a frustrating two days trying to install the latest update, until it finally did, and I reported my experience on this forum. I happen to be one of those who has found the SU5 update to be a great advance in performance (50-60 FPS pracatically everywhere), on ultra settings, with no detectable loss in graphics quality. At the same time, I am well aware that many are having problems with it, and I regret that. I do think that one's computer specs have a lot to do with this issue. One thing is for certain: rants, raves, and accusations are not going to solve anything. Let's keep this civil and respectful.

Alienware Aurora R11, 32 GB ram, Intel i7-10700F, GeForce RTX 2080 Super

I'm not sure whether it's a total disaster. I haven't installed SU5 yet. I've decided to spend a few days reading forum posts and gathering a notebook containing settings, tweaks, and precautions taken that work and those that don't before trying it. I might even wait for Hot Fix #2.

Meanwhile, figuring out how MS could commit the crime, which they call "SU5," against its loyal PC group is not the most perplexing mystery. Most perplexing is understanding how a scarce few posters claim graphics as good as they had before the update. If their experience is genuine, it sort of disproves the prevailing theory that Asobo severely dumbed down the graphics to make MFS "fit into the [X]box," but that theory is the only one that seems to make sense. I hate that the vast majority of PC users are devastated by the results of the upgrade, but it'll be fascinating to see how it plays out over the the rest of this year.

Interesting that you have not yet installed SU5, yet describe it as a "crime". You refer to a "scarce few posters who claim graphics as good as they were before the update", implying that this group is a small minority. But it is well known that complainers about new products are invariably over-represented in any sampling because satisfied customers are much less inclined to report their experiences. Then, referring to those of us who are happy with SU5, you say "if their experience is genuine..", implying what -- that we are lying? If not that, then what exactly are you saying?

I took the leap of faith and installed the update 5 world updates and looks like they actually did a fair job on London but I am an American and I like to fly out of Boston a lot. The terminal buildings well on has no walls just the jet ways and a floating deck and come on the Boston Bridges? A six year old could build a better looking bridge with Lego blocks. Like a sucker I bought the Premium edition and even though it will work stand alone it really works better and probably on purpose using the XBox platform. I have tried it both ways. I wouldn't mind except we were told it was going to be better then it is and I stand by two rules in my life. 1. Do not lie to me and 2, Don't get me hurt. Well micro-poop lied to us and hurt my wallet. Anybody who ,defends them either works for them or just doesn't get it.

I am not defending anybody, but I am having a different experience from yours following the SU5 update; for me, it works great with significantly improved performance even in scenery-dense areas such as NYC, LA, and London, and no reduction in quality that I can see, with graphics set to ultra. I am not an employee of Microsoft or Asobo, so that must put me in your "don't get it" category. But in fact, I do get it. The question is, why such different results for different simmers? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I suggest that the ability of one's computer system to handle MSFS is a likely factor. The specs you report point in that direction, e.g., your 8 MB ram, i7-4770, and GTX 1070. These would be fine for FSX, but not necessarily for MSFS. But I am not an expert, just raising this as a possibility.

Alienware Aurora R11, 32 GB ram, Intel i7-10700F, GeForce RTX 2080 Super

I'm not sure if the previous post is directed to me, but for the record, I fly it as a simulator with full cockpit controls, ATC, the works. I do not own X-Box.

Let me say two more things. First the MSFS users who are enjoying good results with the latest update -- I am one of them -- need to appreciate that many people are not, and this should concern everybody. Second, the reverse is also true: those who are having major problems need to acknowledge that many others are not having problems. What everybody should want to know is, why such different experiences? It is a bit perplexing, though I think the differences in computer systems and setups account for some of it.

IF you have (a) a reasonably good computer system and (b) patience and persistence when problems arise, go for it. MSFS2020 is without a doubt the most advanced flight sim ever created, and is becoming more so with time. If you don't, then best to stay away at least for a while. This is a 10-year project (as announced when it was released a year ago) and is not for everyone, but the rewards are fantastic if you stay with it and work through the issues.

