I want to have that distance slider anyway. Certainly there should be a building distance slider in the current version, the default is too near.
Difference is, there would be no actual complaint. London never took more than 24-30GB and it’s bogus to complain about that when you have 64GB. When I fly over seas, I see 3GB, I don’t worry, why should I.
Just indicate a percentage next to the slider, no amounts are reported. They’ll have to look into Sysmon to see the “issue”.
There are real issues with 100%, that should be solved, when a slider is introduced ! You don’t want to hit the page file ! To set the slider maximum, Asobo could take your total amount of memory (say 32GB) and then subtract what’s in use when you start MSFS (say 5GB) plus a 1GB margin. Then you get a slider that allows 0…100% over the remaining 26 GB. Better never ever claim 100% anyway ! it would hit the page file and generate stutters.
Technically, you are absolutely right, perspectively, that’s where the question rises. A good example like you are saying is london. If it would take only let’s say 24GB while having 64GB, the question/complaints could turn into “the sim is not using all my memory while i told to do so?!, so it must render further away!”
We can easily think for our selfs, Asobo needs to think about all. Also the users who don’t or won’t understand.
Memory usage is a trickery ■■■■■■■, is a slider needed? Definitely, especially for the ones with beefier machines than i have to give them the option. I think, but I’m not an UX expert, a distance slider could be more comprehendible for the whole user base.
Or a LOG density/complexity distribution slider instead…
In other word: whatever the value, objects are displaying always to the same maximum distance for everyone, the slider determines the quality and density per LOD ring, instead of the LOD ring distances themselves… This is what X-Plane is doing with their object slider: the more the value, the more objects per areas, yet whatever the value, you can see objects as far away in both extremes. (actually I believe X-Plane is doing a mix of the 2 in practice).
For trees I agree, but I’d be careful to use logarithmic (distance? complexity?) ranges for buildings. Somewhere there is a certain distance your buildings go pixelate and look like a nest of worms rather than buildings, if you try to render them. TAA can’t keep up. Worse than texture. You may as well put a (stable) texture, before the “worms distance” is reached for a particular render scaling. Actually, I’d prefer a dynamic slider, that takes building height into account also. For me the main issue is approaching large cities.
We should have both. Lots of users won’t comprehend what data or cache settings do. But we would like to be able to change, or switch off settings. I always prefer more over less in option screens. Another example is weather settings. I would prefer a map and meteorological properties (sliders) that work on that map, with wind vectors, precipitation spots, cloud formation, rather than having a simple combo with cloud names. It’d like to have a weather simulator integrated in MSFS, that could affect airflow, also up or down airflow.
Collapsible at least… most users, won’t notice, it’s just an “Advanced” button. Also, a script of some kind could work ? then you don’t have to put everything in the UI. There are very interesting XML files in the MSFS directory now, with tree density settings, references to certain tree types… height of trees… open up things and publish it, don’t allow for hacks there. I’ve always been a fan of the SDK. For many 3th party developers, some scripting would come in handy. It is now a technical challenge involving complicated programming, to let weather or light or even time set influence your scenery. Suppose you would want to let your windmill run faster when you have a storm… Con trails would look much more realistic when there would be some airflow. It’s could be just a true/false setting in your aircraft.start.script.txt (or whatever)
For advanced usage, possibly (somewhere in the future when the base is solid, i won’t mind either), for less advanced users (i do not want to sound condescending here), i think have these simpeler settings outside the current advanced settings (like building/tree detail etc…) and the further advanced ones like AA, vector data, anisotrophic filtering and the ones mentioned above under a collapsible “advanced”.
That seems like a good idea, maybe prioritising the taller buildings that are in the sparser areas I guess.
I just remembered another thread that I believe was set up to discuss stuff like this, I also suggested an idea based on relative elevation and included a Microsoft Paint diagram but it seems to have killed the topic
In using a system where you don’t change LOD ring distance, but LOD ring density/quality instead, this could solve the problem (provided you can ‘tag’ what is important at a distance), and allow zooming in as well like in X-Plane where you can zoom a lot and still see all details far away.
Yes this is what I also understand of what this is, however I’m raising a question in the topic about what does the setting named “vector data” means in practice, because what I fail to grasp is the meaning of its enum values… As-is, the available options are either illogical (details in my post), or if they aren’t, they don’t seem to be doing anything related.
Quick question. The camera looks 100% stationary, when you pause the sim, right?
