What worries me is that they may actually believe it is more realistic now. Where would we be then?
1 Like
Beyond scaling the original clouds werenāt at all dynamic so not really suitable for live weather. I assume they are still used for presets.
Do you mean these:
they look dynamic enough to me. but this thread is about their color I believe.
Iām not that sure those dynamic clouds were what we actually had at release though because lesser systems would really struggle. In all the user footage Iāve seen they would only grow as you got closer and shrink as you got further away.
But why change the graphics to be worse if we can upgrade hardware to get both better graphics and fps? Now the only reason to upgrade is to get more FPS. No need to upgrade at all. I have always used simulators that i know when i upgrade my system i also can increase graphics. With this sim itās no point at all. I could use this sim at release. No issues with FPS at all. And the graphics were also much better back then with my older gpu. Now i have better gpu and worse graphics because they reduced quality in those clouds and also made those clouds much more static feeling.
The density in those clouds has been too low since release but they have also reduced the density even more since release.
Not every simmer lives in the affluent west and can afford to simply upgrade. MS set out their minimum spec and have to deliver to it. And as I can well remember 15fps with clouds set to low prior to SU5 I have to disagree with you, if I wanted anything close to 30fps it was clear skies only.
As for graphics, with DLSS Iām flying 50-60fps and everything maxed and they look just fine to me.
Actually i had minimum required gpu for this sim at release. gtx 970. But having minimum specs doesnāt make me have ultra settings. I knew i needed to have less setting set to be able to use the sim with optimal fps for my hardware.
At least youāre not dealing with the terrible pixelated clouds. Yes, your clouds have change a little, but I would be more than happy if mine looked like that instead of the pixelation.
Then surely you will remember that clouds set to low looked like mashed potato?
Yes, but i also knew if i upgraded my system i could use higher settings. Now we all have worse settings set. Even those that spent much money on new hardware.
I want to add that soon after release i upgraded to rtx 2080 super and could increase my settings to ultra. Have only seen the atmosphere getting worse since then.
Search pixelated and grainy clouds and you will find that it was a theme even then. Personally I think it has to do with peopleās monitors (inc. settings) more than anything
I donāt remember having the clouds so bad before. Since Iām upgrading my PC to a new motherboard, CPU and a RTX 4090, Iām not going to do anything until all that is done. I just hope that will give me finally the performance Iām looking for.
I remember that clouds had pixelation at release too. But now the whole atmosphere is worse. Iām not sure if itās all because of performance improvments though. I think the most happened when they tried implement more sources of weather in the weather system we had.
Hope you will be happy with your upgrade. Performance i bet you will increase but do not expect to get more graphics quality out of it more than maybe increase resolution and maybe a bit higher t-lod.
For sure depends on what system you have now.
1 Like
I already have 5120 x 1440, which is higher than 4K. I use a 49ā Samsung ultra wide monitor. I really donāt expect to have the pixelated issue to go away even with my new system. I was just going to replace my 3090Ti and leave it at that, but I would still have the ābottleneckā issues with the CPU. I decided I Will get the newest CPU ( **IntelĀ® Coreā¢ i9-13900K), and of course, because of that, I will have to replace my motherboard (Z390 Aurus Ultra) with a Gigabyte Z790 Aorus Elite AX DDR4, LGA1700 because my current one doesnāt support it. I have DDR5 32GB memory, which I think is plenty and a 1000 watts power supply. I may need to replace my case because this card is huge at 331 mm so it will be very close, but weāll see. I will sell my 3090 Ti but I think it is a great card that takes on any game with no problem, even with my current chipset (i9-9900KF), but Iām already spending a fortune to do the upgrade so I need to recoup some money you know?
My sim works pretty good with the current hardware, but I still get FPS hit when Iām at busy airports, something around between 25 and 30 FPS on a good day (KJFK or KLAX) which kind of botter me. That of course is including FSLTL traffic and GSX to name some addons. So Iāll wait and see
This topic should not be about performance though. It turned into that though. I feel that has caused them to decrease quality. Thats bad approach in my opinion. Maybe itās fine to do before they release a software. But not after it has released.
Well, in my testing iāve done much really depends on where we are flying. The biggest bottleneck for GPU iāve seen in this sim is those PG trees. Test fly over central park for example. Thats those really bad looking pg trees that needs improvment. Not the clouds.
Then at KLAX the bottleneck is the CPU because of LOD issues i bet. Itās that specific airport that needs performance improvments.
Yes, the traffic is also heavy on CPU. FSLTL i reduce some traffic to get it better. GSX i have no issues with at all.
But i know for sure hardware will get better in the future that makes us all increase settings or run the sim smooth in the end. But i will never ask to reduce quality for everyone because i dislike using less settings than those that have bought better hardware than me.
Either wait until the hardware reduces in price and then upgrade or use less settings. Thats my advice for those that canāt upgrade. I do that, but now i canāt find much point in upgrading anymore at all. I upgraded a bit my GPU recently because my old got broken. Could increase res a bit but the other settings are still at ultra.
My experience was quite different. With my Ryzen 7 3700X and GTX1070 I was able to get smooth enough 25 to 30 fps with most settings on Ultra (start with High and then bump up settings). I had great scenery on the ground and in the sky. Of course Im happy flying the C172 or similar small plane so that helped Im sure.
Not all of us can afford to fly in 4k.
1 Like
A mid range system that was probably closer to high end than low end when MSFS was released ā¦ And if that was at 1080p then very poor performance compared to every other AAA title.
you should take a DDR5 Mainboard not the DDR4 mainboard!
Thats subjective. FPS can be tuned to whatever we like. If we preffer higher FPS tune the settings to get higher FPS. If we preffer quality we should be fine with less FPS. Downgrade graphics to improv performance is not improvment of performance. Thats a shortcut to get higher fps. And it makes the quality worse for everyone.
3 Likes
Thatās all good and well but 15-20 fps on low spec and settings is never going to be acceptable for any publisher. MSFS is and was always meant to be a sim for everyone.