Leaderboard

why would anyone need 100fps when its wasted..the human eye can only keep up with 30-40fps anyway..you'll just be burning out your system quicker for no reason steve

For me personally, I find it a small price to pay considering the enjoyment and value I derive from this community. Reinvesting in products like ActiveSky for MSFS or purchasing updated versions of MSFS seems reasonable, particularly when considering the significant updates and support costs involved. Perhaps, being exposed to the work involved in development for desktop Flight Simulation titles, I have a different perspective. I've only heard good things about ActiveSky for MSFS. So I'm keen to try it.

Andrew, it’s a very subjective area. If buying the PMDG a third time was the only barrier to me switching to MSFS I’d do it in a heartbeat. After all, the cost compared to what this system cost me is insignificant. I have regular exposure to MSFS at a monthly flight sim meeting I attend. The two sims in use are MSFS and…. FSX. No P3D at all. The latter used by older members unwilling to make the switch. But MSFS just doesn’t excite me. Yes, the scenery is second to none but for me that’s the only benefit. The drawbacks previously mentioned outweigh the single advantage. Until the last few weeks there was only Live Weather but now that Damian has worked out a way to get into the weather engine I have no doubt he’ll improve it as much as he’s able. Maybe you’ll finally see cirrus and other cloud types instead of cumulus. The time for me to make a decision about what sim I would use was six months ago when my new computer arrived. But having waited years for a 64-bit Concorde I wasn’t about to dump P3D. I’ve now optimised my system and everything is running great. ASFS will be a great success and perhaps Asobo could be convinced to allow Damian access the weather internals much like Microsoft eventually allowed Pete Dowson into their original Flight Sim series. Enjoy your flights!

Zurich to Bilbao: