I know this is a bit of a trollish headline, but with so many reports of worse and worse graphics coming with each version, the question is becoming somewhat legitimate: is Asobo dumbing down the graphics quality on purpose ?
And if yes, why ?
On the one hand, we know that Asobo is marketing the game for the Xbox. Otoh, there is no valid reason to dumb down graphics for everyone except some sort of laziness.
Granted I suspect a push to doing that could be partly blamed on the players themselves, who have an irrational need to vent their frustration that the framerate doesn’t reach 60 fps when the game is in ULTRA settings on their over the top gig. After all they spent so much on their hardware that the game HAS to run at 60 fps in ULTRA mode.
Making the game more accessible for lower end hardware never requires to lower the maximum graphics quality though, only to offer some additional lower quality settings.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the patches did degrade the graphics in a pretty apparent fashion. So much so in fact that it’s hard to believe noone noticed at Asobo. Which raises the question whether this is intentional.
You may have a point but I don’t think the average XBOX gamer will give 2 hoots. They’ll use their Game Pass, fly over their abode, look at the pretty clouds and move on - ne’er to return.
I dont know what MS/Asobo are doing with all these changes but you can be sure that they are intended for their own financial interests, and not in the interests of their paying customers and end users!
Good point, I forgot about the fact that xbox players will most likely never accept a game that is so broken as MSFS is right now, so Asobo would be well advised to just stop Xbox development and in fact all the new developments and focus on fixing the current game.
This doesn’t make sense though, they would surely just reduce the graphics for the console versions… like what has always happened. Why would they have to reduce the maximum detail level to do that?
Shaders, water reflection and draw distance are the three noticeable changes we’re seeing. I think it’s a matter of giving control to the user and “problem” solved.
I have no doubt we’ll be able to do that eventually but there are more pressing issues like the simulation itself that I’d be glad if they could focus on. MSFS still looks gorgeous imho.
I really don’t think so. Yes the game will be available for the old Xbox One X, but they will concentrate on selling FS with the power of the upcoming Xbox Series X. If the game will be optimized for Series X Hardware, I assume the graphic quality and performance will be even better than with the current high performance PCs (…well excluding the GeForce 3090).
I think it has more to do with VR than XBox. They can set graphics detail on XBox separately. It may share a common code base with the PC version, it’s its own beast.
I honestly think they’re struggling with performance and are looking to reel in a few fps wherever they can. As it currently stands, if there were VR now, it would be a nausea-inducing puke-fest where even high end rigs are struggling to push a consistent 60+fps on a single 1080 screen. Even in that case, that would be the bare minimum for VR to not give users instant nausea.
Now imagine pushing dual 1440p or 1600p screens. A consistent 60 fps is the bare minimum for comfortable VR use. 90+ fps is actually the ideal for user comfort, but 60 is a minimum, and frame consistency is key to a comfortable experience. They have their partnership and exclusivity deal with HP for the initial release of their headset. If they can’t deliver a playable product for that, they’ll likely be in breach of contract.
That’s my 2 cents on it and why I think it’s happening. In any case, I have no issue with the graphics in this game. I’ve seen what other sims look like. Graphically they’re not even in the same city, let alone ball park. This one may have its faults, but it’s still the most gorgeous virtual world simulation out there atm.
Honestly, there is no real reason to say there been reduced for the benefit of the pending Xbox release however i understand the thought or the joke as well as i my self have made it. The sentiment is correct however. There are other games out there who felt the idea of “optimization” was to downgrade visuals drastically. This is simple the wrong approach there is an options menu for a reason and part of the beauty of playing on PC is just that OPTIONS.
Reducing visuals for the sake of the better performance at the ultra level of detail is simple not on.
Regardless of why they have been downgraded the simple fact is ultra settings should remain as such and not be about performance but be about the best fidelity the sim can offer, its a setting PC enthusiast can chase as hardware improves.
There is no reason why Consoles, VR , low end pc market should effect the top end settings the word here is scalability and if the direction from here on out is to simply downgrade the visuals until it runs at 60 on a potato then why even have an options menu.
I for one had no issue running the game in the 30 - 50s Fps range at ultra, and never expected to be able to achieve 60 + fps constantly. Rather than downgrading effort would be better spent moving the game off DX11.
I just want asobo to make Ultra look amazing.
If people are whining about performance give them a downgraded high-end preset setting.
But downgrading the graphical fidelity in general is just not the way to approach this.
I’m feeling scammed since the discovery videos and the trailers looked way better.
And i’m also running at 1440p and sometimes 4K in my office
The xbox series x will have no issues matching or exceeding the visual quality of the game on PC. It’s the other xboxes that I seriously doubt this will ever run on at all.