I’m seeing absolutely minimalistic differences between off and ultra. There is some shifting. Will take a closer look tomorrow though, just to make sure.
Never mind, looks like a shift because of rebuilding the world.
And actually speaking of camera and VR, I don’t believe I have a solve for this, but related to it, here are 2 bugs about this you might want to check out to see if you agree with:
Oh god, that last one (i watched the clip), i feel sorry for you guys (I don’t do VR ). looks like the camera is statically fixed to the airplane like the 2d view on an additional y axis of the plane, if y is up. Like having your head tightened up to the seat.
This is why it is a golden rule in VR (dixit Alex Vlachos former head of Valve VR R&D now lead in the Microsoft WMR team… and Unity VR best practices).*
Otherwise…
This is just showing that FS2020 “turbulence” and “wind effects” are just an illusions consisting in making sinusoidal oscillations around the aircraft CG and have nothing to do with actual displacement in an air mass. This gives the illusion in 2D, maybe, but in VR you can’t cheat this. Of course, this might just be an unfortunate bug and not a technical or artistic design decision at all, unlike the updrafts for example.
*I’m sorry if this sounds sarcastic because I know FS2020 is a very complex project, but with my technical experience and knowing there are so many talents at MSFT and in the 3rd party community at arm reach from Asobo, and seeing these problems I’m documenting above, I can’t help wondering what can we really do if ever we can, or whether they don’t care. I wouldn’t like to think it is the latter but on the other hand, when I read what they are saying about RXP publicly, and what a lot of people are calling “junk” allowed on the market place, it is not helping at all.
@AnimalMarble975 Perhaps for you, but for myself and many, many others… an overwhelming majority is likely, at least in my opinion… they simply have not. I fairly conclusively demonstrated that yesterday or the day before by posting screenshots I had taken just earlier that very day. If you did not see them, I would be happy to post them again, because it’s not often I get shots from a 2D perspective as I typically fly in VR, and I was quite happy with how they turned out.
On the other hand, if you did see them, and find them to be “degraded” in your opinion, then I would simply love to see just what your expectations are.
Sniff, sniff… What’s that smell? A hint of jealosy that your precious “Elite Ultra Simmers Club” has been invaded by those peasant owners of “only 20-series cards”? Perhaps maybe even a high-end 10-series, and those fakers with their 3060s?
Gimme a break.
The reality is that the 2070 Super I bought a bit over a year ago was a beast then, and is still a beast now. The only difference is that now, instead of saying, “My 2070S chews up and spits out everything I throw at it, except MSFS”, I can say, “My 2070S chews up and spits out everything I throw at it”… period!
It probably should have been this way the whole time, but I’m grateful that it is now.
For me, it’s likely a good thing that 30-series became impossible to find, because there is no reason in the world I should have been looking for an upgrade just 3-4 months after purchasing what was at the time, what, the 3rd most powerful GPU money could buy? And had I managed to find say a 3080 at MSRP, I would have bought it. However, as we have just learned, apparently to your dismay, the reality that such a powerful GPU simply is not necessary has arrived.
And though you didn’t say, it’s a virtual certainty that you own a 3080 or 3090, because pre-su5, they were the only cards capable of running MSFS at all Ultra settings. Another thing to consider is that despite the appearances that MSFS owners seem to have those GPUs at rates higher than the general population, the truth is that the 2070S is the most popular 20- or 30-series card in existence, according to the Steam survey. 2.17% of all GPUs in use today are 2070S’s, whereas the 3080 and 3090 combined only account for 1.28%. That’s 0.88% for the 3080 and 0.38% for the 3090. So for every 3080 out there there are almost 3 2070S’s, and for every 3090 it’s somewhere between 5 and 6. (I’m doing math in my head here, so pardon me if I’m off a bit.)
The single most popular card? GTX1060, but I expect a large number of those are imbedded in notebooks and cannot be upgraded without replacing the entire computer. But even if I’m right about that, it’s a very marginal card to try to run MSFS on, probably even after su5, or at least was. SU5 may have made them viable, too, at least if used with lower settings.
Sorry, not happening. Whenever I see Bravo Sierra, I’m going to call it out for being Bravo Sierra.
@scriptkid Of course, you don’t need my permission. Go for it.
), but this would be my assumption : 
), already checking off and ultra.
). looks like the camera is statically fixed to the airplane like the 2d view on an additional y axis of the plane, if y is up. Like having your head tightened up to the seat.