JBM Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Hi all. I play MSFS exclusively in VR (Quest 3), and would like to add the Orbx Great Britain scenery packages (North, Central and South). But I can't seem to find any reviews on these products by VR users, and I'd really like to know if there's any performance impact in VR before I buy them. The reason for this is because I bought two airports last year (Farnborough and Solent, both by Burning Blue Design), and while they work fantastically in normal '2D' mode, I find my VR performance drops to around 15fps whenever these airports are in close visual range. That said, I also have the RAF Odiham scenery which comes with the CH-47D by Miltech, and I don't have any performance issues there. So, it seems that some sceneries will cause performance drops while others won't. I don't want to take the plunge with the Orbx GB scenery only to find I can't use it in VR. Anyone here have first-hand experience with these scenery packs in VR? TIA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dow Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 Since they only add points of interest such as buildings and bridges, the impact on the performance of the sim is negligible. However if a scenery area is already taxing your pc hard, then a few objects popping into view might slow tings down briefly as they load. I have a 4070 card now and on mostly High settings with the LOD sliders at half I don't have any problems with fps except a very few cities and even then it's weather that is the culprit usually. In short, if you are getting good performance in an area of the UK now, it shouldn't change with these scenery packages. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfko Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 On 4/26/2024 at 10:42 AM, JBM said: Hi all. I play MSFS exclusively in VR (Quest 3)... You play MSFS? 🤔 At least one honest guy in these forums 😄 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBM Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 2 hours ago, John Dow said: In short, if you are getting good performance in an area of the UK now, it shouldn't change with these scenery packages. Thanks for the clarification, John. Much appreciated. I'm assuming the packages are also compatible with the British Isles mesh? 19 minutes ago, wolfko said: You play MSFS? 🤔 At least one honest guy in these forums 😄 Well, when I refer to it differently in other forums, I get berated for it! 😆 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Cooper Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 5 minutes ago, JBM said: I get berated for it! 😆 Hello, we discourage "berating" here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBM Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 15 minutes ago, Nick Cooper said: we discourage "berating" here. That's good to know. Cheers Nick. 😊 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dow Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 I tell you what, as a platform for simulation of VFR GA flying, MSFS is streets ahead of the other two alternatives. Why? Real world scenery throughout. It does make a big difference. Much more realistic weather. In particular the pronounced effects that topography has on the airflow across the landscape. In moderate winds and mountainous terrain, in low powered aircraft you can easily be unable to maintain altitude in pockets of downdrafts. Clouds, colours, haze, they're all as good as any of the sims. Better aerodynamic modelling. This is a contentious issue because many claim that one of the other sims is more accurate, but not only does MSFS model the momentum and feel of a GA plane, but the added points of airflow modelling often produce surprisingly real consequences, asymmetric stalls, wing washout in some aircraft, and many other subtle aspects. In fact, I've actually had a couple of episodes where I've got into trouble in a turn or climb, and then discovered a real world accident that replicates what happened to me because the airflow modelling simulated real world subtleties never seen before in a sim. There are areas of the sim that could be improved of course. Turbulence effects on the pilot viewpoint for one. Development of dynamic weather like weather fronts that squall across the landscape with wind shears. Dynamic responsive ATC. And so on. But... when I put on the VR headset and set up a cross country flight just about anywhere in the world, with real weather, in a GA plane such as the 152 or even the new Diamond DA50, there's nothing else that replicates a real world flight like MSFS does. So, while it's possible to 'play' MSFS, it's equally possible to simulate reality as close as it's possible with today's technology. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfko Posted April 27 Share Posted April 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Dow said: I tell you what, as a platform for simulation of VFR GA flying, MSFS is streets ahead of the other two alternatives. Why? Real world scenery throughout. It does make a big difference. Much more realistic weather. In particular the pronounced effects that topography has on the airflow across the landscape. In moderate winds and mountainous terrain, in low powered aircraft you can easily be unable to maintain altitude in pockets of downdrafts. Clouds, colours, haze, they're all as good as any of the sims. Better aerodynamic modelling. This is a contentious issue because many claim that one of the other sims is more accurate, but not only does MSFS model the momentum and feel of a GA plane, but the added points of airflow modelling often produce surprisingly real consequences, asymmetric stalls, wing washout in some aircraft, and many other subtle aspects. In fact, I've actually had a couple of episodes where I've got into trouble in a turn or climb, and then discovered a real world accident that replicates what happened to me because the airflow modelling simulated real world subtleties never seen before in a sim. There are areas of the sim that could be improved of course. Turbulence effects on the pilot viewpoint for one. Development of dynamic weather like weather fronts that squall across the landscape with wind shears. Dynamic responsive ATC. And so on. But... when I put on the VR headset and set up a cross country flight just about anywhere in the world, with real weather, in a GA plane such as the 152 or even the new Diamond DA50, there's nothing else that replicates a real world flight like MSFS does. So, while it's possible to 'play' MSFS, it's equally possible to simulate reality as close as it's possible with today's technology. Hear, hear! PS: In MSFS youn can even feel updrafts, downdrafts and turbulences dependent if flying over darker (e. g. forests) or lighter terrain or water bodies etc. Edited April 27 by wolfko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBM Posted April 27 Author Share Posted April 27 2 hours ago, John Dow said: I tell you what, as a platform for simulation of VFR GA flying, MSFS is streets ahead of the other two alternatives. Why? Real world scenery throughout. It does make a big difference. Much more realistic weather. In particular the pronounced effects that topography has on the airflow across the landscape. In moderate winds and mountainous terrain, in low powered aircraft you can easily be unable to maintain altitude in pockets of downdrafts. Clouds, colours, haze, they're all as good as any of the sims. Better aerodynamic modelling. This is a contentious issue because many claim that one of the other sims is more accurate, but not only does MSFS model the momentum and feel of a GA plane, but the added points of airflow modelling often produce surprisingly real consequences, asymmetric stalls, wing washout in some aircraft, and many other subtle aspects. In fact, I've actually had a couple of episodes where I've got into trouble in a turn or climb, and then discovered a real world accident that replicates what happened to me because the airflow modelling simulated real world subtleties never seen before in a sim. There are areas of the sim that could be improved of course. Turbulence effects on the pilot viewpoint for one. Development of dynamic weather like weather fronts that squall across the landscape with wind shears. Dynamic responsive ATC. And so on. But... when I put on the VR headset and set up a cross country flight just about anywhere in the world, with real weather, in a GA plane such as the 152 or even the new Diamond DA50, there's nothing else that replicates a real world flight like MSFS does. So, while it's possible to 'play' MSFS, it's equally possible to simulate reality as close as it's possible with today's technology. Totally agree! And the ability to go anywhere in the world is something my other favourite flight sim can't offer me. I will say that as a (virtual) heli pilot though, helicopter flight modelling in DCS World is superior to what I've experienced in MSFS. Not by a huge amount, but a noticable difference nonetheless. I think that's due to limitations within MSFS, since we don't even see visual modelling of things like rotor disc tilt, or 'coning' when pulling collective. Helicopters are a far cry now from how they used to be in Microsoft's Flight Sims, but then they did always seem to be an afterthought. Even FS2020 didn't feature them at release. I'm looking forward to FS2024. If the trailer is anything to go by, helicopters will be sharing much of the integrated mission/activity system from the outset. I think it's about time the rotary wing fans were shown some love. 🚁 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts