No addons, 34” ultra wide asus monitor 3440x1440. 6800xt GPU. Going to a amd 5800x3d CPU probably gave me the biggest performance gain as it is perfect for games as they don’t use all cores. It was faster than a 5950x. I always skip a generation with PC stuff. I never buy the current gen, especially on GPUs.

I would say no it’s not. The only closeness part is that your head is moving and you have a slightly improved depth perception. Someone else asked this on here. Main issues with VR that actually take away from a pilots seat comparison is that you are not seeing the same controls you are feeling. Plus if you need to look at other items, write down atis info/atc instructions, or look at a POH you are not able to do so in any realistic manner. Visually it gives you a slight edge just as any VR title does. But I find that TrackIR with an iPad for maps and digital data as well as a pen and paper provides a much more accurate representation of real life flying. It is still nowhere near close but as far as work flow, and what you are able to look at outside of the headset is much more accurate. If you invested the same amount as a headset into more peripherals then it will be come even more realistic as you will have physical dials and buttons to push. Such as a nav/com stack, auto pilot controls and others will minimize mouse use which is by far the most unrealistic way to control the aircraft. I used VR for about 300 hours and it’s just not practical for anything more than short sight seeing flights. It’s great for that. But again, this is just the visuals. Nothing about actually flying.

@@sprocketsimulations Saves on countless lessons and 1500 hours of flying time.

@@sprocketsimulations I've never heard anyone else with real flight hours say that it's only a slight edge. It's the same with racing sims, every single person I've seen mention anything about it says their time improvements were either negligible while still having better spatial awareness, or like the vast majority who immediately see improvements in their lap times. Same with pilots being able to better orient for landings etc.

That’s an awesome and expensive setup! Nice! 👍

I would say it is an experience but there are definitely trade offs. I have found I don’t really use VR much anymore. I use my TrackIR much more and able to use my iPad with Navigraph and take a drink when I want. It also performs better. But the experience is very cool to try. If the headsets/pc’s and software were more compatible and advanced it would be better. End of the day, for me, it’s just not practical enough and too many trade offs need to be made. I have probably 300+ hours in VR but the wow factor wore off.

No your planning will be even more important as you would most likely be predicting what the active runway is going to be before you even take off. They would probably give you vectors but it would be to a point on the approach to cut it shorter and help them maintain traffic. So again the planning is important because you would just hit the direct to button to the way point that they tell you. If they give you RNAV vs ILS they are very similar and it takes really on two clicks and a spin of the knob to swap it. You can usually find this out ahead of time as well by listening to their ATIS. The more you have in the garmin the faster and easier your approach is going to be and let you stay focused. Truth is that you wouldn’t be flying this entire approach in something like this slow Cessna. Depending on airspace and weather you would either have clearance from a controller who has already given you directions and altitudes or if it is uncontrolled and good weather you would just contact the tower when you are maybe 10 miles out and they would just tell you to join at a certain leg such as downwind or base. If the weather is bad you might have to follow this entire approach and if it is a busy airport. If there are airliners lining up to go in and out the controllers are using SIDs and STARS as well as approaches for multiple runways. Flying a little plane like this into there is going to be a nightmare. For everyone.

Strange, this is well known to be one of the better aircraft out there. I also an entirely Logitech setup and have zero issues with the functionality. My best suggestion is to remove everything from your community folder, just to a temp directory, and leave only what is installed by this. Double check your keybinds to make sure they are correct and not using 3rd party software as it is not needed. Basically, dial it all back to have only this aircraft and basic Logitech controls. See if it works, if it does then you know something else you have is causing a conflict. It’s definitely not from the developers side of this aircraft as it does work very very well. I’m sure something on your system/sim is messing with it. I can assure you it does work and is a great aircraft. Make sure to follow the manual very strictly as it is a very realistic model with accurate procedures, failures, and issues. Good luck.

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to describe. The pixels density is just not there, even when compared to a 1440 monitor. It’s very noticeable to me. The experience is great, but you are definitely making sacrifices.

Sure but with decent hardware and the newest headsets, it's practically negligible. The depth more than makes up for the shortcomings. Very little distortion, readable text and scalable resolution as needed

I would argue that having a triple monitor setup is a way better option than dropping the cash on an over priced headset that will lose value within 2 years. Plus with monitors you can still use more realistic tools/peripherals than messy overlays in VR. Using a tablet with navigraph and charts for example. Also drinking a cup of coffee doesn’t require awkward head tilting or lifting the headset. Like I say in the video you do get a level of depth that is hard to replicate but will never be the same as a monitor in terms of quality and clarity. Add in the fact that LOD is very noticeable in VR in MSFS. Even cranking it all the way up you’ll still see trees, traffic, and other objects rendering/popping into view. We just aren’t there yet and it is not practical for flying without overlays that to me, completely break the immersion/depth.

