Beiträge von gzt007

Zitat von Armitage

I noticed the same happening to my AFS4. I checked the tm.log and saw that after moving some custom scenarios to (what I believed) an archive directory, I actually led AFS4 on a wild goose chase for missing files.

Properly deleting the files restored my boot-up time for the simulator.

For a quick test you can rename the Aerofly folder in your user documents directory, essentially starting with a clean slate. If this fixes your problem, you know that your user directory is to blame, and can re-renane the directory to start checking for the main cause.

Thank you, thank you, thank you Armitage!

You were spot on - something corrupted in my Documents folder. Renamed my old one as you suggested, started up the program to create a new Aerofly FS4 folder and it loads in 5 seconds like it did before. Now copying over the subfolders one by one to keep my bindings/preferences, etc.

Thanks again...

Zitat von Jugac64

Hi, tell us more about your setup please, so we can try to help you.

I have a i9-14900KF CPU with an RTX 4080 GPU, with a 2TB SSD. I run Aerofly in VR mode using Virtual Desktop with a dedicated 6e router and Meta Quest 3 headset. The installation is stock, with global scenery turned on. I have a 1 GB/sec up/down connection. I also have the TCA Airbus Captain pack (joystick and throttle quadrant with flap/airbrake levers. Performance under VR is great (Ultra settings) with a 1.50 resolution multiplier.

As noted previously, I remember the program loading very quickly (about 5-10 seconds) after hitting "Play" in Steam. However, a few months ago, after one of the updates, the load times went up to about a minute. It now loads slower than MSFS2020. The only other thing I can think of is installing and uninstalling the beta version a few months ago.

I'm just wondering what kind of load times people are seeing and what I should expect. I'm thinking of reinstalling, but not sure that will fix it due to all the stuff Steam "remembers" about the installation.

Zitat von Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Do you have global scenery streaming turned on but no internet connection? Then it waits for a bit and tries again and again for up to 1 min.

The other reasons could be user made made contents that have issues loading. Try removing that as well for testing.

Thanks for the replies. I do have global scenery turned on, but have a 1Gb up/down internet connection. I have no other user content other than the default program . Just for reference, how quick of a load time should I expect on a system like mine?

I have an i7 pc with an RTX 4080, with a Samsung 980 Pro SSD. I fly only in VR using Quest 3 goggles and Virtual Desktop. When I first installed FS4 about a year ago, it loaded very quickly (about 5-10 seconds to the menu screen). However, within the last year (after an update, don’t remember which), the load time from hitting “Play” to getting the menu screen in VR has increased to about a minute. It’s been pretty consistent at a minute since then. I did recently restart the program after a crash, and it loaded in 5 seconds, which prompted this post. Has anyone else experienced this? What load times are people experiencing?

Zitat von Jet-Pack (IPACS)

A feature like live weather takes many months of full time work. It's not some you can quickly put together and push out in an update just like that.

Would the same level of difficulty apply in just implementing random weather from the existing settings (clouds, winds, visibility, etc)? That would at least add a little variety...

I see something similar north of Chicago near the Wisconsin border.

One of the reasons I love AeroFly FS4 is the sharpness and stability of the jetliner cockpits. it's relatively easy to read the screens, unlike MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024, where the cockpits (standard A320 as an example) were fuzzy and jittery with head motion. The only solution was to run TAA instead of DLSS, which slowed down the frame rates but gave passable legibility, although nothing like AeroFly.

I pored over all the blogs, and even enlisted various AIs (Grok seems to be the best for this purpose) to get the settings that would make the cockpit screens and controls sharper, to no avail. I had just about given up, when I decided to download the free A320 from flybywire.com into MSFS 2020. Imagine my surprise when I got into my Quest 3 headset and was greeted with cockpit displays that were crystal clear and sharp, with the settings unchanged,

Asking Grok about this prompted the opinion that cockpit clarity is highly dependent on the resolution of cockpit textures when the plane is modelled. I'm wondering if that's part of the reason AeroFly is so sharp in VR, and whether even better results can be obtained by upping the resolution on the textures when modelling the cockpit.

Any thoughts would be appreciated...

I fly exclusively in VR, and one recent thing I've tried that makes the experience more immersive is running LiveATC in a browser when I'm flying. The audio feeds into my Quest 3 goggles, and I usually select the Center or nearest airport where I'm flying. Would it be possible to somehow link the position of the aircraft with the corresponding ATC area and feed the audio through the headset? I'm not sure LiveATC has an API that would facilitate this.

Is there any reason for providing this option in the menu? If someone was worried about disk space, they just wouldn't download it. Does disabling it provide any benefits?

Just to reinforce the M4 purchase decision, let me add that I ran Aerofly on my M1 Mac at 4k resolution and it still gave great smooth frame rates (well above 30-40 if I remember). The fact that X-Plane 12 ran at about 7 fps at the same resolution also credits the Aerofly software team. The M4 should be significantly better.

I can also vouch for the fact that Aerofly FS4 runs well on an M1 Mac. In fact, it ran so well that it became a "gateway drug" that led me to purchase a Quest 3 headset and a 4080 gaming PC for the incredible VR experience. What the M1 Mac could do with Aerofly without a dedicated GPU was incredible.

Zitat von TomC RLG

That command is only used to startup SteamVR in Oculus mode (oculus runtime) if, like FS2/4 it supports Oculus mode. It can only be used when using Link or Air Link. Virtual Desktop doesn't actually use the official oculus sdk's, just their hacked version of it so the command doesn't do anything. VD mainly uses SteamVR as it's openxr runtime, and sometimes VDXR if the app supports it (like msfs2020).

