John Dow

After my MSFS reinstall, a lot of my settings had been saved. So maybe yours will too. As for spending hours getting it back to how it was, I haven't! Much of what I had I've realised was never used, so until I want to fly there I leave it uninstalled. My Orbx libraries were not affected, because the actual files don't sit in the Community folder. Orbx Central rebuilt the links in the Community folder easily enough. So if you're not using the libraries function, might be time to consider it.

Frankfurt and Melbourne. Frankfurt was included pretty well complete I think but there's some work going on to include additional scenery in Melbourne for an add-on City Pack release, but it's only at an evaluation stage at the moment. And look at Sydney, MSFS have a good version in the Australian scenery, but the Orbx Cityscape has many more modelled buildings and features across the entire urban area including many satellite CBDs. I think the chances of this scenery being included in any MSFS release in the forseeable future is vanishingly small, as a South America update would surely have Rio de Janeiro or somewhere iconic as its main attraction for MSFS, and if a Central America update is planned it's probably waaaaay down the track.

And therein lies the conundrum, should not be a problem. The important word is should. Only the developer can know if a certain feature in MSFS works flawlessly with all the elements of the airport, and it's not always as it seems. However I shall leave it there, and I'm sure a response will come in due course.

No idea. I get the impression that MSFS makes it difficult to always implement features that you would think would be easy. However I'm sure if you open a ticket with your observations, they'll look at what's possible to update. Don't forget, devs operate remotely from airports, and don't have the same depth of knowledge that pilots and airport workers have. Literally hundreds (yes 100's) of beta testing issues were raised by a team who also don't have an intimate knowledge of the airport, and in those hundreds of issues, there will always be a few aspects and issues that are not noticed or never known. Important issues that arise after release will always be assessed for updates and patches. There may be issues that prevent 100% realism, if so, the devs will I'm sure advise once investigations and assessments have been made. The airport is an amazing achievement as it is, and should be enjoyed as such.

That's not a very taxing GPU and I suspect the PSU manufacturer has beefed up the supply for the GPU feed, so I can't see any reason to not trust it.

Add-ons, as in freeware normally, are the most likely cause of the CTDs. Excessive overclocking is also a candidate. The vanilla factory fresh MSFS has proven to be ultra stable and should run at Ultra settings on your computer all day every day. Something isn't right, but whatever it is, it isn't MSFS itself. AFS2 is a nice smooth sim sure, but MSFS can be just about as smooth and offer the world at your fingertips. I'd be looking for a solution myself.

They might but it'll all sort itself out in the long run, particularly if the moderators enforce the No Support rule for the General Discussion forum.

I am running the 11700K CPU and RTX 3060ti and at 4K I get all the fps and performance I need. In VR it struggles occasionally in dense urban environments at my High settings, but overall it's plenty good enough for me.

Stand by, we're testing at the moment and spikes seem to have disappeared along with some other improvements to the mesh.

Yes I often prefer no PG but in other places PG is a must. Canberra is one, otherwise the tower on the mountain becomes a grain silo! And at 1500' agl the detail is fine.

I disagree with that assertion. I think it is purely a response to the changing landscape of Orbx as a multi faceted flight sim company. Orbx startef out as a semi-amateur collection of hobbyist flight sim developers and enthusiasts. As time went on, opportunities arose for developers to generate an income for their skills. However, much of the income and consequently, a few talented developers were lost as the wild west nature of the internet allowed piracy and sharing to bypass normal economic protocols. Then, a number of brilliant minds conceived and introduced Orbx Central which has largely prevented intellectual property theft of Orbx products (as far as I know anyway). Orbx remained an insular company, this new innovation was for the benefit of Orbx, until other companies noticed its success and sought to safeguard their intellectual property in the same way. And, for many firms, accessing Orbx Central to distribute their products without the need to design their own robust security has been an attractive option. However, this has led to the Orbx forums slowly evolving into something they were never designed to be, support forums for other developers' products. Not overly so but still, the creeping changes were becoming more and more obvious. Hence the decision to change the business model for support. It has nothing to do with loyalties and members' help etc. As far as I know, It's purely a result of unsustainability of the old model and the need to adapt to the future in a way that is commercially viable for Orbx.

Completed and ready for testing means for the beta testers I think...

I just loaded flights at YSSY and YBAF in the DHC6 and flew over the CBDs. My observations: Sydney. No CTD, the flight was normal but frame rates were down, and there were some duplicated scenery items, such as the Sydney Tower , Anzac Bridge, and no doubt several others that locals would be able to identify. However, if you want to fly around Sydney away from the CBD, the City Pack is worth retaining if you want the extra or more accurate buildings in the other business centres. But overall I'll be disabling the Sydney Cityscape until a compatibility fix is released. Brisbane. No CTD, but awful frame rates over the CBD. Definitely recommend disabling this city pack until a compatibility fix is released. The MSFS version is quite acceptable for normal flight operations in the Brisbane area, where 1500' agl would be expected.

Ok I'll check and see. I don't recall any ctd but I will double check

They are. There might be small issues, which are being looked at, but from my experience a normal flight over the scenery won't show any major problems.

Lots of little bugs cropped up, I'm sure you understand they need to be corrected, then tested, sometimes the fix introduces another bug, that needs to be corrected, then tested. And so on, until it's ready for release.

Sorry I wasn't suggesting Orbx based any decisions on what other firms are doing. I was simply trying to put a bit of market context into the mix. If one company announces that it is finding it difficult to get a return on P3D development it doesn't take a giant leap of logic to assume it's across the industry.

I tested the Melbourne scenery last night. With Photogrammetry on I took off from Essendon in the Optica and flew at 1200' over and around the city. The mix of PG buildings and the Orbx modelled buildings gave an excellent representation of the city. I saw a couple of melted structures, the most obvious being the crane in the middle of the CBD, but all the important buildings were the modelled version, and PG filled in the gaps. If your PG is very bad you might have a bandwidth issue, and also don't expect to fly at a lower than legal altitude of 1000' plus, because the scenery is designed as a background to a flight, not an architectural representation of the city. If I get the chance I'll grab a couple of screenshots tonight and add them to this post.

They work together, though there may be minor issues with duplicated buildings or conflicts. You can have the Orbx scenery active and fly around, if you see errors you can uninstall it until Orbx release a compatibility patch if required.

You can have it installed and see if it shows any noticeable problems. Some users report they haven't seen anything major as they flew around. If you see conflicts or duplicate buildings you can uninstall it until a fix is released, the sceneries still look good in the WU 7 versions.

I'll have a look later but I seem to recall that the Melbourne scenery looked good without photogrammetry on, as most of the landmark buildings are modelled, and the generics in between are OK unless you are down low looking for a specific building. And in my experience, when you do get down low and slow with PG on, you're mostly disappointed anyway.

If you have FSUIPC 7 you can assign individual slope to the axes, I use it on all the Asobo aircraft to lower the sensitivity, and just about every aircraft flies well enough now. Another tweak is to go into the aircraft's folder and find the flight model.cfg file, where you can find the flight tuning section, changing stability and sensitivity values can help, and another cheat is in the airplane geometry section, where reducing or increasing the size of the elevators, ailerons etc can help a flight model. Obviously you need to back up any files that you modify in case you break it!

P3D weather is always a compromise. The advice is generally to try to set a date where the snow cover you desire is displayed, and if you can't get snow cover automatically generated it may be necessary to manually set the weather. I can imagine that at latitudes lower than 40 degrees, there wouldn't be much expectation of snow covering the ground, certainly I wouldn't expect to see snow settling below about 45 degrees, and regular annual snow cover closer to 50 degrees (exdept at higher altitudes of course).

It works fine for me, though the photogrammetry does make it a bit less smooth so I turn it off when flying around the KBUR area. In answer to a previous post I tested the airport area with Van Nuys active and without, and performance was similar. My conclusion then was that it's more likely to be an overload due to other addons in the area, a complex airliner, or settings too high for the complex scenery.

Probably a matter of no-one knows, the market is constantly changing so I doubt it's possible to commit to anything. If the demand is seen to be there then True Earth regions may be further developed, but with MSFS now having introduced a 'True Earth' over the entire globe, the demand for the other sims is probably insufficient. As far as your original question, you can run True Earth with those other products, but you may find the sim loads faster etc if you do untick them in the scenery library. Uninstalling is not required.