I know it isn't just me but I have noticed that the visual eye candy is slowly disappearing

Photogrammetry on lower altitude will have melted image rendering, this was the point, I added google pic reference text word. Photogrammetry tech do not support it, only hand made 3d scenery\autogen supports higher rendering at ground level.

Still none the wiser but thanks anyway.

Here is a handcrafted airport. I have no way to recreate this for August, but, what it looks like closer in is what it looked like everywhere.

Do we really think they magically optimized the game less than a month after launch for 10 FPS? Because that is about the gain I am seeing at the same settings since launch. The altered LOD settings is what is causing it to look worse than it did at launch. The buildings in the distance should not disappear, they are far enough to not be detailed, but, they should be visible. The prominent features of the buildings that close in should not disappear or they look blocky and blurry. Before someone tells me it is my settings, I’ve got ULTRA on LOD and 200 for the sliders.

So let’s have a look at Portsmouth

First off, here is a shot from Google Earth:

And a quick recreation in MSFS (about 1400 feet)

Looking good so far - colours not as warm, but other than that looks pretty accurate

So how about we start at the bottom

30 feet:

100 feet:

200 feet:

500 feet:

1000 feet:

2000 feet:

3000 feet:

4000 feet:

5000 feet:

7500 feet:

10,000 feet:

So anything above 200 feet (and arguably 100 feet really) looks pretty good. I;m seeing no degradation above 2000 feet.

Do we agree that this is what PG does? It is for viewing from above, and at any sensible altitude at all, it looks great. At ground level - not designed for that = looks melted.

The one area I think needs addressed is some kind of small exclusion zone around airports - or some auto switch between PG and autogen when you are on the ground. PG trees especialy and buildings close to airports look bad when you are on the runway/taxiing.

However there is a whish list thread for that.

7 Likes

Just so we can get back to the point, it looks good … it USED to look great!

2 Likes

Abuse 100%… pointless ranting, I dunno. Sometimes people just need to vent because they’re frustrated. I had this same conversation with my wife the other day… she was irritated with people complaining on a conference call and complaining to me about the complaining. It was definitely pointless ranting in that it wasn’t going to change the behavior, or offer any solution to the problem, but she did feel better after I stared at her while she whinged for a couple minutes.

Anyway… on topic: I have problems lots of people in this thread have posted about. Areas that used to render in with greater detail do not now and basically, I only get the full detail right under my plane in most of the areas I fly. I can watch the terrain draw in and it’s tacky as f. Didn’t do that when I first started into this sim. It looked ridiculously amazing everywhere (except on the coastlines where MS/Asobo bait and switched us with the water masking in all their marketing). And performance was awful. I’d MUCH RATHER be able to choose my level of performance thanks.

1 Like

No we CAN’T. It still looks great! Hope you will accept different opinions.
I have not found my magnifying glass and do not see any discernible difference for a flight sim. If I was butterfly hunting at ground level, that might be different.
And I don’t offer my help twice but I am glad that you are now happy to feel you have proven your point.

I have yet to see your contributions help here. I don’t go around posting on peoples post just because they are having an experience different from mine. I will go post if I share the same experience, so they don’t feel like they are the only ones, I will also offer real help if I can bring something to the table.

I’m struggling a bit to follow this. What did you do between (say) your second and third pics (the one with the round structure circled. Did you move closer? I’m not sure what you are saying is missing or not missing? I do notice that you have got your camera way zoomed out which is creating the massive stretching - especially on the left. Can you clarify what it is you are doing between shots? I’m flicking back and forward between them and not seeing what you are seeing?

No zoom there, it’s the drone camera with no zoom 1440p setup. All I have done is move the drone closer to the subject. Those objects are way too close to not be displayed in full. You don’t see any difference in the details of the objects circled? If that’s the case then I think I know the issue here, some people are just more discerning and some don’t care as much. While we are experiencing the same thing, our takeaways might be different. Which is absolutely fine, I just wish the others would be offered the same benefit of having a different take away without being attacked on every post.

Hope you will too.