​@@sprocketsimulations A long curved monitor would be better than a triple one, but it's still the same gimmick. The Quest headsets I'd argue are actually a great value for what you get, much higher resolution than an index with wireless and standalone capability. A mug might be the only thing requiring that, any normal glass, thermos, cup etc is fine to drink from, and is honestly a fairly negligible factor. To say it'll never be the same seems a bit disingenuous. There are VR headsets today that use micro-OLEDs with insane pixel density by utilizing monocrystalline silicon wafers. We're already at a point of diminishing returns when it comes to monitor resolution and framerate, yet the VR advancements still have that gap to close. The limitations of cheap computation of course are the greatest factor in being able run VR at high levels, so we're pretty bottlenecked by that. The only thing in terms of functionality that's notable is the lack of notepad or chart access. That's just a feature implementation issue on the devs part. Thing is, you can just use OpenKneeboard if you want a pad in VR, and can even attach the chart to it. We won't get to see a lot of proprietary features until the tech reaches the next step and sees more adoption for sure, but there's ways to make up for some of it in the meantime

@extremeencounter7458 three curved ultra wide is the ideal for both flight sim and sim racing. As VR progresses so do the monitors with higher and higher resolutions and refresh rates. Sure there are some good value headsets but those don’t go with your original comment, quality, or experience. Also the support for VR is just too low. The user base is just too small for developers to invest valuable time to it. It’s a niche market and expensive. Especially when you consider all the Xbox users. Again, it’s a great experience, just not practical. I’ve used OpenKneeboard and Navigraph even have an overlay but both miss on all the functionality and in the end frustrating. I’ll pop mine on for short little vfr flights from time to time. But I use a single ultra wide with TrackIR and that works great as far as being able to look around freely on all axis’s and still use other items. I also have to lift my headset for beer cans and a glass of bourbon. lol

Also wondering when should I use the FL change button in the autopilot panel?

No idea, there are way too many variables such as headsets, settings, upscaling, all sorts of things. I would say that would be difficult to do on any of the newest headsets though. Best bet is to ask on the MSFS official forums to see if anyone is using that setup. Mainly the GPU and what headset they have. Fair warning, like I mention in the video, it is not plug and play and this game takes a lot of tweaking and 3rd party programs to get the most performance.

I don’t fly either. I know that Microsoft/WTT made improvements to the G3000/X suite so it might be better with some of those updates.(But I think 3rd party developers need to update their aircraft to allow this to be used) But I’m sorry to say that I think this was a pump and dump aircraft.

No need to be in the air. Are you using the same charts as in the video or others? Usually if there is no altitude assignments on the arrival then you will not have anything populate. If you give me your route I can see if I can replicate it to see if I spot an issue. Hard to know without more details or seeing your flow. Quick summary would be: Enter in departure and arrival airports Add any enroute waypoints Load and arrival or/and an approach Look at the arrival/approach in the Garmin to see your altitudes that match the chart you planned your flight from. Take off and fly like in the video. Remember vnav is only for descending. To access/climb use either VS or preferably FLC for the specific aircraft you are in.

Mine is a completely different route. Mine is from WSSL/21 - USR01 (Custom) (2000ft) - USR02 (Custom) (2000ft)- RNAV 02R - WSSS/02R Of course, I keyed in this data how you would in the Garmin 1000 and altitude in brackets are the "restrictions" I set Also, I now realise what happened. I need to be at the waypoint or be within range of the decent waypoint before the altitude restriction goes lower for the magenta altitude (target altitude) to show. It seems everything was done correctly all along

I don’t have Xbox but can you describe in more detail about what doesn’t work. Such as your flight plan and what you are doing to enable the AP. The developer is super awesome and has this aircraft pretty dialed now with no issues that I am aware of. I’d love to try and replicate your flight on PC to try and help.

@@sprocketsimulations Thank you. If I plan my flight in the world map, cold & dark or not, the plan won’t show in the gns530. If I enter the plan manually in the gns530 the autopilot won’t follow it. I already uninstalled and installed back twice. I reset the Xbox and nothing changes.