This is getting daft. I’m looking at endless screenshots claiming to show clear differences between the pre- and patched version and I’m struggling to find anything. Tip for posters: if you are going to post ‘before’ and ‘after’ images allegedly proving your point, do us all a favour:
Label each image clearly ‘pre-patch’ or ‘patched’.
Highlight for us on the images what you are seeing that allegedly proves your point.
This is very simple. At the moment it’s like looking at grainy black and white photos of a blurry object, whilst being assured this is, indeed, proof of the existence of UFOs.
The difficulty with trying to prove to the naysayers that the issue is real is that none of us expected Asobo to downgrade the sim in a misguided attempt to artificially boost performance. We could have done that ourselves just by altering settings, we didn’t need them to alter the sim so that it just doesnt bother drawing objects beyond a certain distance. That is not an improvement in performance at all, its just shifting to goal post. The point though is that many of us dont have screenshots showing before and after images, but the problem is very real.
The issues are more clearly seen while moving and some posters have already posted this effect happening more post patch. It doesn’t help that some people refuse to look closely. Let’s just continue providing evidence and sample points to show Devs we know what we are talking about
The difference I can see pre/post patch with water waves makes me thinking they are taking the UI setting in knots and feeding the shader with the value, instead of the value converted to km/h, therefore it takes 1.852 stronger wind speed now to get the same effect.
I just spent a while testing my autogen town in the UK to see the exact height at which the blurry/fuzzy roads and fields start coming in.
To test this, I used the drone camera and then moved the first layer of clouds up and down until I got the camera to line up with the bottom of the cloud layer.
Terrain Level of Detail set to 200 (I tried it at 100 and 150 and this is definitely the option that affects this). Even at 200 the roads start to blur at 4000ft. At 9000ft is where they really go absolute sh1t. This for me is the limit of how high I will now fly until this is fixed (thank God I prefer GA aircraft).
This was definitely a lot better at launch. They’ve tweaked this for performance for sure.
They shouldn’t tweak it for performance
I call this MARKETING LIE
If they would have advertised it like this, I wouldn’t buy it
And I guess, a lot of other people, here
Why dont you try higher setting, 550 works good for me and it still performs OK. except dense photogrammetry areas. at 900 - 1000 I hit VRAM limit very easily and it starts to stutter
Sometimes the games runs better after restarting and deleting the rolling cache. There’s something not quite working with the cache management. The longer it runs the worse performance gets.
Today it got really bad, second long stutters, frame rate down to a third of what I normally get. Deleting the cache and restarting the game cleared it all up. Continuing from the airport I landed at, the scenery looked great again (freshly grabbed from Azure I guess)
I also suspect keeping the rolling cache smaller rather than larger will help performance. Les data to manage and if you have a good connection, why keep all that in the cache. I have mine set to 16 GB, maybe smaller is still better. I think the game started with 8 GB for the cache?
The question is: how do the trees compare to an actual aerial photo of the same airport?
Initially the complaint was “there are too many trees”, and “the trees are too tall”
Now it’s “there aren’t enough trees”, and “the trees are too short”.
You can’t win…
I tend to be in the “too many/too dense” camp. On initial release, like everyone, I flew over my own neighborhood. All the trees were there, and then some. The AI was even turning what are actually large bushes into trees, and almost all were too tall.
Post patch 2, the same area looks far more realistic. I can compare what I see in the sim with an aerial photo, and with what I see with my own two eyes looking out my upstairs window as I write this, and the post-patch trees are much closer to reality.
I found out that in some situations the user.cfg write wrong data.
Check the user.cfg if the settings match the UI settings after exit.
In my case i had several times changes that affect lower quality at next start.
I had no HDR enabled in WIN10 and the UI and in the user.cfg HDR10 was enabled set to 1.
Windowed mode was set on 1 not 0 and monitor 0.
Several quality entries about AA was not at max.
Tipp:
Terrain and Objects LOD I would let at 2.0 for both.
Wit terrain LOD 2.3-.2.5 it’s at high FL and none dense areas possible.
For VFR low altitude and heavy photogrammetry more as 2.0 terrain/objects LOD could become unplayable.
Post processing is a a user choice,
I set all to 0 exclude color grading and eye adaption.
And post processing enabled 1.
Get best results for me.
How the user.cfg works:
0 is OFF and 1 is on.
1 is lowest quality and 3 mostly max.
After changes save the file. Any changes in the UI after start could set the user.cfg to unexpected different settings.
So after editing the user.cfg it’s mandatory to not change in game graphic settings in the UI.
After all a texture super sampling setting in the graphic UI of 8x8 is helpful for good quality. 6x6 is one part of a good 30FPS ultra setting at 4K with 2060/2070/2080 Gen.
The master user user.cfg is in all drive installation variants on the main drive WIN10.