Alienware Aurora R11, 32 GB ram, Intel i7-100700F, GeForce RTX 2080 Super

I flew over New York last week (SU4) using the Icon plane, took a tour round the surrounding area and landed on the water close to the Statue of Liberty. I was getting a nice smooth 35 fps with very little stutter and the photogrammetry scenery looked superb.

 

Tried the same trip today with the Icon and it looks just awful, most of the buildings are popping into view as I look around and look nowhere near as good as before.

The draw distance is now hopeless (I have every setting I can set to high or ultra apart from Render at 100) and flying NW over the East river with central park in front of me I can just see a desert with no buildings rendering past the Hudson river. Last week I had buildings out to the horizon.

London is just as bad, looks like a desert, anything over 2 miles away is replace by a sandy flat landscape into which scenery magically appears as you get closer.

 

So for me SU5 = 5 more fps but totally immersion breaking scenery redrawing with lower quality textures and over exposed whiteout clouds.

 

Are you seeing buildings out to the horizon and not popping in and out of existence when you fly over New York and London?

As a matter of fact, just this morning with the SU5 update and the hotfix installed, I flew the TBM930 from KLGA over to the Verazanno Narrows bridge, up the Hudson River with side trips to view the Manhattan buildings at close range, and up to the George Washington Bridge. The trip was picture-perfect with FPS at 50-60 (locked at 60), smooth as silk, no popping, and certainly no loss of quality in textures. I have graphics settings on Ultra, terrain and objects level of detail both set at 200, photogrammetry on, and live AI traffic. And yes, buildings visible to the horizon. It looked terrific! I have also flown over Washington DC, London and Paris today, same result.

Why some of us are having such different experiences post-update, is hard to explain, but it must relate to computer systems, settings, and possibly other factors. I wish I knew the answer, and I hope one will be found.

OK, at this point in time some folks justifiably regard the latest MSFS update as a disaster, while others think it is fabulous. To some degree, this seems to happen after every update, though in this case the comments appear more extreme -- as in "TOTAL disaster" -- even if the trolls are discounted. I personally have had a foot in both camps. I spent over two frustrating days trying to get the update installed, with the process stalling over and over as files tried repeatedly to load but without success; each time that happened, I re-started and it resumed, only to stall again.Note: this was with an empty Community folder; no addons. The last straw was when the upload reached 99% and stalled with only a couple of MB remaining-- at that point my wife heard language she had never heard me use before! The solution, finally, was to go into OneStore and delete the last couple of update folders, forcing them to reload. That did the trick and the sim was able to start.

This transformed my experience from a disaster to almost unimaginable joy. I am seeing performance unlike anything I've had up to now in MSFS (and light years beyond any earlier sim). With pretty nearly all settings at ultra, numerous addons, real weather, live real-world traffic, Bing data on, and the frame rate limit at 60, I am seeing absolutely smooth flying with 50-60 FPS (occasionally dropping into the 40s) in the TBM930 everywhere I fly, including some of the most scenery-dense areas such as London, New York, LA, Washington DC, and other places notorious as frame rate killers. The graphics look terrific. It is hard to believe I am not dreaming.

That said, it is really unfortunate that so many people are having problems, and I hope that most of these will soon be resolved -- hopefully with the soon-to-be-released patch --so that everyone can enjoy this incredible simulator.

Alienware Aurora R11, Intel® Core™ i7-10700F, GeForce TX2080 Super.

Just saying some problems are to do with not emptying the community and it's easy enough to try and see if it does the trick.

You had said that "the addons in the community folder are normally the problem" (boldface added). I do not think this is true. "Some" might be a fair statement, though I would say it's probably very few.

I am not an expert but no doubt, reading many post here and elsewhere, that the addons in the community folder are normally the problem and it is best to empty it before and update.

Sorry, but if you look at many posts in this and other forums you will find that addons are very often not the problem. I am one of those who was unable to load the latest update even with an empty Community folder, because the update process would hang when a file got into an endless loop. I eventually succeeded after two days of fooling with deleting update folders in OneStore and re-starting. This had nothing to do with addons.