I'm not sure why after deleting this from both your shortcut and Steam app properties launch code it still shows up. Maybe just go to your SteamVR settings and make sure you've selected SteamVR as your openxr runtime. Plus, go to your VD streamer app and select SteamVR instead of VDXR. Also, make sure you haven't done a silly regedit mod previously.

Thanks for the reminder about silly RegEdit mods. I should write these various hacks down when I try them. Will look in the registry…

When I try to run Aerofly FS4 from the "Games" tab in Virtual Desktop, I get a warning that the "-othervr" argument is specified and it asks me to continue or cancel the request. When I continue, the Meta Link void shows up for a fraction of a second but is then replaced by the SteamVR void and the program runs fine. It also seems to run fine if I just start it from the Steam window rather than the VD "Games" tab. I used to have a shortcut with the "-othervr" argument when I was trying to force it to run OpenXR, but have since deleted it, so I'm not sure where VD thinks the argument is. I don't have any arguments specified in the Steam app properties for Aerofly. Ihave tried reinstalling Aerofly to see if the argument disappears in VD, but it persists.

I know it's no big deal, and doesn't affect the performance of the app, but it's annoying that I can't figure out where VD is getting the argument. If anyone has any ideas, I'd appreciate it.

The FSWidgets app is great - perfect for those long haul flights where I can just leave it on autopilot and check on my iPad when I get close to the destination so I can get back in VR and shoot the approach. The developer responded immediately when I had connection issues (my fault). Highly recommended…

Zitat von Jet-Pack (IPACS)

The bottleneck isn't how much the CPU or GPU could perform whilst doing their own business (CPU/GPU usage), the bottleneck is when the CPU needs to tell the GPU what to do and what data needs to be processed next (VRAM upload speed). When this process isn't implemented correctly then you're wasting a lot of performance and have stutters and low FPS regardless of the CPU/GPU usage. So the actual CPU/GPU usage doesn't really tell you much about the actual performance that you can get. The fact that there is plenty of CPU and GPU usage left to spare is a sign of the high amount of optimization we have done and how little extra code needs to run to get a fluid simulation. If the load is higher for the same result then you're just wasting unnecessary clock cycles and do the task inefficiently. So the goal is to get the CPU/GPU usage down as much as possible if you want to optimize a game to be able to be run on a handheld Steam Deck, Nintendo Switch or low end hardware like a mobile phone. This also shows that the RTX 4080 is probably overkill for Aerofly FS because we're not using it to it's full potential for ray tracing, voxel cloud shading, AI supersampling etc.

Thanks for the perspective on this. When shopping for a PC (specifically to run Aerofly FS4 in VR) I tried everything from an RTX 3060ti to both an RTX 4060 and RTX 4070, with at least an i7-13700 CPU. The performance was not as good as with the RTX 4080 (granted that I did not do a lot of trial and error with the various settings as I did with the 4080). My impression was that I needed a more powerful GPU. I also noticed that the performance in terms of fps did not seem to change much when I went lower than "Ultra" settings, just a decrease in visible objects and terrain complexity.

After trying VR, there's definitely no going back to a 2D screen. I have to thank your team for the incredible VR experience, especially when compared to the other guys. Having pretty much solved the fluidity and stutter issues, I'm now trying to optimize cockpit clarity. I've tried increasing the render resolution in Aerofly (going above 150 did not seem to provide any improvement), but found that leaving it at 100 and increasing the render resolution in Steam VR settings gave better fps performance with the same clarity. Any recommendations on that would be appreciated.

For all the performance that Aerofly provides in VR, I've noticed that it doesn't seem to tax the CPU and GPU much. I never hear my fans spool up when running Aerofly (unlike MSFS 2024 and X-Plane, which very noticeably increase fan speed). Looking at the Nvidia app CPU and GPU utilization percentages, the GPU load never exceeds 60% and the CPU is mostly at 10%. This seems counter to the prevailing narrative that flight sims are generally CPU-bottlenecked. I have an i9-14900/RTX 4080 combo with 32Gb and fly at Aerofly Ultra settings in VR using Virtual Desktop and a dedicated 6E router. Even though the utilizations don't appear maxed out, it seems that the performance in terms of frame rates and stutter isn't entirely effortless, making me think there are setting optimizations s that could increase performance further.

Is there any reason Aerofly FS4 performs so well without maxing out CPU/GPU utilization? Both MSFS and X-Plane seem to tax both much more without anywhere near the performance.

Thanks very much for the reply - thought I was doing something wrong. I tried Meta Quest Link with Air Link, but it does not work for some reason - always get an error. For now, SteamVR with Virtual Desktop seems to work great, but always trying for better performance...

I run Aerofly FS4 in VR mode exclusively using a Quest 3 headset under Virtual Desktop with a dedicated 6E router. I used to run it with the hard cable and Meta Quest Link, which worked well, but Virtual Desktop seems equal or better. However, with Virtual Desktop, even if I set the Streamer to VDXR, when I start Aerofly the gray Meta void appears for a split second and the SteamVR void (mountains) takes over. This is even after selecting "Start with OpenXR" instead of SteamVR when I hit "Play" in Steam. Is there any way to run Aerofly under Virtual Desktop without using SteamVR? I deleted SteamVR to see if it would force using OpenXR but I got an error and the game would not start in VR.

The AI chatbots can be pretty useful. I asked both ChatGPT and Claude about setting recommendations for optimum performance in VR and the tips they gave helped. At the very least, both summarized the often conflicting recommendations on the web.

Glad it helped. I used ChatGPT and Claude to wade through all the numerous (and more often than not conflicting) recommendations. The reasoning given by Claude for the HAGS being off is that it can actually interfere with VR-specific processes and the unique way VR applications need to handle frame timing and display synchronization. Apparently many VR apps already have their own sophisticated resource management.