Christopher Low

Do you mean that it now has a taxiway from the main terminal to the runway 31 threshold?

Don't one or two developers do this already?

"No airport" is better than a rubbish one.

Just in case an IniBuilds employee passes through these hallowed halls, I will mention this one again..... LMML Malta International

I remember the first time that I selected Tutorial 1 for the PMDG 737 (probably in FSX). This was the short flight from EGKK London Gatwick (starting on the runway) across the North Sea to EHAM Amsterdam Schiphol. The flight proceeded smoothly.....right up to the point where I was on final approach to runway 18R at EHAM, and I noticed that the entire airport was missing! I had somehow deleted the default airport. I ended up landing my 737 in an empty field

That to me is like someone saying that framerates less than 60fps are a stuttering slideshow. I have had my current 24" flat screen monitor for quite a few years now, and it provides me with a more than acceptable level of visual quality in MSFS 2024 on my new PC.

I have not tweaked anything, and MSFS 2024 looks great on my Asus 24" monitor.

What are these "tweaks" that are needed in MSFS 2024?

A large percentage of "Generation FS" don't seem to be able to cope with framerates less than 60fps, so that kind of "minimum acceptable framerate" is generally going to be a shock to the system. On the other hand, I prefer to use the term "minimum acceptable level of detail", which is why I have the Dynamic Setting switched off.

My transition to MSFS 2024 has been the complete opposite to you, Howard. I do not see the "blurry to clear" transition when switching between VC and (for example) drone cam views. I do not see "unacceptably blurry" terrain textures (although you will need to clarify where and when you see these). I have downloaded and installed all of my airports and other addons, and also any world updates that I need. I prefer this to streaming, because despite some people saying that there is no difference, I personally believe that there is a difference at certain critical times. There is massively improved DEM and vector data (no more islands "popping" into existence until I am almost on top of them). No more missing sections of coastal cliffs with trees floating in the air. No more black lakes when I fly from airports like EFIV Ivalo and ESNQ Kiruna. Much more accurate lake and coastline data in Greenland (I can actually fly from Nuuk now). A snow line that advances and retreats on mountains depending on the time of year. Visible changes to tree foliage PER DAY. Much more detailed 3D tree models with far higher resolution textures (you are no doubt aware that I do not use PG, and therefore "blocky" trees are never a problem). No more "land bars" across river mouths and harbours..... Whilst I only generally use a few scattered clouds in very calm conditions, the detail and textures look very similar to those in MSFS 2020. They also have the same flaws (the bottoms are rather too flat.....why is this always a problem in flight simulators)? As for the overall look of the outside world, I personally think that it has more realistic lighting, better dawn/dusk atmospheric effects, and lakes that just seem to "fit" better into the landscape than they did in MSFS 2020. It definitely does not look "cartoony" to me. The 3D procedural grass looks better, and I really like the rocks/pebbles, particularly near water features. I do not think that I have tweaked any settings significantly to "make" it look the way it does on my PC. Most of my settings are HIGH, with DSR at 1.75x, and TLOD/OLOD locked @ 250/200 respectively. I do not know why some people have different experiences with MSFS 2024. I do not know if it is nothing more than subjective opinion, or whether there is some other issue at play 🤔 However, I do echo the thoughts of some other members here regarding DYNAMIC SETTINGS. I have that switched off. There is no way that I want the simulator messing around with my detail settings.

I am surprised that no top tier developer has announced LEMD Madrid Barajas. This is one of those major European international airports that I would assume would be a big favourite with the hard core simmers.

You do not need displacement mapping enabled to get decent graphics in MSFS 2024. I switched it off to save some VRAM, and I have not really missed it.

I wonder what has happened to the Aether Simulations version of the airport 🤔 They were apparently developing EGCC Manchester for both MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024.

What does the part in bold mean? Are you saying that the AIG traffic manager can handle the GAIST ship plans? If so, what does that mean as far as displaying offline ship traffic is concerned?

I have landed my PMDG 737-600 at LSZB Bern. The biggest challenge there is turning the aircraft at one of the runway end turning areas without clipping the grass Of course, I could get it stopped at shorter runways if I "cheated" (used manual brakes from touchdown). Since manual braking with my CH Flightstick Pro joystick is pressing and holding BUTTON1, it is way too effective for normal braking procedures. To make it more realistic, I use the "3" setting on the Autobrake, and thrust reversers down to 65 knots.

Several improvements have made a noticeable difference to the enjoyment that I get from MSFS 2024 when compared to MSFS 2020. No more small islands that only render properly at very close range. No more missing sections of coastal cliffs with trees floating in the air. No more black lakes when I fly from airports like EFIV Ivalo and ESNQ Kiruna. Much more accurate lake and coastline data in Greenland (I can actually fly from Nuuk now). A snow line that advances and retreats on mountains depending on the time of year. Visible changes to tree foliage PER DAY. Much more detailed 3D tree models with far higher resolution textures. No more "land bars" across river mouths and harbours...... Those changes alone would make a return to MSFS 2020 absolutely impossible for me.

So it's even worse than I thought!!

I would just like to see a fix for one or two issues at EGHI Southampton (the long running "wonky runway centrelines" saga, and the "on/off" nature of the 3D procedural grass) and LOWI Innsbruck (the high detail versions of some airside vehicles are still loading in way too late, so they end up looking like wooden blocks until relatively close). The latter is rather puzzling, as they fixed the issue in the MSFS 2020 version.... If I were going to suggest an airport, then it would be LMML Malta International.......assuming that the runway centreline markings are aligned properly

As long as some flight simmers are prepared to fork out £2000+ for a graphics card, there will always be a market for the scalpers

Where did he say that "more RAM results in more fps"?

I have not seen Henrik around here in some time. Has he locked himself away in a nuclear bunker to solve the AI Offline problem with GAIST, or has he given up on MSFS 2024?

The world is full of clowns. These people just like to broadcast their status.

If RAM prices were the same as they were when I purchased my new PC in December, I would recommend upgrading to 64GB. However, the decision is not that simple now that RAM prices have shot through the roof. Personally, I would see how you go with 32GB before spending all of that cash.

I start my GA airliner flights in READY TO TAXI mode. It then takes me no more than a few minutes to input my short low level flightplan, and all of the settings. Even if I were going to take longer flights, I would not bother trying to emulate every real world waypoint and airway. I would just select a suitable SID/STAR, and connect the dots as I see fit. It's so easy in a simulator when you do not have to worry about real world restrictions

I conduct GA flights in airliners. The best of both worlds