1 Like

OK, so no zoom on the drone cam is fully wide angle which is doing all the stretching. You need the zoom set to 50% for normal viewing.

I’m trying to see what you are seeing. Here is a cut out of your second last picture:

image

and then the last picture:
image

So the seond one is closer than the first, but what else did you change? The angles are all wrong because you are on fully wide angle view, so that definitely isn’t helping.

I see some extra details on this building:
image v image

But hard to be sure because the angles are out of kilter

I take it you are actually moving the drone between shots here rather than zooming the drone in?

This sort of stretching is because the drone zoom is fully wide:
image

I wish we could get as much attention on the state of the aircrafts’ systems and performance as we do on the perceived downgrades of the graphical quality :unamused:

1 Like

Please first read the entire thread again. My contribution was to offer you help for before and after picture to give Asobo the necessary info for any alleged graphic downgrade . You did not have them but acted unfriendly and instructed me to do an irrelevant flight. Then other posters joined in and gave you before and after pics. Despite eye tests, my family members and I did not see any discernible difference, especially not for a pilot that has to control his aircraft, listen to ATC, look out for traffic etc. I can therefore disagree with your opinion whether you (or anyone who takes your side) disagrees.
That’s the nice thing about this forum compared to many other forums IMO.

Please first read the entire thread again. My contribution was to offer you help for before and after picture to give Asobo the necessary info for any alleged graphic downgrade . You did not have them but acted unfriendly and instructed me to do an irrelevant flight. Then other posters joined in and gave you before and after pics. Despite eye tests, my family members and I did not see any discernible difference, especially not for a pilot that has to control his aircraft, listen to ATC, look out for traffic etc. I can therefore disagree with your opinion whether you (or anyone who takes your side) disagrees.
That’s the nice thing about this forum compared to many other forums IMO.

Certainly, you do not have to hope? Civility as per the forum CoC are important to me ( no cheap shots acceptable), so please tell me which opinion of yours on this thread you feel I have not accepted or should not be allowed to disagree with?
Can I help you with any proof for Asobo?

I posted this just to show an example that sometimes the PG is just blobs. I notice this stuff while flying. I slewed over just to show an example. As you can see by my other posts I am happy with the sim and really enjoying it. My main reason for participating on this thread was to let people know nobody is purposefully dumbing anything down but that a lot of us are unhappy with LOD and PG. I have also changed my mind on whether or not it has even changed over the updates and I will say that now I don’t think it has changed but in the beginning I was not flying in PG areas because I think like a lot of people we were flying to find old homes and places we recognized. Once I started exploring I went to lots of the starred airports and POIs I thought the graphics had changed… which they had, to PG, and that was not what I was used to seeing. Blocky trees and melted buildings all of a sudden were everywhere and the LOD was so jumpy and spotty that it made a huge impact on how non PG areas load and look compared to non PG.

What I will say is that enough people are not happy with the quality of PG and LOD for it to be addressed as it does take away from the experience. Is it unplayable and horrible. No. does it ■■■■ to fly into LAX and see the skyline look like spires and melted blobs. Yes.

I think it is great the asobo is giving us all the updates and content and know they have to be slammed with work trying to get everything updated.

Also GTA is fun.

3 Likes

Generally PG areas are not bad as long as you are flying over them at several hundred feet. The PG trees however have a lot of issues that really hurt the PG area as a whole.

Per above - 500 feet+ is definitely good - even the trees. Below that can be hit or miss. There is also the darkness v surrounding landscape which isn’t great depending on where you are:

It is quite clear that there are many differing opinions on whether or not visual fidelity is degraded, and frankly, this seems highly based on what the user perceives as good or bad quality. That being said, many posts include “before and after” pictures depicting what they see as either a degradation or no change at all versus previous patches. As such, I urge those of you who feel the fidelity has degraded to file a Zendesk report where the issue can be more accurately addressed by Asobo. Arguing with each other with screenshots taken with entirely separate configurations and settings is getting us nowhere.

All the best. :slight_smile:

7 Likes